Mounting on Aluminum

[dchew]

Mark,
Thanks for the article.  In Figure 4 it looks almost like the image wraps around the edge of the aluminum, but I assume that is not the case; could be just the lighting and the blue sky. 

Looks like they use Omegabond.  I wonder how that compares to Dibond...?

Dave

[Mark D Segal]

Mark,
Thanks for the article.  In Figure 4 it looks almost like the image wraps around the edge of the aluminum, but I assume that is not the case; could be just the lighting and the blue sky. 

Looks like they use Omegabond.  I wonder how that compares to Dibond...?

Dave

Hi Dave,

No wrap-around, the image is flush with the edge of the mount. And yes, they do use Omegabond. I looked at the specs on the internet for both products and they seem very similar from what I could tell.

[fredjeang]

Great article Mark.

Definatly cheaper and very plaisant solution than a museum glass. Costs here of such a glass start at 200euros per m2 (just the glass of course)

[Ernst Dinkla]

Alusuisse invented the process to create Alucobond more than 40 years ago, successive versions appeared, among them DiBond that has harder but thinner aluminium quality surface sheets. Polyester is used to lacquer the coated varieties. Some companies rebranded Alusuise qualities. With the patents most likely expired more companies could produce the same board. Alusuisse merged with Alcan and that company again with Alcoa if I'm not mistaken. Thermobonding describes the bond correctly but the actual process is the extrusion of a polyethylene sheet (transparent or a more grey recycled version) with the two aluminium sheets rolling of coils together with the extrusion so the hot polyethylene directly creates the bond, an ongoing inline process.

Some years ago I printed about 40 large photographs for the Venice Biennale that were mounted on solid aluminium 1.5mm thick with a similar frame made of 12mm U profile with corner enforcements. The 1.5mm shows even less an edge than DiBond will and allows the mounting shop to cut the prints after lamination with just 1 mm of image lost at the edges.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[JBerardi]

I'm working on a project right now that I think this material would be perfect for... can anyone recommend a place that offers it in the Boston, MA area?

[vjbelle]

Mark,

Its always been the edge that has been problematic with me.  Even with the sharpest exacto blade I have never been able to cut a clean enough edge... it just never looked finished enough to me.  How did you /cut/control the edges?

Victor

[Mark D Segal]

Mark,

Its always been the edge that has been problematic with me.  Even with the sharpest exacto blade I have never been able to cut a clean enough edge... it just never looked finished enough to me.  How did you /cut/control the edges?

Victor

I don't; the guys who do the mounting handle that, and very well. They have the necessary equipment.

[BradSmith]

If you have mounted any of your prints like this, how about posting who did it for you, the size and what it cost?

[Mark D Segal]

If you have mounted any of your prints like this, how about posting who did it for you, the size and what it cost?

Dude - read the article this thead is about; it's ALL there.

[feppe]

If you have mounted any of your prints like this, how about posting who did it for you, the size and what it cost?

Below a 70x70cm print of mine I have on my wall, mounted almost exactly the same way. Window reflections show how glossy the surface is - haven't seen matte prints mounted on aluminum. Edges are super clean. I have one nail sticking from the well, and I just balanced the edge of the rear supports on it - not as fancy as Mark's hanging setup, but works fine and the nail was already there

I'm very happy with the results, and I'll use the same mounting for future large prints I'll put on my wall.

The only concern I have with this is transporting. Aluminum is rather pliable, and you only need a small dent on a corner, edge or in the middle to be clearly visible on such a glossy surface. Fixing it might work if one is careful, haven't had to do that to this. Weight can be an issue compared to some alternatives, but probably close to glass with frame.

Here's the original as JPEG.

[djoy]

I think someone should drag Chris to see this... *hint*  

Seriously though, watching this process would be a great segment for an upcoming LLVJ, looking at the photos in the article I kept wanting to click Play to watch the process happening. It might not be an especially long segment I'll grant you, but a highly entertaining one.

[BradSmith]

Mark,
Sorry I wasn't more clear in my request.   It was intended for EVERYONE ELSE.   

signed,
The Dude.....er, I mean   Brad   

[Mark D Segal]

OK Brad - I was puzzled! 

[MiikkaH]

Mark,

I've been using this technique for a long time - also with face mounted acrylic glass - with good results.

One recommendation: use U-profiled bars for the back frame instead of the L shaped ones. That simplifies the hanging cosiderably as you can hang the frame directly from two levelled screws.

Also, if you connect the profile bars to each other with corner plates the weight will be distributed on all four sides - not just on the top part.

best,
Miikka

[Mark D Segal]

Mark,

I've been using this technique for a long time - also with face mounted acrylic glass - with good results.

One recommendation: use U-profiled bars for the back frame instead of the L shaped ones. That simplifies the hanging cosiderably as you can hang the frame directly from two levelled screws.

Also, if you connect the profile bars to each other with corner plates the weight will be distributed on all four sides - not just on the top part.

best,
Miikka

Thanks - I'll pass that on to my service provider. I should mention, the weight of the mounted pano is light enough not to worry about weight distribution. Perhaps for much larger images, what you are suggesting could be useful.

[RichWagner]

Some years ago I printed about 40 large photographs for the Venice Biennale that were mounted on solid aluminium 1.5mm thick with a similar frame made of 12mm U profile with corner enforcements. The 1.5mm shows even less an edge than DiBond will and allows the mounting shop to cut the prints after lamination with just 1 mm of image lost at the edges.

Ernst,

Roughly how many years ago? Were these prints for a display or exhibit, or are they part of a permanent collection?  Are they still around?

Permanent mounts are generally not considered archival, as they cannot be unmounted, restored, and re-mounted by a conservationist should damage occur, or the mounting material(s) degrade, etc., thus at face value this technique would not appear to be suitable for fine art prints.  In addition, none of the companies involved appear to claim archival or conservation uses for these materials - particularly the non-reversible adhesive "GBC Arctic Dura Mount" that mounts the prints to the aluminum.

From their product literature, "GBC Arctic Dura Mount utilizes an economical polyester carrier coated both sides with a permanent pressure sensitive adhesive. This mounting film bonds well to porous, non-plastic surfaces. It uses an aggressive adhesive that provides a permanent bond to a variety of substrates. Perfect for posters, digital prints, and price sensitive projects. Clear pressure sensitive mounting adhesive with a 78 Lb. coated paper, single release liner. Ph neutral. Adheres to gatorboard, foam board, sintra etc. This is GBC’s most popular adhesive."

Are you aware of anyone using this technique in the fine art market, or any aging studies of these materials?  Are there any alternative adhesive mounting materials available that meet conservation standards?  I'm not as concerned about the aluminum as I am the mounting adhesive.  For commercial work, I think this technique is great. For fine art, I'm not convinced.

Thanks,

--Rich