Question on Framing Large Photograph

[Mark D Segal]

David, this method of mounting large photos has become very popular in much of Europe and here in Toronto amongst art and photo galleries (the workshop doing this is well-reputed here and has a large inventory of aluminium sheets attesting to demand for the product); that said and done, the real archival properties of the techniques and materials involved I personally do not know. Needless to say I asked about the adhesive. He told me it is non-acidic, which means it should not eat into the media; he also said it does not out-gas. It is a sticky material on two sides of a very thin film, which is sandwiched in a machine between the aluminium and the photo and heat-sealed. If I find out the specific names of the materials used I'll report them here. Readers including yourself may know whether their chemical properties are likely to be "archival".

[Alan Goldhammer]

David, this method of mounting large photos has become very popular in much of Europe and here in Toronto amongst art and photo galleries (the workshop doing this is well-reputed here and has a large inventory of aluminium sheets attesting to demand for the product); that said and done, the real archival properties of the techniques and materials involved I personally do not know. Needless to say I asked about the adhesive. He told me it is non-acidic, which means it should not eat into the media; he also said it does not out-gas. It is a sticky material on two sides of a very thin film, which is sandwiched in a machine between the aluminium and the photo and heat-sealed. If I find out the specific names of the materials used I'll report them here. Readers including yourself may know whether their chemical properties are likely to be "archival".

There are a number of products out there that can be used for drymounting that are stable and unlikely to have any adverse impact on your image.  I think the terms "preservation" and "archival" are often used interchangeably and one needs to be careful about defining what is meant.  We also need to remember that digital photography differs from traditional film photography in one very different way, the ease in reproducing images.  One of the complaints against dry mounting is that the image is for the most part permanently affixed to the mounting surface (thought this was a recommendation of Ansell Adams and his studio still sells nice Yosemite prints that are dry mounted and framed) and that if the backing began to deteriorate, one was out of luck with the image (with digital reprinting is easy).

In the old film days, I used Seal Fusion 4000 to mount images.  It formed a solid bond at a relatively low temperature and was easy to handle.  I know this material is still around but don't know if it's properties are conducive to a paper/aluminum bonding process.  There should be any number of polymer materials around these days that will melt and form bonds at low temperatures (which is really the critical issue in regards to the image surface of the paper).  Interestingly, aluminum is a very good conductor of heat and the process could involve heating the "sandwich" from the aluminum side, melting the mounting materials but with little heat transferred to the image surface (I don't know the exact process so this is just a hypothesis).  From a preservation point of view, I suspect that prints mounted to aluminum will be stable for a long time (provided it is not subject to direct sunlight, high levels of polution, etc.).  Well my timer went off and I now have to calibrate my monitor!

[Alan Goldhammer]

I'm certainly not taking you the wrong way!  I frame my own prints both for myself and the few customers that I have.  At this point, I'm only printing 13x19 (but may go up to 16x24 on my 3880 by cutting roll paper to 17x25 as there are few US options for such a size paper).  At 13x19, I can use Mylar photo corners on acid-free foam board accompanied by an overmat and acrylic.  This is "archival" by anyone's definition.  I believe that UV protecting glass or acrylic is really not worth the price one pays.  It totally defeats the use of OBA papers since the UV is required to get the OBAs to work.  Light density whether UV inclusive or exclusive is probably a key factor in image deterioration in the long run (followed by whatever air pollutants are present).  At my former employer (retired back in late June), a dozen of my prints are hanging in the hallway and have been up for over a year now.  The images still look pretty good, and it might be interesting to take one down and see what kind of fading has taken place (if any).  I imagine that this could be relatively easy to do by comparing regions of an exposed print with one freshly printed by spectrophotometry.  I know that Aardenburg is doing exactly this with some real prints (and I'm an ardent supporter of Mark's efforts).

I think everything breaks down when one gets to pano-sized prints such as the one Mark Segal has prepared.  I'm not a framer but find it hard to believe that one can frame prints of such size without some type of permanent bonding (I'm not including printing on canvas here as that's a different thing altogether).  As one whose degrees are in chemistry, I find this whole area quite fascinating.

[bill t.]

...chemistry...

I have some souvenir pieces from the now disassembled museum exhibits I worked on in the 70's.  To cut to the cheese...the prints glue mounted on Masonite have survived unscathed, whereas the prints mounted with transfer adhesive on metal and formica and such have long since disattached in ways that damaged the prints.

My theory is, damaging reactions require some sort of mobility for the molecules involved.  I like to the think glue-is-good because when it dries there is no longer any solution to allow reactions to occur at other than a snail's pace.  And coated and glued prints are doubly-good since potential reactants are locked down on both sides.  But designed-to-be-flexible adhesives allow mobility.

While so-called archival methods stress the avoidance of potential chemical reactions between print and mounting, they nevertheless allow the print to experience a continuously replenished bombardment of airborne moisture and contaminants as the expansion of the frame pumps air in and out on a daily cycle.  And of course, pieces in a frame behind glass experience daily temperature rises significantly above room temperature due to greenhouse effects in the enclosed space.

In other news, the dry mounted prints I made in high school with fastidious pre-heating of prints and mount are still down great, but the dry mounted prints from the 70's made without pre-heating are in some cases coming up at the edges.  Moisture is the enemy of dry mounting.  And the adhesive mounted RC prints I made just a few years ago have almost in every case developed bubbles, my bad technique no doubt.

[JohnHeerema]

I've been following this thread with some interest, as I'm facing the same question.

My first attempt at mounting a large panorama was to dry mount the photo on an 8' length of gatorboard. This was usually successful, but sometimes I would get slight waves: a vertical section of the gatorboard which was slightly depressed. I think that this happened between "bites" of my too-small press, even with careful overlapping, and adjusting the pressure to be fairly low. So now I'm wondering if dry mount is really the way to go, or whether I should consider adhesive. Any thoughts on dry mount vs. adhesive? What adhesives are people using? Or do I need better press technique?

The alternative, which is what I've been doing, is canvas gallery wraps. This works quite nicely, but I can't get the detail and dmax range out of canvas that I can with a good baryta paper.

[bill t.]

The trick to drymounting in sections is to have a relatively thick cover sheet that extends well beyond the edges of the pressure platen.  This sort of smooths out the otherwise sharp impression of the platen on the print.  You must also not have excess pressure, be also very careful about having too little.

I have mounted at least 1000 large prints in the last few years.  IMHO the only sane way to go is to glue to Gator.  Others will disagree.  I have almost 100% success rate with this process, and I can mount up to about 12, 3 x 8 foot prints in a couple hours.  Only tools needed are a cardboard tube, a thin foam roller, a cotton glove and a utility knife.  No press required.  I have NEVER had a mounting related complaint from a customer.  No bubbles, no delaminating, no warping, nuthin!  Those babies are down for a long time.  And as I have often mentioned before, some 40+ year old glued-to-Masonite pieces I have give me confidence in the long term reliability of this process.  FWIW I believe the glue layer acts as a barrier shield to whatever real or imagined nasty stuff may reside in Masonite or Gator.

[JohnHeerema]

Thanks for the advice!

Bill, are you saying that you use the foam roller to apply the glue to the gator board, and then ensure contact by rolling the print down with the cardboard tube? Do you think that a full-width tube works better than a J-roller? May I ask what kind of glue you use?

Also David, thanks to you and Bill for the advice of using a thick cover sheet. I've been using silicone release paper plus a bit of mat board: I'd never heard about silicon impregnated release boards, but they sound like a great idea, and less finicky than release paper.

[bill t.]

are you saying that you use the foam roller to apply the glue to the gator board, and then ensure contact by rolling the print down with the cardboard tube? Do you think that a full-width tube works better than a J-roller? May I ask what kind of glue you use?

The cardboard tube is mainly to keep the print tensioned and flat as it is rolled out.  Press down and tug as the print is rolling.  For already coated canvas, I run my cotton-gloved hand over the print to locate any bubbles, then work them out mainly with hand pressure, but sometimes with pin pricks and a j-roller.  Not a real big fan of the j-rollers, I think hand pressure is as good with canvas.  Of course for paper prints you need a j-roller, with possibly a temporary cover sheet for really delicate media surfaces.  If the rollout from the tube is done well and on a flat surface, there won't be any bubbles.  You must also not use too much glue, which can create bubbles.  0.003 ounces per square inch is about right, assuming your roller is already saturated.  For prints wider than 24", you need to have a very flat table surface, and for anything wider than 36"  or longer than about 8 feet you really need two like-minded people working together.

I use both Lamin-All and Miracle Muck, $40 and $20 per gallon.  pH neutral Lamin-All is maybe better for paper prints as it doesn't seem to be as thick as Muck.  Both of those can be used both as a wet glue and a heat activated glue.  I always wet glue, but you can also put down a coat of glue on the backing, let it dry, then heat press the print onto the dried glue like dry mounting.  Both glues are also theoretically reversible by pressing for a few minutes at about 180F, then peeling off the print while still hot.  I have done this a few times with canvas and the print emerges in good shape.  However I would not care to remount the print with anything except glue due to the very small residue of dried glue that remains on the print after the peel off, it's not strictly speaking an archival reversal.

When rolling glue don't use those stupid 2 and 3 inch rollers.  Use 8" wide, 3/16" or 1/4" thick foam rollers.  You gotta get the glue down fast.  Sherwinn Williams stores have some cheap, black foam, 1/4" rollers that are perfect, but you have to ask for them.

PS, when you're new to this you need to do destructive testing on your first few test prints.  If you can peel off the canvas without taking a lot of Gator laminate with it, you probably are doing something wrong such as not using enough glue or enough pat down.

Lamin-All

Miracle Muck

[JohnHeerema]

Thanks for taking time to mention all those little details that make a such a difference Bill - I'm looking forward to trying your method out!