Mark Dubovoy >> Fachcolor Bühler prints

[Hagenbach]

Hi Mark

I have been at Fachcolor Bühler in Freiburg several times and Herr Bühler explained me some of their finishing techniques. They print on the big LightJet on Kodak paper as you said, using sRGB colourspace, which made me a bit worry, but they mostly do advertisement. I tried them to go into a bigger colourspace, but that again was not so easy (outside their standard path). The sandwich-technique you saw derives from the 'Diasec'-technique, once only done in Germany by Grieger, but now it is patentfree and anyone can do it - if they master it. Bühler started to use hardened glass about three years ago. They buy their glass just across the street. When they have the finished print at their shop, they cut the glass acording to the print and then the cut glass goes back to the manufacturer, where it is treated under high temperatures. The goal here is to change the glass' internal structure, making it harder. After this processing the glass-sheet comes back to Bühler where everything is mounted with the 'Diasec' gel between glass and print. I have seen a very large print and it looked quite impressive. The hardened glass is not only harder, it is in fact also more crisp in its appearence than normal glass. Getting a print done like this takes time.

Cheers
Andreas

[Sven W]

We just compared the colorgamut, whitepoint and maximum black between a LightJet print on Fujipaper and
an Epson 9900 print on Canson Baryta. Take a look at the R, G and B colors and the pure white and black tone for the Epson print !
Epson to the left and LightJet to the right.
/Sven

[Thomas Krüger]

You can also deliver your own prints to Bühler, however they don't give a guarantee for the results.
http://www.ultrasec-buehler.de/2_0.html

[Hagenbach]

What I described above is mentioned as 'UltraSec G' on [http://www.ultrasec-buehler.de/1_0.html]. Didn't know this site, just the other, old one.

The Canson Baryta is on my list to try out, but other things came in between ...

Cheers Andreas

[hsmeets]

Similar mounting is also often done where the print is sandwiched between a dibond back and polycarbonate sheet that is glued to the print with a transparent glue/gel. Edges are made smooth. I saw once mentioned that it preferably is done with a RA4 print and not an Inkjet print.

[Sven W]

Similar mounting is also often done where the print is sandwiched between a dibond back and polycarbonate sheet that is glued to the print with a transparent glue/gel. Edges are made smooth. I saw once mentioned that it preferably is done with a RA4 print and not an Inkjet print.

Glue with what? It must have been silicone or optical adhesive.
And as I wrote in an earlier thread; It also works fine with inkjet prints.

/Sven

[BradSmith]

I believe the generic description of this process is face mounting, ie, the face of the print is mounted to a glass or acrylic/plexi panel and then the back of the print is mounted to a rigid backing of some sort (sheet aluminum, dibond, sintra board, etc.  Sounds like the German company is using a thick glass panel with the optical coatings/property of ultra low reflectance, sort of like the really expensive Museum Glass that some use for the glazing in traditional frames....just much thicker.

I recently had a print made and face mounted by a company in Los Angeles named pcColour.   http://www.pccolour.com/services_mounting_frontmount.html  They describe the process to some degree on their site.  They call it "front mounting".   I had an 18x60 inch panorama printed and front mounted by them.  With a smaller test print thrown in, it cost $400.  Their Fujiflex print from a Durst LambdaJet looked just as good (maybe better) as a smaller version I printed on my Epson 3800 on Epson Exhibition Fiber. 

I was extremely happy with the finished product.

Brad

[Hagenbach]

The mounting technique as such is not so new. The 'Diasec'-method (siliconic gel) was develloped in the seventies by an engineer in Lausanne, Switzerland. I can't remember his name anymore. But special thing about Bühler mounting is the hardened front glass. What I forgot to say in my initial post, that the glass has lost its greenish tone through the hardening process. I asked Herr Bühler if he uses a special glasstype, but he declined, as I remember. There is a type of museum glass that has almost no green tone, it would be interesting to try this one, but that again drives up the costs.

Cheers
Andreas

[hsmeets]

Glue with what? It must have been silicone or optical adhesive.
And as I wrote in an earlier thread; It also works fine with inkjet prints.

/Sven

It's a local photographer that offers it as an service, he doesn't do it himself but it is farmed out. His website stated once that it was a 'optical clear glue', but by all means it could be silicon anyway. He probably just avoided the word silicon as were I live silicon is associated with sealing stuff watertight like in showers etc.

Yup, face mounting it is.

[Ernst Dinkla]

The mounting technique as such is not so new. The 'Diasec'-method (siliconic gel) was develloped in the seventies by an engineer in Lausanne, Switzerland. I can't remember his name anymore. But special thing about Bühler mounting is the hardened front glass. What I forgot to say in my initial post, that the glass has lost its greenish tone through the hardening process. I asked Herr Bühler if he uses a special glasstype, but he declined, as I remember. There is a type of museum glass that has almost no green tone, it would be interesting to try this one, but that again drives up the costs.

Cheers
Andreas

It is very unlikely that the usual tempering process changes the glass color which is usually related to iron content in normal window glass. The process to toughen is heating up the glass and a forced cooling right after that which creates tension between surfaces and the center. I have seen enough "hardened" glass with green edges. My guess is that they used a glass with better light transmission which doesn't have to be that expensive. There is however a chemical process for tempering that may have more influence on the light transmission. I think that this method may give less changes to the glass surface too, what I recall is either small dents at the edges where a clamp has been used or a wavy pattern on the surface of normal tempered glass. The stress in the tempered plates has an effect on the light transmission in the sense that polarised light can show the difference between normal and tempered glass. The glass surface doesn't become harder than normal glass in both processes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughened_glass

The process sounds like a better alternative to Diasec. The glass is more scratchproof than either acrylic or polycarbonate used with Diasec. It is more inert to chemicals (solvents) and less static. It will be a heavier though. I see no mention of a protective sheet at the back which is usually DiBond or an acrylic in the Diasec method. Any information of that? Maybe it isn't easy to find a material that gives the same low expansion on temperature changes that glass has.

That a hammerblow on the glass will result in a thousand glass fragments kept together by the glued print is something that has some appeal too, the same blow on the acrylic or polycarbonate will be less destructive but still leave a visually unacceptable surface.

Heinz Sovilla-Brulhard is what I googled for the Swiss inventor of the Diasec process.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

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

[narikin]

There is nothing much new in this.

I had exhibitions in Swiss Galleries in the 90's and they were Diasec mounting on glass then. You just choose a glass with high white point, and the right balance of thinness (whitter) vs strength.  Having your unique size toughened is about all they are bringing to the table here, and that is of dubious use.  A properly handled artwork does not need toughened glass.

Factor in the reduced color gamut of a Lightjet print, the lack of permanence (Dyes vs Pigments) and its not a winner, despite appearances.  Sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors are being deployed over 'unique' process' to me.

Better would be to have it bonded to Schotte AR mirogard UV glass, which has Anti Reflective vacuum coatings, and is astonishingly good, plus astonishingly expensive.  It is also completely transparent, I use it for all my works and it doubles the entire framing bill, by just selecting this glass over normal glass!  Have never Diasec bonded with it though, as the Diasec process cuts reflections a bit anyway. I save that for biggest works with plexi.

Ernst - did you do a personal photokina report anywhere? a link would be appreciated...

[Hagenbach]

The advantages of glass (nearly scratchproof and antistatic) caught also my interest. I should have looked up the net for technical aspects of hardened glass, my bad! As Mark states in his blog form Fotokina, Bühler puts a dibond on the back of the photo, making a 'classical' sandwich. On the dibond go the hanging points. As an alternative such a mounted can be framed, then a back diobond is not really a must. But framers are usually happier when works are overwell protected. You need good walls to hang it on, as correctly pointed out, it gets heavy. Maybe a good crate for it when it is not on a wall isn't a bad idea.

@narikin: As you might know, LightJet prints are RA4 c-prints, where in my view the choice of paper (Fuji Crystal Archive vs Kodak) is more eminent. The glass you mention I use only when the prints are sold, otherwise the framing costs will go through the roof. Acryl does it well for the moment.

Cheers
Andreas

[hsmeets]

Probably the gel/silicon/glue they use for facemounting is destroying the inkjet prints.

On youtube is an video that demo's facemounting inkjetprints: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Felkzkeoj7o

DryTac Facemount 25"x150' a whopping $ 375 nah i'll stick with regular frame/mat

[neil snape]

The mounting technique as such is not so new. The 'Diasec'-method (siliconic gel) was develloped in the seventies by an engineer in Lausanne, Switzerland. I can't remember his name anymore. But special thing about Bühler mounting is the hardened front glass. What I forgot to say in my initial post, that the glass has lost its greenish tone through the hardening process. I asked Herr Bühler if he uses a special glasstype, but he declined, as I remember. There is a type of museum glass that has almost no green tone, it would be interesting to try this one, but that again drives up the costs.

Cheers
Andreas

I thought the greenish tint was actually some oxides of trace metals in the glass when being made. I believe they inject PbAc (lead Acetate) when making crystal glass which floats or rappels the impurities to the surface to be skimmed. The more PbAc used the more brittle the glass becomes.

IS the hardened glass just an annealing process? It could change the colour indeed, but wouldn't remove impurities.

[graeme]

A properly handled artwork does not need toughened glass.

A piece of public art should definitely use toughened glass and judging from Mark's photo these artworks were displayed very publically.

Graeme