Presentation of large prints

[rcdurston]

I'm kind of at my wits end. I have a show with 40 pieces ranging from 22x33 to 40x60 and up. Framing seemed out of the price range so I opted on just mounting. The problem is everyone around here who mounts has problems not putting their greasy fingers on the print and I want to leave the surface as is; Ilford Golden Silk.
I guess what I'm asking is if anyone has suggestions or alternatives? Framed prints with no glass, mounting on c bond/ di bond with/with out laminate (matte or glossy?) or whatever else you can think of.
I was going the mounting route, thinking about a Seal matte lam, but now I might consider just framing in black simple frame with no glass.

thanks in advance
r

[jmvdigital]

I'm in a similar boat. Trying to get work up in several galleries and local venues without the huge upfront expense of a full frame and mat job.

I just picked up a used 24"x36" Seal dry mount press. How about dry mount to archival backer, simple window mat, WITH glass, sandwiched and hung using something like this Swiss clip: http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/item.action?itemId=71 That would free you from framing, and you could reuse the glass and everything when you are ready to frame and sell those. I know those clips only are for 20x20, but I bet you find something bigger, or modify the steel wire in those kits to hold bigger. Or you could substitute the glass for acrylic and save some weight, cost and break-ability.

Maybe just dry or spray mount to dibond with a protective matte laminate over it. Though I bet the dibond would more expensive (and less protective) than just using a normal glass/mat setup like above. I have no idea the cost, but a 40x60 sheet of dibond probably isn't cheap.

How about no mounting at all? I've seen some setups where large prints are attached to a top bar (usually wood or metal) which is hung from the wall or ceiling with steel wire. The print hangs straight down and has a similar bar mounted at the bottom of the print keeping it straight. This works only for prints where the edges of the paper are unprinted, exposed, and oversized. The upside is that it's really cheap, simple, and lightweight. The downside is that the print is susceptible to whatever damage passerby and transportation can come up with. Think of the huge posters you see hanging in mall store windows.

Perhaps you could insist (and should) insist that the framers/mounters be wearing cotton gloves?

That's all I got for now.
-J

[AFairley]

I was going to suggest the clip approach, but after you have the glass, backboard and window mat, you're only looking at another $15 or to add a Nielsen kit frame (at around 24x29).  Admittedly, that does add up to a chunk of change if you're talking about 40 prints....

[Primus]

I've never printed anything larger than 13X19, much less framed them, and am eagerly awaiting my 9900 to arrive later today to get started.

Here is what I found in looking for things of a similar nature on this forum.

Check out this thread from a few days ago:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=32934

Here is the url for Malcom Kahn's website where there are pictures of the plexiglass sandwich that he talks about in the thread. They look great to me.

www.malcolmkahn.com

Here is another excellent place to check things out (got it from a search on this forum)

http://daystarvisions.com/ click on the 'words' tab on the left and scroll down to the printing section. Some good advice there.

You can also just mount them on backboard with a simple mat in the front, no framing.

Do let us know how you proceed. Will help us (me certainly) to learn.

Pradeep

[framah]

First, if you are getting your pieces back with fingerprints on them, you definitely need to use another business. There is no excuse for that sort of sloppy work. Or tell them they have to pay to have any redone that come back to you with fingerprints on them.

Make sure they see the print when you bring it in that it has no fingerprints on it so you can hold them to that standard. Require them to use gloves if necessary.

You really need to bite the bullet here and finish them so they are properly displayed and to protected from the unwashed masses. If you think these images are important enough to show not to mention all the hard work and money to print them, then you need to open the wallet again and frame and glass them so you can reshow them in the future. Otherwise, after the show, you will probably be throwing out more than a few that got damaged.  

Like someone said, buy metal kits and a piece of glass... or laminate them to lighten the weight load. Laminating will not be cheaper than glass nor will plexi.

I'm surprised that the place where you are showing them doesn't require you to have them framed. That is the standard. They don't want the liability of any damage to the work if it is open to all sorts of inadvertent damage by people coming up and touching or brushing against them.

My opinion here... better to do it right and make a good impression on your potential customers than to do a half a**ed job and look like a rank amateur.

[framah]

You can also just mount them on backboard with a simple mat in the front, no framing.

How do you plan to hold the mat in place without a frame?
How do you plan to keep the mat and the art clean without a frame and glass?

All of these ideas are from people who aren't really thinking as someone who wants to project a professional image to the viewing audience.

Obviously, you are the final decider here but, you need to ask yourself how you want the show to look.  

If you seriously can't afford to do it the right way, you might not be ready to do a show at all.  Just because you have been offered the opportunity doesn't mean you can afford to do it.
You might have to  save up and try for it another time.

Just how serious are you about your work?

[rcdurston]

Of course I'd love to do Cyro but that and glass will just be way too heavy to manage. So I'm really beginning to entertain mounted to dibond, with a laminate and just a simple black frame. Has anyone found a laminate that doesnt just kill their artwork? My suppliers are using Seal and Stickybits products.
Yes gloves are a must and it seems that most of the employees are wearing them when they do the work; I'm not sure where they are coming from, not me or anyone on my end.
I'm talking to my framer over a pint this weekend and more prints will be ready for production on monday. I will keep everyone updated.
thanks
r

[Bruce Watson]

I'm kind of at my wits end. I have a show with 40 pieces ranging from 22x33 to 40x60 and up. Framing seemed out of the price range so I opted on just mounting. The problem is everyone around here who mounts has problems not putting their greasy fingers on the print and I want to leave the surface as is; Ilford Golden Silk.
I guess what I'm asking is if anyone has suggestions or alternatives? Framed prints with no glass, mounting on c bond/ di bond with/with out laminate (matte or glossy?) or whatever else you can think of.
I was going the mounting route, thinking about a Seal matte lam, but now I might consider just framing in black simple frame with no glass.

thanks in advance
r

This is why, for prints this size, I print to canvas. I print a black border around the print a little wider than the depth of the stretcher bars and do a gallery wrap (staples in back where they can't be seen). This makes a nice presentation. It's light weight. It's a less expensive alternative compared to framing under glazing this size. And since you overcoat the canvas with an acrylic coating, sticky little finger prints are much easier to remove.

An alternative might be to coat your Ilford GFS before you have it dry mounted. That way you can also more easily remove the stick big fingerprints (if you can't find a decent mounter who actually knows how to handle prints). And if you coat the prints before mounting, you can also display the prints without glazing.

But like they say, there are many paths to the waterfall. You have to take the path that works best for you, not necessarily the path that works best for anyone else. Because clearly, YMMV.

[Primus]

How do you plan to hold the mat in place without a frame?
How do you plan to keep the mat and the art clean without a frame and glass?

........

Oops! Not thinking right. Got this idea watching Bill Atkinson's video  journal (#15). Although I must confess I have seen unframed prints with just a mat and backboard in so called 'art  fairs' where they are displayed in a clear bag type of protective barrier, usually just resting on a surface, not mounted on the wall. Of course displaying in a gallery is a completely different ball game.

My bad.

[jmvdigital]

I agree mostly with everything Framah said.

You might also want to think about what level of "archival" you are interested in. Printing on canvas and doing a gallery wrap with an acrylic coating isn't considered "archival" to many people, and certainly not if you expect the pieces to command a decent price. Or course, it depends on who you talk to, but personally, I think that a canvas gallery wrap is just a nicer version of a poster, not a fine art collectible piece.

Dibond is a great choice for archival purposes I believe. But throwing a laminate over it, is not. If you want these to be gallery or museum quality pieces, you want to minimize what permanent changes you make to the original print. Nothing garauntees that an acrylic coating or a lamination coating won't crack, peel, yellow, or have trace amounts of acid in it that will degrade the print long term. Along a similar line, to be truly archival, dry mounting is out too. My alternative idea to just hang the prints between bars is also obviously not archival and would be good only for temporary display. I would never do this for a gallery print.

As to the recommendation of the plexi-sandwich... you really really should never have a print touching a surface (glass, plexi, acrylic or otherwise). This is framing 101. That link provided above... it looks nice, sure, but it's really shabby way to preserve a print. Along with the print touching the glass, there is no edging to keep dust, smoke, and other contaminates from finding their way inbetween the sandwich. Part of what a frame does is psuedo seal off the print sandwich from the outside world as much as possible.

Just some things to think about. How serious do you want to take this?

[AFairley]

If you need to keep down costs, at least on the 22x30s, how about not mounting but using archival photo corners behind the window mat.  Not having to pay for the dry mounting would offset some of the framing costs -- I love the kit Nielsen frames, especially the "thin rim" one, the only thing you have to make sure of is that you get good glass (cheap window glass can be greenish).  (Also, if you tend to crop everything to the same ratio, you can rotate prints through the frames you have.)  But I've never done actually something as large as you're talking about with photo corners, so I'm really just blowing hot air...

[framah]

Now, there's something else to mention... window glass vs. picture framing glass.  There is most definitely a difference in the two. Framing glass is made to a higher standard of quality so fewer defects and scratches right from the factory as well as the framing glass will be clearer.  The framing glass is usually a bit thinner as well.  There is also framing glass which is a low iron content so it is even clearer and imparts less color shift to the art.

Once again i must remind of just what "archival" means.  It doesn't matter what you mount it to.. if you dry mount it, it is not archival... dibond or not.  If you mount it then laminating will not matter.

Having a laminate on the canvas piece will not, per se, lessen the value. It is done alot.  It is becoming more common due to the fragile nature of the inks on the canvas.  It does protect the print from damage caused by many things.. one being someone who thinks it is a painting and tries to "clean it" with a damp cloth. Don't  laugh.. if you can think it, someone has already done it.

Until someone comes up with a system that "bakes" the ink into the substrate making it impervious to the ravages of the environment we will always need to think about the safety of the piece.

Even painted canvases are more and more being isolated from the environment with glass/plexi and spacers in the frame and a piece of coroplast or the like on the back of the stretcher.

[bill t.]

Only a sado-masochist would mount a large show using a surface like that.  IMHO.  

But...

Print on canvas, coat it, glue it 3/16" to 1/2" gatorfoam proportionate to image size, glue cleats on the back.  Buy a nice straight edge and a box of fresh Xacto blades and trim the edges really clean.  Total cost of exhibit about $5.00 per square foot.  Wipe those fingerprints and ketchup stains away with a moist towel, pile the prints face to face for transport.  Later on when you are richer put frames around them and raise the price.

Also, spend a month pulling out your hair trying to figure out how to translate all those prints for canvas.  And another month trying to figure out how to coat them properly.

Or just pin the prints to the wall with pushpins.  Was popular for a while.  In some cases the cost or replacing a print once or twice is still less than the cost of framing.

[rcdurston]

There are a couple of things I won't be doing for this show. One is canvas and the other is glass. And thats a "for sure".
With that out of the way, I would be interested in is laminates, specifically any that have some sort of feel to them and don't "kill" the life or spirit of the image.

No these will not be archival, I totally realize that. They will be for exhibition purposes only and I will be taking orders against them.

I would also be thinking about them being just mounted with a thick (2-3") frame and no glass or plexi.

thanks again
keep the suggestions coming

r

[Primus]

One thing the purists always say is 'archival'. What exactly does that mean? Is there anybody on this forum who has a Mona Lisa equivalent that they can only paint/print once and is such a masterpiece that it is irreplaceable and therefore should last a few centuries?

I am not being sarcastic or facetious in any way. This is an important question, at least in my mind. Given that most prints  today (coming from inkjets that are being discussed here) will outlast any of us or the potential buyer, is it not then a little pointless worrying about archival quality?

As long as the print is not being 'cleaned' with windex or some such thing, and is on a wall indoors, should one worry about it fading or otherwise deteriorating in the next few decades? What if it is just nailed to a bare wall, like hanging a calendar? Would it lose it's colors or character in any way?

If the answer is NO, then the only reason to mount/frame/laminate is PURELY aesthetic.

And IF we are talking about how to make a print look good on a wall, then what matters most is exactly that! The OP's question was how to present large prints so that they look good and will attract potential buyers, who then may or may not choose to have it put up on their walls in the same manner as they see in the gallery.

In the end, at least to me, it is all about how good the end product looks.

Just my thoughts, no offense to anyone.

[bill t.]

One man's laminate is another man's cheesy blister pack, and the failure rate can be pretty high particularly with the glossy papers.  Personally I can buy into the concepts of bare prints pinned to the wall, or flush mounted gator/dibond, or full-up framing.  However, I feel that a bare or laminated glossy print in a frame is sort of tackola, and I imagine some percentage of the art-buying public would feel similarly.  Just my unreasoned feeling, that's all.  Could be wrong.  You would somehow have to put a spin on such a presentation at the show.

But most of the moulding suppliers do offer a plain matte-black line, some it's pretty cheap even in the larger sizes.  The composite versions offer high yields and are very easy to cut & join, could be a good choice.

[rcdurston]

However, I feel that a bare or laminated glossy print in a frame is sort of tackola, and I imagine some percentage of the art-buying public would feel similarly.  Just my unreasoned feeling, that's all.  Could be wrong.  You would somehow have to put a spin on such a presentation at the show.

The reason I say a glassless frame is because I although I had seen it done before and was unimpressed I saw a show on thursday night that was printed large and used oak glassless frames. Though I'm still not sure on a non black frame I felt that the print was recessed far enough in the frame to give it the feeling of there being glass there. In other words it seemed to work fine for presentation and with the frame there it would give someone a proper place to handle the pieces.

thanks
r

[bill t.]

OK, as long as the print lays flat.  But a wavy big print, yegads....

[MHMG]

As to the recommendation of the plexi-sandwich... you really really should never have a print touching a surface (glass, plexi, acrylic or otherwise). This is framing 101. That link provided above... it looks nice, sure, but it's really shabby way to preserve a print. Along with the print touching the glass, there is no edging to keep dust, smoke, and other contaminates from finding their way inbetween the sandwich. Part of what a frame does is psuedo seal off the print sandwich from the outside world as much as possible.

The caution against direct contact with glass or acrylic colver glazing is certainly true for traditional photos where in high humidity conditions the gelatin layer can revert from hard polymer state to the gel state and thus stick to the glass. Likewise, it is true for the swellable polymer inkjet media (e.g., Ilford Classic Pearl, Hp premium plus photo paper, etc) which are in fact comprised of gelatin as well, but it may not be as universally true for other inkjet papers, particually the "fine art" papers like HN Photo Rag, Epson Velvet fine art, etc. They may be preserved just as well or even better with no air gap.  New conservation research is needed on the microclimate characteristics of these products when housed in "sealed" or quasi-sealed environments.

Best,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[bill t.]

...other inkjet papers, particually the "fine art" papers like HN Photo Rag, Epson Velvet fine art, etc. They may be preserved just as well or even better with no air gap.

A few years ago I framed dozens of Epson Enhanced Matte and Velvet Fine Art prints with the surface right up against the glass.  They are still in great shape, no suggestion of the slightest damage to the print.  There is no ripple, adhesion or any other mechanical or chemical problem that I can see.  The appearance is that the print is absolutely flat as though dry mounted.  When removed the prints are flat as a board.  The gods really do favor fools.

However, mounting well dried Premium Luster (RC inkjet paper) that way resulted in severe rippling after just a few days.