Framing question

[Greg D]

I find that virtually all prints 8x10 or larger (up to 13x19) that I frame warp pretty soon after framing.  Possibly relevant info:  I mount them in traditional fashion (print hung with T-hinge, mat hinged to mount board), and usually use coroplast behind the mount board (used masonite prior to learning of coroplast).  Paper used most often is Red River Arctic Polar luster (similar to Epson Ultra Premium Luster), occasionally Red River Aurora (a rag matte paper), and printer is Epson R1900 (ultrachrome pigment ink).  I've just started trying some Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, and it seems more uniformly flat, but I haven't framed anything with it yet.  The matte paper seems less prone to warping, and larger prints warp much quicker than smaller, but most warp.  I do live in an area with rather high humidity.
Is this a function of paper?  Of printer or ink?  Of my framing/mounting method?  Of humidity?  Worms or evil spirits?
Thanks for any advice.

[walter.sk]

I find that virtually all prints 8x10 or larger (up to 13x19) that I frame warp pretty soon after framing.  Possibly relevant info:  I mount them in traditional fashion (print hung with T-hinge, mat hinged to mount board), and usually use coroplast behind the mount board (used masonite prior to learning of coroplast).  Paper used most often is Red River Arctic Polar luster (similar to Epson Ultra Premium Luster), occasionally Red River Aurora (a rag matte paper), and printer is Epson R1900 (ultrachrome pigment ink).  I've just started trying some Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, and it seems more uniformly flat, but I haven't framed anything with it yet.  The matte paper seems less prone to warping, and larger prints warp much quicker than smaller, but most warp.  I do live in an area with rather high humidity.
Is this a function of paper?  Of printer or ink?  Of my framing/mounting method?  Of humidity?  Worms or evil spirits?
Thanks for any advice.

I'm not sure what you mean by "warping."  If you mean getting a wavy surface most likely in vertical bands, it is most likely that you have not allowed the prints to "outgas" the chemicals that they contain.  The recommended way is to cover each flat print with plain white paper, which I get in a 30" roll for a couple of dollars at Staples.  Leave it over night or longer.The gas will pass from the print to the paper covering it, which may itself look warped.  Then you can mat and frame the print.

I mount prints on 3/16th cotton rag-covered foam core board and use museum quality archival mat board, hinged as you outline.  I have to follow this "outgassing" procedure, particularly with Epson Premium Luster 260.

[michelson]

What kind of backing paper are you using? If any, how is it affixed?

[framah]

Based on what you stated, I'd go with either high humidity or evil spirits.

If your hinges are approximately 1/4 in from the sides of the paper then they should not be giving you trouble.  

Are you adhering the mat to the backer as you close it up? I know you said that you hinge the mat, which is good but some people also run  ATG around the print as well to keep the mat in place and  often that holds the print too tight not allowing it the ability to move... thus the possible warping you mentioned.

Other than that, You might want to consider just dry mounting the prints  so they are flat and be done with it. Not archival but they do look nicer.

I hear a ritual with  hot coals, chickens and barbeque sauce works well for evil spirits.

[framah]

One more thing... are you using glass or plexi?

If plexi, that might be the problem as a static charge will lift some prints.

Just a thought.

[bill t.]

You also need to give the print plenty of drying time.  At least a couple days for paper, as much as a week or more for RC.  If you lay your print down on a perfectly flat surface and you can see ripple at the edges, you might benefit from more drying time, or a better media selection, or a little TLC from a dry mount press.  Just fer fun sometime sandwich a recently printed RC print up against a piece of glass and watch the antics that will ensue over the next few days.

Best thing I ever did framing-wise was to simply get over the hinging concept, but I better stop here before I get all worked up.

[Jonathan Wienke]

If you don't dry-mount prints larger than 5x7 to foamcore or equivalent, you will see some rippling or warping of the print, especially if the paper came from a roll instead of a flat cut sheet. The paper simply doesn't have the rigidity to remain perfectly flat in the face of gravity, its natural curl, humidity and temperature changes, etc.

[Justan]

Best thing I ever did framing-wise was to simply get over the hinging concept, but I better stop here before I get all worked up.

While I don’t want to get you worked up, would you elaborate on what you do other than hinging?

[bill t.]

what you do other than hinging?

As much as I don't like to discuss religion I will say that I dry mount prints, I glue canvas.  I'm just not, um, fastidious enough to do straight up archival framing.

If done properly both techniques will last a very long time.  My oldest dry mounted prints are more than half a century old.  My oldest glue mounted prints (on hyper-unarchival Masonite!) are getting close to 40 years old.  Both categories are holding up just fine.  If done poorly, all bets are off.   For instance with dry mounting it is imperative to pre-press the art and backing to drive out moisture before making the actual tissue bond.

I have reframed too many of my early hinge mounted prints to use that technique.  Rippling prints drive Mr. Joe Average Art Customer CRAZY!  IMHO hinge mounting damages prints by encouraging them to warp, which is bound to happen in one of those miniature green houses we call glass covered picture frames.  OK, maybe small prints (like 11x14 inches on down) can be hinge mounted, but for large prints or prints wide enough or heavy enough to need more than two hinge support points, no deal.

[framah]

Yep... just dry mount them and be done with it. They will look better, lay flat and no one will care a whit if you do.

I will do whatever the customer wants after informing them of the +/_ of each method For my own prints, i dry mount them and they look fine.

[ckimmerle]

Yep... just dry mount them and be done with it. They will look better, lay flat and no one will care a whit if you do.

Not sure I buy the dry mount arguments. A T-hinge is easier, quicker and less expensive than dry mounting and, if done correctly, is much safer for the original. In addition, it's a much better method when exact matting position, such as 1/4" or 1/8" reveals, is required as it's possible to reposition if necessary. As for longevity, not sure it should be an issue as it's a mounting method that has been used for many decades. If vertical positioning is beyond my control, as when shipping a matted print (framed, or not), I'll use a couple of 1-1/4" or 3" corner mounts on the bottom corners (with wiggle room) to help support the print should it be turned on it's side.

Not sure why the OP is having issues, but I have never had a t-hinged print warp and I routinely matte and frame 20-inch prints. It's possible the hinges were too far apart. I place my hinges about 1/3 of the way from each edge. At that spacing, the print is held firmly, yet minimizes the area between the hinges (where warping can occur).

[Justan]

As much as I don't like to discuss religion I will say that I dry mount prints, I glue canvas.  I'm just not, um, fastidious enough to do straight up archival framing.

If done properly both techniques will last a very long time.  My oldest dry mounted prints are more than half a century old.  My oldest glue mounted prints (on hyper-unarchival Masonite!) are getting close to 40 years old.  Both categories are holding up just fine.  If done poorly, all bets are off.   For instance with dry mounting it is imperative to pre-press the art and backing to drive out moisture before making the actual tissue bond.

I have reframed too many of my early hinge mounted prints to use that technique.  Rippling prints drive Mr. Joe Average Art Customer CRAZY!  IMHO hinge mounting damages prints by encouraging them to warp, which is bound to happen in one of those miniature green houses we call glass covered picture frames.  OK, maybe small prints (like 11x14 inches on down) can be hinge mounted, but for large prints or prints wide enough or heavy enough to need more than two hinge support points, no deal.

Thanks! I used dry mounting long ago and agree with the longevity.

When I started researching an inkjet printer, I asked HP support about dry mounting. They said that their inks and papers are not tolerant of the heat used for dry mounting. Does anyone know if this is true?

[framah]

HP already told you that their inks aren't heat tolerant. I think that should be all you need in the way of whether it is true or not.

Did you expect them to lie to you just so you couldn't heat mount anything made by their printers?  

[Justan]

If I were to put together a list of all the idiots passing as technical advisors I've encountered it would be a very long list.
Due to that, I've found that independent confirmation from people who actually work with the subject of my inquiries is always a good thing.

Clearly no one ever told you that  

[framah]

Actually I do know that but, all in all,   clearly, even the stupidest HP tech rep would know that their inks are heat sensitive.

Seriously, are you really that cynical??

Ok... here it is:

Yes, their inks are heat sensitive. That's  coming from a certified picture framer with over 16 years experience.

 I'm not a tech rep for HP.

Is that independent enough for you?

 

[Justan]

As much as I don't like to discuss religion I will say that I dry mount prints, I glue canvas.  I'm just not, um, fastidious enough to do straight up archival framing.

If done properly both techniques will last a very long time.  My oldest dry mounted prints are more than half a century old.  My oldest glue mounted prints (on hyper-unarchival Masonite!) are getting close to 40 years old.  Both categories are holding up just fine.  If done poorly, all bets are off.   For instance with dry mounting it is imperative to pre-press the art and backing to drive out moisture before making the actual tissue bond.

I have reframed too many of my early hinge mounted prints to use that technique.  Rippling prints drive Mr. Joe Average Art Customer CRAZY!  IMHO hinge mounting damages prints by encouraging them to warp, which is bound to happen in one of those miniature green houses we call glass covered picture frames.  OK, maybe small prints (like 11x14 inches on down) can be hinge mounted, but for large prints or prints wide enough or heavy enough to need more than two hinge support points, no deal.

I had some time to research this topic. First, I called HP and asked if they had information on approved mounting techniques and in particular dry mounting specific to the Z3100. The “tech” didn’t know anything about it (What a surprise!) but said he’d send me some links. Hours later the links haven’t arrived.

All and all it was not one of the better HP experiences I've had.

Then I started looking on the web for a variety of key words. The most productive of my searches was “dry mounting inkjet prints.”

That brought up a number of anecdotal comments including the official Library of Congress Guide to Matting and Framing.

According to virtually all accounts, one can dry mount images produced with inkjet printers, but need to use low temperature (most say about 200F) mounting tissue, and follow the guidelines echoed by Bill. There si a reference in the link below for a supplier of this kind of mounting tissue.

Here are 2 of the better threads on the topic:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=18437

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/for...ead.php?t=52035

Other threads were virtually identical in content.

Accordingly, a bigger issue is the acceptance by galleries and I guess gallery patrons of dry mounted images. The issue appears to be that with dry mounting it is difficult to impossible to ever separate the image from the mount.

I don’t know if gator board or other adhesives are held in equal disapproval. From the perspective of ease of reversibility, they probably are not preferred.

Ironically, no one has a better idea to keep prints from wrinkling than either dry or adhseive mounting. Is warpage accepted as part of the behavior of fine art photos within the industry?

Bill, having read a bit on the topic I understand your reluctance to open that door. Thanks as always for your excellent feedback!

Framah, I apologize for taking the bait of your first comment and throwing it back at you. My bad…..

[framah]

No problem, Justan... I know I busted your chops a bit and probably shouldn't have...but it was fun at the time!!

As for reversibility of dry mounts. there are some out there that allow removal with reapplying heat. There is also one that works at a low temp.. like around 150 degrees  and is "supposed to be archival" and reversible.  I have used that when I have had to mount a piece of silk fabric.  After mounting it, i could easily peel the fabric right off with no effort.

180 degrees is pretty much the high limit of temp needed for heat mounting tissues but I have had it melt the ink into an unrecognizable mess after applying heat.  It is always a good idea so do a test on an old junk print to find out how it responds.

You could take one to a framer and ask them to try it for you. That way you have a definite answer.

[bill t.]

Honest, I have yet to find a gallery or a client who gave a hoot how a print was mounted as long as it looked good in the frame.  I've had snide remarks about moulding choices, matte choices, glazing choices, and other esthetic issues but never about dry mounting.  But I HAVE had people complain loudly about warped prints, and it's cost me some time and money to reframe those with proper dry mounting.

I think the only problem most gallery owners have with dry mounting is when you don't do it and the piece comes back to the gallery because of rippling.  When a piece of your art comes back your name automatically moves to the very top of the gallery's S**t List.  Oh yes, the gallery may even have published guidelines for the "archival" preparation of framed media, but in fact there is a sort of don't-ask, don't-tell thing with archival mounting and galleries.  Just don't mention it within the confines of a gallery and you should be fine.  But be ready with some "pH neutral..." rap just in case.

Also, as framah says don't pull your punches on the thermostat when you dry mount.  I have mounted gazillions of RC prints at 190F, and even in sections where certain areas got 6 or more minutes in a row at that heat, no problemo at all.  Be sure you get a solid mounting, don't just daintily tack down the print at some tepid temperature and insufficient pressure as so many frightened photographers seem to do, that's what leads to trouble.

Man, this archival stuff sure can sure wear you down after while!

[Justan]

Apology for the delay. I forgot where this thread was…

Thanks to both for the continued replies.

Before addressing your comments, I have a question: when using thicker papers such as Hahnemuhle’s various photo rag based products, is warpage a problem when used with a hinge mount and linen tape across the top of the image?

> 180 degrees is pretty much the high limit of temp needed for heat mounting tissues but I have had it melt the ink into an unrecognizable mess after applying heat. It is always a good idea so do a test on an old junk print to find out how it responds.

I agree that testing is in order. Do I understand correctly that heat range may be anywhere between roughly 150 and 190 F, with cooler temps tried first.

> You could take one to a framer and ask them to try it for you. That way you have a definite answer.

Good suggestion. I’ll take several to a framer as part of the plan. I’ll ask them to test at a variety of temps. I’ll have test different papers as well.


> Honest, I have yet to find a gallery or a client who gave a hoot how a print was mounted as long as it looked good in the frame….But I HAVE had people complain loudly about warped prints, and it's cost me some time and money to reframe those with proper dry mounting.

That makes sense and I agree it’s worth doing it right the first time.

> Be sure you get a solid mounting, don't just daintily tack down the print at some tepid temperature and insufficient pressure as so many frightened photographers seem to do, that's what leads to trouble.

I haven't seen a heat press in decades. The ones I used sooo long ago permitted setting the temp, but I don’t recall if there was an adjustment for pressure or thickness…. What are notable brands of heat presses now a days?

> Man, this archival stuff sure can sure wear you down after while!

Agreed. The irony is that matting and framing are the bigger part of the photo as a product and are subject to a wide variety of criteria, both aesthetic and functional.