Mounting prints

[David Watson]

I have a few signed limited edition prints which are about to be framed.  These will be framed without a mount (or mat) and the framer has suggested dry mounting.  I am nervous of this as the prints are quite valuable (not mine) and are signed and numbered on the reverse.  Does anyone know how to safely mount large prints on a backing board without a cut mount in front?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Certainly dry mounting is not a good idea as the artist's signature and number will now be lost which I suspect will have an adverse impact on their value (and if for some reason the prints needed to be remounted and reframed at a future time, you are out of luck).  The only way out of this conundrum that I can come up with is to have the cover glass (or acrylic) directly on the image to give it enough pressure to maintain the position within the frame.  Hinging the print to the backing board will give it an initial position.  Personally, I think you should reconsider the over mat.  Given the value of these prints, the most conservative approach to mounting/framing is the best.

[David Watson]

Alan

Thank you for the response.  We have a couple of Burtysnky large prints which are framed behind glass without a mat and with 1cm of space between the surface of the print and the glass.  These were supplied ready framed so I do not know what method of fixing was used but it seems to have worked.  The frame is exactly the same size as the print with its integral border.

[luxborealis]

I suggest taking one of the Burtynsky prints in to your framer and asking them to do something similar - anything to avoid dry mounting valuable prints with a signature on the reverse.

[stevenf]

Why don't you contact his lab in Toronto - Toronto Image Works and ask them for their advice.

Steven

http://www.friedmanphoto.com

[Richowens]

http://www.frametek.com/index.html

An alternative to overmats, glass spacers.

Rich

[bill t.]

Or, glue the print face first to a piece of ripply plexiglass, slap some 2 inch moulding around it, and sell if for $4.3M.  Archival be damned.  This particular piece probably didn't fetch more than a piddling $500K, but this is exactly how the most expensive photograph ever sold was handled.  Hats off to Andreas Gursky.
 


The devil made me do this.

[Gemmtech]

Bill T,

I did see that the Gursky Rhein II photograph sold for over $4 mil and was simply shocked and then I laughed because of all the talk about "archival".  I must admit I don't know his exact process, maybe it will last 10,000 years?  I don't care for his work and I believe it just proves size does matter, as does a name!

[bill t.]

maybe it will last 10,000 years? 

I think 10,000 days would be a stretch!  Maybe 10,000 hours.  Of course by then the buyers will have moved on to something else in their corporate lobbies, hopefully one of my pieces.

One thing for certain, with mega-dollar pieces like that floating around the next few decades will be bullish for art conservation.

[Justan]

Gursky opened the door to a new era for panographers. Imagine how much more his works would command if “properly” framed …. (not)

[Damir]

Do you actualy know his technique of mounting or you are just guessing?

[Justan]

He is said to have used a technique called Diasec ( link ) with at least a couple of images.

It looks like a very complex process, and is not reversible but anecdotal comments make it appear to be somewhat stable.

At the scale he works there are probably not all that many show worthy choices.

Edit: Gursky's Rhein II is said to be C-print mounted to plexiglass and mr Google points to reports of not a lot of longevity with this technique

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

What a wonderful phrase for advertising your work: "somewhat stable."

It reminds me of the famous Rothko murals at Harvard that faded badly from sun exposure. Here is a link to the NY Times article from 1988: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/08/arts/mark-rothko-s-harvard-murals-are-irreparably-faded-by-sun.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Eric

[bill t.]

My Ektaprint Type-C's from the 70's are a little more than "somewhat unstable."  The ones stored in 8x10 Kodak paper boxes are pretty much beer-pee-yellow on the white borders, but still show a good suggestion of the original colors.  Contrast way down, not at all lovely.  But they were great in their day.  Let's not talk about the ones that were framed under glass.  But the dark stored Cibachromes are still as harsh and contrasty and generally ugly as the day they were made.

As stated in the link, Diasec is a liquid process where the print and the plex are glued together with a thick liquid.  The more usual "facemount" process involves a a much drier transfer adhesive film that is supplied by the manufacturer as an adhesive film on a paper backing which is then transfered onto the surface of the print, which is then sort of laminated onto the plex.  Fundamentally different processes that doubtless have different lifetime potentials, both of which are probably short.  But a really rich, full tonal range facemounted print has a depth and brilliance that simply knocks corporate buyers' socks off.

[LenR]

I have facemounted prints dating back to 1985 and they still look great.

[bill t.]

I have facemounted prints dating back to 1985 and they still look great.

As with so much in print presentation there are a lot of exceptions.  For instance I have mural sized silver prints mounted on Masonite from the 70's that still look pristine.  I think the skill of the mounting person has a lot to do with it.

I have mentioned before on this forum where a friend of mine had a nightmarish situation where many of the prints in his 100% facemounted show started to bubble and/or delaminate under the hot spotlights in the gallery.  It was his first attempt at facemounting and he made a systematic mistake in the process, which was cleaning the plexi the wrong way just before applying the prints.

There isn't much consensus yet about how stable the facemounting process is.  I suspect Diasec facemounting is probably a little better than the more common transfer-adhesive facemount technique.

But as far as Type-C's go, if they're displayed at normal room light levels (especially under fluorescent light) they will fade at a rate that is significantly faster than current pigment inkjet processes, and I can think of some examples.  But maybe that's because that the final wash for the Type-C process is almost always minimal (1.5 minutes if your lucky) in the continuous process machines that are usually used.  For my collection of Type-C's, the ones that seem to be in the best shape are the earliest ones that I manually processed in mesh baskets, where the final wash step was rather extended.  The later ones were made with a continuous process machine with a very brief wash step, and they are the most yellowed.