Why print with borders?

[nilo]

I got used to print with borders of approximately 2"-3" when printing on 13x19" or 17x25". That's what I learned.

But why should one still print with borders? If you print with borders, how big are they? And why?

For me, I do it for several reasons. The print is immediately " matted" and looks good. Thick borders allow for easy and secure handling and mounting. Also, accidents tend to happen at the border, and if the paper eventually starts to react to the atmosphere, it does so from the borders.

I would like to read about your practices and maybe your archival insights. How thick are your borders?

kind regards

nino

[Alan Goldhammer]

I go by how I am going to frame the print.  If I use a stock size 16 x 20 frame, I print 10 1/2 by 16 (this is my usual approach).  The over mat is 2 inches on the top and side and 3 1/2 on the bottom.  Thus, the margins on a 13 x 19 paper are 1 1/2 inches on the side and 1 1/4 on the top and bottom.  This give plenty of room on the corners for a Mylar photocorner.  If you want to use photocorners for mounting, I think it's best to preserve at least 1/2 inch margins all around otherwise you need to go to hinge mounting.

Alan

[neile]

I leave about 1" border on larger prints, and 1/2" on smaller prints, for all the reasons you mention. For me though the biggest one is having a place to sign the image and handle the print.

Neil

[nilo]

Thank you Alan and Neil for sharing.

The subject doesn't seem to be very appealing.    

anyone?

[MHMG]

Thank you Alan and Neil for sharing.

The subject doesn't seem to be very appealing.    

anyone?

Don't feel too bad. I think that by the time one drills down into any particular thread, even on a popular forum, there aren't too many viewers.

I actually bought a 44 inch printer not because my image size ever gets much bigger than 24 x 30 inches but because I wanted the option to use very large borders, 4, 5 or 6 inch. I'm experimenting with framing without overmat, or even with overmat, I wanted to let the print fully fit the frame. That way it positions automatically in the frame with no tape, photo corners or hinging.  I also realize that conventional conservation wisdom is not to put a photograph directly against the glass or glazing, but this cautionary advice comes from longtime experience with gelatin as the image binder. Gelatin's glass transition temperature (Tg) is humidity dependent. It will cross Tg and turn from the hard dry polymer state to the gel state at typical room temperatures when humidity reaches about 75%RH. This is a very real world condition that happens frequently in many parts of the world, and it is this situation which causes a lot of the issues with traditional photos directly positioned against glass. Many microporous inkjet papers, especially when finished with an acrylic protective spray will not have this tendency to stick to the glass like traditional gelatin coatings. At least that's my theory, but I'm doing real-world print monitoring to find out for sure!

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

[nilo]

Thank you Mark for your comments

- I don't know why you would like the print to fully fit the frame, but I had that idea mainly in order to save money on the museum quality mat, or mats as I do like them double. Some how I prefer none ,to just a single mat.

- I even thought that nowadays, with the new acrylic protective sprays and liquids that are archival (removable), one could simply hang the photograph without glass (or glazing). Why would one need the glass? (Next, I want to try Golden's MSA varnish, which comes in spray and liquid. Till now I used two layers of Hahnemuehle and an additional layer of removable picture varnish from Winsor & Netwon)

- I do also try to "mount" my print with 2" to 3" borders without any tape or fixing. How? The filmoplast P90 hinge between backboard and the over mat(s) is in the bottom, so that the print directly rest on that hinge. This is especially advantageous for mounting large to very large prints.

[...] Many microporous inkjet papers, especially when finished with an acrylic protective spray will not have this tendency to stick to the glass like traditional gelatin coatings. At least that's my theory, but I'm doing real-world print monitoring to find out for sure!http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Are you actually testing for that right now? I couldn't find the info on your website, sorry.

thanks again

nino

[JeffKohn]

I prefer to have a border of at least an inch or so, for all the reasons already mentioned. Plus, not only does borderless printing waste ink on overspray but you lose a little bit of the image to that overspray as well.

One case when I can see for not having a border though, would be frameless floating mounts such as these, which I think can look good without any border.

[Ernst Dinkla]

I got used to print with borders of approximately 2"-3" when printing on 13x19" or 17x25". That's what I learned.

But why should one still print with borders? If you print with borders, how big are they? And why?

For me, I do it for several reasons. The print is immediately " matted" and looks good. Thick borders allow for easy and secure handling and mounting. Also, accidents tend to happen at the border, and if the paper eventually starts to react to the atmosphere, it does so from the borders.

I would like to read about your practices and maybe your archival insights. How thick are your borders?

kind regards

nino

No mattes either meanwhile.

With frames based on ISO A or B size prints 1:1.41 and 35mm images 1:1.5 central in that frame the equal borders all around have the right dimension for me. For example a 400x600mm image on a 500x700mm (B2) print page gives 50mm borders (2") with the frame overlap reduced the remaining (visible) border is  41mm. The same can be done with the A sizes as their aspect ratio is the same. With really small ISO size frames this doesn't work as nice, Borders become visually too small then. Qimage makes it easy to adapt the "printed" borders till the 1:1.5 image fits and if needed one can give the border(s) a print color too.

I mount the print then on 1.5mm museum board with 3M photomount. For framing behind glass I glue some thin spacers in the edges to the glass and keep the print about 1,5mm from the glass that way. Without glass I have now a similar frame profile on a front loader frame, spring assisted. Sign industry origin. There is a transparent lustre vinyl sheet delivered with the frame but I do not use that. Print is varnished with a Talens varnish that keeps the matt print impression. HP Matte Litho-Realistic paper.. I have to see how long that holds but I like the fast exchange possible and the matt picture just looks better.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm



 

[nilo]

Thank you Ernst!

No mattes either meanwhile.

But why? For me I would be mainly for financial reason, because three entire museum quality boards for each print, when you have to ship them around the globe, really adds up. But even without that ...

Or is it that it's just the print and nothing else, showing the paper characteristics themselves in the margins?

[...]
I mount the print then on 1.5mm museum board with 3M photomount.
[...]

So this would not be called archival anymore, as it is not removable, right?

For framing behind glass I glue some thin spacers in the edges to the glass and keep the print about 1,5mm from the glass that way. Without glass I have now a similar frame profile on a front loader frame, spring assisted. Sign industry origin. There is a transparent lustre vinyl sheet delivered with the frame but I do not use that. Print is varnished with a Talens varnish that keeps the matt print impression. HP Matte Litho-Realistic paper.. I have to see how long that holds but I like the fast exchange possible and the matt picture just looks better.

When would you chose to go without the glass? Oil paintings are also "only" varnished (which when removable is considered archival) and do never go under a glass!?

[MHMG]

Are you actually testing for that right now? I couldn't find the info on your website, sorry.

thanks again

nino

I am, but many of my experiments aren't yet posted on my website. There are only so many hours in my day. But I tend to err on the side of experimentation rather than publishing.

This thread now has a pulse! thanks,

Mark

[shewhorn]

So this would not be called archival anymore, as it is not removable, right?

You'll see EPIC debates about this if you hang out in any framing forums... Epic on the order of RAW vs. JPEG, Canon vs, Nikon, Mac vs. PC... that kind of discussion. Basically there are good arguments on both sides but what I've gleaned from doing a bit of research is that mounting does not mean something is not considered archival anymore. It used to be that museums wouldn't accept anything mounted, blah blah blah but that's not the case anymore. I think care must be taken in the selection of the mounting material you use, but even more so in the adhesive as that is more likely to do damage than anything else. There's a number of products out there designed for archival mounting (and yes, it's still open for debate as to whether or not it's archival) that are certainly better than others. The BEST flame wars are when they start talking about mounting to masonite. SOOOOOOooooooo much misinformation out there.

They kind of go like this:

But blah blah blah is not a proper archival technique, the sky is falling.
Yeah but Ansel Adams used to glue his prints to clipboards. Those clearly aren't archival but they've held up quite well.
Yes but Ansel Adams was an experimenter and liked to use the best techniques possible, had he known then what we know now, he'd be using different materials and techniques.
But but but....

Both sides continue on... some with very good points, others with information they clearly pulled out of their butts and of course for every rule someone is always willing to point out an exception. Shortly after that a black hole forms and everyone still participating in the discussion gets irreversibly sucked past the event horizon. Shortly thereafter they are compressed into a quantum singularity.

For me I think it comes down to this...

If I make a print, is anyone going to be looking at it in 100 years? For anything I do for myself... yeah, I'm definitely going to mount it. The improvement in display from having my image flat by far overrules my desire to have said print around in 100 years because... I'll be dead. For my clients, the best thing I can do is educate them as to the pros and cons of mounting. When you look at the archival argument I think that for MOST consumers, the argument is blown out of proportion. People are taking arguments that concern Museums and applying them as if everyone should have those same concerns and that's not always going to be the case. YMMV of course.

Cheers, Joe

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

You'll see EPIC debates about this if you hang out in any framing forums... Epic on the order of RAW vs. JPEG, Canon vs, Nikon, Mac vs. PC... that kind of discussion. Basically there are good arguments on both sides but what I've gleaned from doing a bit of research is that mounting does not mean something is not considered archival anymore. It used to be that museums wouldn't accept anything mounted, blah blah blah but that's not the case anymore. I think care must be taken in the selection of the mounting material you use, but even more so in the adhesive as that is more likely to do damage than anything else. There's a number of products out there designed for archival mounting (and yes, it's still open for debate as to whether or not it's archival) that are certainly better than others. The BEST flame wars are when they start talking about mounting to masonite. SOOOOOOooooooo much misinformation out there.

They kind of go like this:

But blah blah blah is not a proper archival technique, the sky is falling.
Yeah but Ansel Adams used to glue his prints to clipboards. Those clearly aren't archival but they've held up quite well.
Yes but Ansel Adams was an experimenter and liked to use the best techniques possible, had he known then what we know now, he'd be using different materials and techniques.
But but but....

Both sides continue on... some with very good points, others with information they clearly pulled out of their butts and of course for every rule someone is always willing to point out an exception. Shortly after that a black hole forms and everyone still participating in the discussion gets irreversibly sucked past the event horizon. Shortly thereafter they are compressed into a quantum singularity.

For me I think it comes down to this...

If I make a print, is anyone going to be looking at it in 100 years? For anything I do for myself... yeah, I'm definitely going to mount it. The improvement in display from having my image flat by far overrules my desire to have said print around in 100 years because... I'll be dead. For my clients, the best thing I can do is educate them as to the pros and cons of mounting. When you look at the archival argument I think that for MOST consumers, the argument is blown out of proportion. People are taking arguments that concern Museums and applying them as if everyone should have those same concerns and that's not always going to be the case. YMMV of course.

Cheers, Joe

Beautifully expressed!

Eric