panorama print mounting

[stever]

i normally mount on acid-free foamcore with 3M photomount, and so long as i mount photo paper on the back they stay flat

now i have a panorama 13x60 -- suggestions?

[Christopher]

i normally mount on acid-free foamcore with 3M photomount, and so long as i mount photo paper on the back they stay flat

now i have a panorama 13x60 -- suggestions?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know the problem, but still have no solution.

[Geoff Wittig]

I've printed panoramics as large as 24x120". At this size the only practical way I've found to mount them so they are transportable is lamination onto board. One popular commercial system is "Plak-it". The lamination provides a tough surface you can clean with a damp rag, and the board is easily mounted using slots in the back that slip over screws in the wall. I'm not sure how "archival" this system is, but some of my prints have been mounted this way and they have been on display illuminated 24/7 for more than 5 years without any visible fading or color shift.

[Tim Gray]

I also normally use acid free foam core and the 3M product - but also second Geoff's recommendation for commercial lamination like Plak It for panos. - reasonable cost and they seem to last.

[larryg]

i normally mount on acid-free foamcore with 3M photomount, and so long as i mount photo paper on the back they stay flat

now i have a panorama 13x60 -- suggestions?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This has been discussed before.   To mount (cold or hot press) you would be better off to use a harder surface than foam core.  It will have a tendancy to warp and not lay flat in the frame.

I have heard discussion of using many materials:
Gatorboard, masonite, plywood   you get the idea.
Gatorboard would be my personal choice (assuming you can find that large of a piece) otherwise probably masonite.

Another consideration is weight.   I would use a laminate for the image and skip using a glass or plastic (as you already do) and use the lightest board/material that will do the job.   I would also use a dry mount (heat if you can find someone with a vacu-press)  this would be a better seal and keep the print flat.

I have done 24x60 and this seemed to work (dry mount) the best for me

[SeanPuckett]

I drymounted a 24x60 print of this onto 1/8" masonite for a show and while doing it was a pain-in-the-butt with a 16x20 press, it came out okay.  Then I sprayed it with 3 coats of waterbased protectant.  

No warping despite high humidity in the venue, and it held up to transport and viewer abuse well.  Foamcore would have been damaged almost immediately, and certainly would have warped.

If I was going to sell that print mounted, I'd just have taken it for lamination.  There's a lot of different styles of laminate to choose from -- satin, gloss, matte, textured, etc -- and the adhesives used are very reliable.  And the price isn't too crazy.

[larryg]

I drymounted a 24x60 print of this onto 1/8" masonite for a show and while doing it was a pain-in-the-butt with a 16x20 press, it came out okay.  Then I sprayed it with 3 coats of waterbased protectant. 

No warping despite high humidity in the venue, and it held up to transport and viewer abuse well.  Foamcore would have been damaged almost immediately, and certainly would have warped.

If I was going to sell that print mounted, I'd just have taken it for lamination.  There's a lot of different styles of laminate to choose from -- satin, gloss, matte, textured, etc -- and the adhesives used are very reliable.  And the price isn't too crazy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sean,  I have been doing my own lamination with a Beinfang Vacu-Press.
I am using archival laminate.  However while it looks ok there is a definate color shift with the laminate on it.  I would rather not have the laminate have such a detrimental effect on the look of my image.
What has been your experience with laminate and have you noticed this effect on your images?

[Geoff Wittig]

At least with commercial lamination such as Plak-it I have seen little if any color shift per se, but a modest increase in saturation and D-max, at the cost of a slight degradation of shadow detail. I print a little lighter using a curves adjustment layer and it works out about right.

[SeanPuckett]

Sean,  I have been doing my own lamination with a Beinfang Vacu-Press.
I am using archival laminate.  However while it looks ok there is a definate color shift with the laminate on it.  I would rather not have the laminate have such a detrimental effect on the look of my image.
What has been your experience with laminate and have you noticed this effect on your images?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Larry,

Anything that alters the appearance of the print should be factored into your calibration and colour management path.  When testing presentation methods, I prepare a mounted print of profiling colour patches and use a hand-held colorimeter to read them in.  I have even profiled my prints for display under glass -- the colour shift is minor but there (a bare bit of greenish, except for the high end museum glasses).  This is one reason why the z3100's built in colorimeter isn't a 100% solution -- you can't scan a Plak'd print!

Many types of print don't suffer degradation by little shifts in colour.  But I find colour portraiture with its extremely tight tolerance of skin tone to be the worst of all.  (Having spent half of the day arguing with Monaco, XRite, Windows XP and Sony about what D55 means and wondering why is there a gradient break in my skin tones, this is a particularly touchy subject today.) Black and whites with lots of shadow detail also can suffer, as Geoff suggests.

Repro work should also be held to these sorts of tolerances, but I haven't gotten started down that path yet -- although later this summer I should be making my first steps.  (And writing the first of several bits of custom software for light balancing and reference matching.)

Anyway, the big benefit to lamination in my book is the presentation flexibility -- you can just frame the laminated print, unmatted, unglazed, and this really helps break the mindset of "photography must be small and under glass" that hamstrings so many art buyers.  Show them a 24x36 laminated print with a nice frame and it is like a revelation -- "oh, look, it's like a painting!"  ... whoops, went off topic....

[fdi]

Mounting an image that large generally requires a permanent mount applied with a press or roller to ensure that the adhesive is completely activated and all air is completely removed. Hot vacuum press (dry mount) or cold pressure activated adhesive applied via roller will both work very well. Cold is safer for inkjet prints and is not temp sensitive like drymount. Definitly avoid 1/8 foamcore, but 3/16 is probably ok as long as the piece is framed. If you are not going to frame it, then gatorboard is better but will also require lamination for long term protection of the print.

About color shift – acrylic is more optically pure than glass although UV glass or UV acrylic both provide a slight yellow warmth.

Cheers,
Mark
http://www.pbase.com/lila161
http://www.framedestination.com/
http://framedestination.blogspot.com/

[framah]

OK... for a piece this size, to say 3/16 is ok but 1/8 is too thin makes no sense! Both will bend the same amount on a picture this size.  The difference is 1/16"   Either in a frame will react the same way.

If you insist on wanting foamcore, then use gatorboard which has a hard outer shell that makes it stay flat. It also comes 1/2" thick.

I like the idea of masonite if you plan to transport it and laminating it would be nice also.

 I mount and laminate my Epson Ultrachrome ink prints in my heat press and have had no problems with heat.  60" is no problem for a shop with a 40x60 heat table.

...and there is no such thing as "archival lamination". Archival means that whatever you do to the art is completely reversable and imparts no residue  to the paper nor causes any damage.

 Lamination by its nature would seriously damage the art if you attempted to remove it.  

 Archival and acid free are two different animals. Archival, by definition must be acid free. Acid free doesn't mean it is archival as well.

[fdi]

Framah, I move foam by the truck load and 3/16 foam is significantly less susceptible to warpage than 1/8 but note I said “probably ok” I did not say guaranteed, and the assumption is that it is properly framed so that frame can help hold in place. Given enough humidity and or temp cycling, 1 inch foam will warp without a frame so you are correct, if you really want to guarantee it, you need to use a stiffer substrate such as gatorboard.

True, laminating is not considered museum quality archival conservation, and neither is dry mounting and 99% of  all other adhesive based permanent mounting techniques since none them can be 100% reversed. Not sure if you were referring to my comments about lamination, but I only meant to imply increased durability (less susceptibility to fingerprints, water, UV and air borne pollutants), not archivability.

Cheers,
Mark
http://www.framedestination.com
http://www.pbase.com/lila161
http://framedestination.blogspot.com/

[photographist]

My largest piece to date is 17x 57.5".  I went the archival path using:

  - 3/8" Acid Free Foam Board (Backing)
  - Acid Free Mounting Board for the matt (single)
  - Archival Mounting Strips (Lineco #L533-4015)
  - 3M Plastic/archival mounting corners (1 and 3" respectively)

 I used multiple strips across the length (top and bottom) and one each on either side.  The corners were secured via the mounting corners, leaving approx 1/4" play on the top.  Likewise, the mounting strips were flush to the paper on the bottom but with 1/4" play on top for expansion.    (Note: For those of you who have not see or used mounting strips, they are plastic and when looking at their cross-section they look a bit like a thin cross-section of a frame.   The strip is attached to the backing and the print slips safely into the overhang of the strip.)  

The Matt (overlay) was attached using linen self-adhesive (I got lazy) tape.   The print was then stored either in a frame or within a large protective bag.   The final package was quite secure, the print was protected and though something this big is not going to be 100% rigid, it was definitely useable for both shows and later framing for the customer.

The only reason I've not mounted a larger print is where to find the archival overlay material that is over 60" in length (any help here is appreciated).    That said, I'm comfortable that the method I've described would do the trick.

Good luck!

[marcsitkin]

If you wish to mount a laminated print to foamcore, you might want to laminate the back of the foamcore to stabilize it against humidty changes. Gatorboard is still a more stable material, and preferable to foamcore.

We've been mounting panoramas for 20 years to a variety of materials.

Once you get past 10', your choices of material lessen.

If I recall, the longest print we mounted was over 20', on some sort of fiberglass supplied to us by our customer. It was so large, we had to out feed it into a waiting truck through a garage door in our studio!

Regards,
Marc Sitkin

[framah]

Photographist...


Bainbridge makes a 48" x 72" white mat and a 48"x 96" white mat.

Rising white can also be gotten in 60" x about 106". This needs to be squared up as it is the raw piece out of the press.

Also, you are doing everything the best way to do it.  THIS is what archival means.

Sorry Marc,

I was responding to larryg posting he used archival lamination.