Mounting Large Prints

[fike]

I have a very large panoramic print that can easily be printed 4'x6'. You can see the image here: http://www.trailpixie.net/the_zion_wall.htm .  I have printed three 24"x40" vertical stripes of this image and plan to mount them and hang them adjacent to one another on the wall.  I also plan to seal them with a protective coating (Glamour II Giclee Coating).  I am using Moab Entrada 190 matte paper.  The final monkey-wrench is that I try to make my work fairly archival.  I am not a museum-like fanatic, but I like to think that baring a fire or major water damage, my print will still look good in 40 or 50 years.  I would like the image to still be around in a hundred years.

Mounting prints this big is a pain in the @ss. Keeping it archival is even harder.

I tried adhesive backed foam core (not particularly archival, I know).  Getting the print flat on that stuff was difficult.  While mounting one of the parts, I got crease in the print.  It's garbage now.  

I am now experimenting with other methods of gluing it down to foam core: PVA and 3M Photo Mount.  PVA worked, but wasn't very easy to work with.  It also wasn't very smooth.  the Photo Mount worked, but I am afraid it is very bad for my prints because it smells like rubber cement.

Finally, when I get around to sealing the prints with the coating, it seems that the foamcore warps substantially.  I can only guess that the paper is soaking so much of the coating that when it dries it is shrinking, causing the foamcore to warp.

I tried sealing the prints prior to mounting, but if I am able to keep the print from sticking to the table, it then seems to get wavy.  I can't imagine it will be easy to mount in that condition.

What do people do to mount large prints and protect them (please don't say drymount for something this big)?

[skibum187]

I've had some larger prints mounted to Alcan Dibond aluminum. Prints come out super smooth. I'm not sure what our framer used to adhere, but it looks really nice and will not warp.

[mcbroomf]

I would switch to Gator Foam.  Much more rigid than foamcore, and you can go with thicker than 1/4" as well.  Pricey though.

I can't comment on other mounting methods as I drymount.  

[Bruce Watson]

http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/mat.html

The Library of Congress method works well for me for small to mid-sized works (say, smaller than 75cm in the long dimension). Larger works I print on canvas and stretch over stretcher bars.

[framah]

What is your objection to drymount??  After all, you are willing to use all kinds of spray adhesives on this thing.

So far, nothing you have mentioned is archival and that protective coating will NOT protect the image if you are going to just mount it and hang it without glass or plexi in a frame.  The spray coating will not stop the image from being damaged by people touching it or cleaning it. The idea is to isolate it from the environment.

You can mount a plastic laminate onto the image that will give you considerably more protection that the spray ever could.

Even tho drymounting is not archival in the sense that it is an invasive  procedure like spraying mounting or wet mounting,  the advantage is that your images will be mounted flat and stay flat.

Take them to a Certified Picture Framer and let them dry mount them for you.

[fike]

What is your objection to drymount??  After all, you are willing to use all kinds of spray adhesives on this thing....

...

...Take them to a Certified Picture Framer and let them dry mount them for you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have no personal aversion to dry mounting, it is just that when working with prints this large, the cost of equipment is somewhat prohibitive.  

As for taking it to a framer....I guess I could.  Framers around here tend to charge ridiculous prices and rarely have  standards as high as I do (the same reason I print my own work).  For those reasons, I like to control the whole process from the snap of the shutter to the framed or mounted product.

I know that many of these approaches vary in level of 'archivalness.'  While dry mounting isn't archival, rubber cement can actually be pretty darn destructive.  Some suggest that pigment inkjets are very sensitive to the heat of dry mounting.  Perhaps we need a term between anything goes and archival to indicate processes that will result in minimal degradation over, say,  a hundred years or so.  We could call it 'archivalyness.'  

So  much of the preservation literature out there was written for the preservation of wet chemistry photo paper and films.  There is a reasonable amount out there, but everything we know about inkjet pigment prints is purely speculation based upon some educated guesses.  Wilhelm writes scads of literature about mounting chromogenic prints, but little about mounting pigment inkjets.  We are left to assume that the same treatment that works for chromogenic prints will work for inkjets.....perhaps that is a good assumption, but who knows.  

I am under the impression that protective coatings will reduce fading from light and or ozone.  Certainly it won't work as well as uv inhibiting glass, but it is better than nothing.

[fike]

http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/mat.html

The Library of Congress method works well for me for small to mid-sized works (say, smaller than 75cm in the long dimension). Larger works I print on canvas and stretch over stretcher bars.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I won't be putting frames  around or glass in front of the images.  That would get quite costly at this size.  

For my traditionally framed work, I generally follow a similar approach.

[Bruce Watson]

I won't be putting frames  around or glass in front of the images.  That would get quite costly at this size. 

For my traditionally framed work, I generally follow a similar approach.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191697\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which is why I wrote: "Larger works I print on canvas and stretch over stretcher bars." Canvas prints are typically coated with a UV protective acrylic varnish and displayed without glazing. When done properly the print surface is very robust; you can clean sticky little hand prints off with no problems.

But that's just me. You gotta do what works for you.

[fike]

Which is why I wrote: "Larger works I print on canvas and stretch over stretcher bars." Canvas prints are typically coated with a UV protective acrylic varnish and displayed without glazing. When done properly the print surface is very robust; you can clean sticky little hand prints off with no problems.

But that's just me. You gotta do what works for you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, just today I made my first large canvas print--20"x40".  It came out okay.  I tried to make the sides of the wrapping black, but it didn't align perfectly with the edge of the stretcher.  I am considering changing over to the method whereby you copy the last inch of the image on each edge and reverse it to allow the image to wrap around and look decent.

[rwheat]

I used to use canvas for my larger panoramics (20"x60"), but don't like the way they loosen up over a period of time.  I could wet mount the canvas to hardboard, but if I have to wet mount I would rather print on paper.  It kind of takes away the advantage of canvas (light and cheap).

I now wet mount paper prints using Ph neutral adhesive to hard board using a vacuum press - finishing up with a single matt, frame and glass.  The only downside is that they get quite heavy.  Gator board is too thick for my frames.

Another approach is to laminate the prints (cold) and then wet mount to hard board or aluminium.  I have yet to try this - but have seen some great looking examples.

Richard.

[sloow]

I second the mounting on dibond using a professional service. It  is dimensionally stable, and doesn't disintegrate with time like foamcore or gatorboard. As for the adhesive, it will always be the weak point, but there are pH neutral adhesives being used in cold mount laminate presses.

[Geoff Wittig]

Another approach is to laminate the prints (cold) and then wet mount to hard board or aluminium.  I have yet to try this - but have seen some great looking examples.
Richard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]


I definitely recommend this approach. I have had several dozen large panoramics (averaging 24"x72") laminated onto board, and they all still look great, even those under bright lights 24/7 for the last 5 years or more. Mounted, framed images behind glass at this size are just too heavy, cumbersome and fragile. Moving them to a new location is a nightmare.

The service bureau I have used has done consistently good work; so far only two prints creased out of 25+. They use some kind of acid-free mounting film that isolates the print from the mounting board, which is important because affordable particle board is certainly not acid free.

The final product is light and durable, with a protected surface you can clean off with a wet washcloth. A 24"x72" mounted print probably weighs less than 8 lbs., and you mount it on the wall by simply sliding the slotted screw holes on the back over a pair of screws set in the wall.

[sojournerphoto]

The biggest print I've produced (several copies of) is 54 by 14 print area and a trusted local framer hinges it to archival surfaced foamcore and drymounts a matte tp the foam core sealing the package. This only works up to about a 60 or 64 inch matte as the board is nt available bigger. At 40 but 60 without a frame I would be inclined to get it laminated.

Mike

[Roscolo]

Another approach is to laminate the prints (cold) and then wet mount to hard board or aluminium.  I have yet to try this - but have seen some great looking examples.
Richard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I definitely recommend this approach. I have had several dozen large panoramics (averaging 24"x72") laminated onto board, and they all still look great, even those under bright lights 24/7 for the last 5 years or more. Mounted, framed images behind glass at this size are just too heavy, cumbersome and fragile. Moving them to a new location is a nightmare.

The service bureau I have used has done consistently good work; so far only two prints creased out of 25+. They use some kind of acid-free mounting film that isolates the print from the mounting board, which is important because affordable particle board is certainly not acid free.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191819\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

Geoff, where are you located? Can you post the name of the company? I'm near Atlanta.

[Geoff Wittig]

Geoff, where are you located? Can you post the name of the company? I'm near Atlanta.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]


Lumiere Photo, in Rochester NY. They're very pleasant, personable and service oriented. They've printed short-run calendars for me as well as mounting large prints.
Their website is [a href=\"http://www.lumierephoto.com]http://www.lumierephoto.com

I'm sure there has to be someone in the Atlanta area doing something similar; it just requires laminating equipment (admittedly not cheap) and the mounting & laminating films. Other folks have posted in this forum on the subject before, with links to vendors selling the equipment if you're really ambitious and want to tackle it yourself.

[TylerB]

if you are near Atlanta you are a lucky man-

http://www.deanimaging.com/

John can give you service or advice about any print related service imaginable.

Tyler

[Roscolo]

Geoff, Thanks for the info.

TylerB, I checked out DeanImaging's website. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything there about mounting services. Perhaps they can give me a good referral, though. Right now I'm framing my large prints behind glass, which I like, but i would like to try some other options for economy and convenience.

[deanwork]

Thanks Tyler for the kind words, but I don't do any mounting and to be honest I can't recommend anyone here because this is one area that I have trouble referring or having work done myself.  We do have a number of places here in Atlanta that do laminating and mounting on all kinds of surfaces, including aluminum, as large as you need, for advertising purposes. However, I've heard nothing but horror stories from my clients that have used them, especially in the realm of lamination. There always seems to be dirt or air bubbles or something that ruins them. I can't tell you how many big prints have had to be reprinted because of pure sloppiness, or lack of knowledge.

I visited a couple of these places and I can see that the working environment needs to be 100% spotless to make this work for gallery quality lamination. Unfortunately, a lot of people end up sending the work to NY. Now that is unfortunate. Having said that, I wouldn't want to be involved with it myself.

john

Geoff, Thanks for the info.

TylerB, I checked out DeanImaging's website. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything there about mounting services. Perhaps they can give me a good referral, though. Right now I'm framing my large prints behind glass, which I like, but i would like to try some other options for economy and convenience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Jakub]

I print on 24" wide Moab Entrada 300. Although I haven't printed any panorama
prints I print on 24 x 36 paper and don't drymount at all. I use the matt to hold
the paper flush to the the mount board without any problems.  The extra thickness
of the 300gsm paper makes it work.

Walter

Thanks Tyler for the kind words, but I don't do any mounting and to be honest I can't recommend anyone here because this is one area that I have trouble referring or having work done myself.  We do have a number of places here in Atlanta that do laminating and mounting on all kinds of surfaces, including aluminum, as large as you need, for advertising purposes. However, I've heard nothing but horror stories from my clients that have used them, especially in the realm of lamination. There always seems to be dirt or air bubbles or something that ruins them. I can't tell you how many big prints have had to be reprinted because of pure sloppiness, or lack of knowledge.

I visited a couple of these places and I can see that the working environment needs to be 100% spotless to make this work for gallery quality lamination. Unfortunately, a lot of people end up sending the work to NY. Now that is unfortunate. Having said that, I wouldn't want to be involved with it myself.

john
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[TylerB]

John, I just knew you'd be THE source for what's up down there, even if the news is not happy...
Tyler