Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Josh-H on November 30, 2010, 11:06:35 pm
-
Sorry, there isnt a framing forum - but this is probably the next best place.
I have a 24" x 80" print of this photograph which I want to have framed to hang in my dining room. Photo Here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48059.0;attach=30449;image (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48059.0;attach=30449;image)
My thoughts were to adhere it to a piece of acid free foam core or matt board that is one inch larger than the shot - so 26" x 82" and then frame it, giving a one inch reveal all the way around.
My normal conservation framer is trying to talk me into Japanese hinges as they are more archival. But my concern is it wont sit flat over time and may ripple? Sticking it down to the backing board makes it permanent, and it will sit flat but is less archival - chance of paper yellowing over time etc. Its printed on Moab somerset Museum Rag with no OBA's and its 100% cotton RAG.
I understand acrylic is better than glass - due to size and weight; so happy to go with acrylic.
The other issue is cost.. I got a couple of quotes from framers and they are fluctuating between $700 and $1100 Thats for a nicely finished timber wood frame with UV Acryllic- overall I thought this seemed expensive?
-
I would glue it to 3/16 inch Gator board, coat it with something, then stick it in a frame. "Synthetic" polystyrene frames are a reasonable choice at this size because they are cheap, lightweight, and the best of them look pretty nice (but the average ones don't). I do this all the time with canvas. Since I have the tools I can frame a piece this size in less than 2 hours, total cost about $70 US if using polystyrene frames and gluing, or about $200 if using a nice wood frame. Gluing sounds scary, but if you do it right it's a walk in the park.
Forget the hinges. Panoramic prints absolutely, positively, and without question will ripple under hinge mounts. Really. I know this from the school of hard knocks. Anybody suggesting hinges on a big panoramic print has never tried it.
But if you want glazing, acrylic is your only choice. Glass that size is heavy and very dangerous to handle and a threat to the lives of all who gather round. In these parts galleries will not even accept glass covered pieces that size. You would also need to mount the glass or acrylic covered piece into the building structural studs, rather than just the plasterboard as with the polystyrene version. You need a very rigid wood frame if you use glazing, and you maybe also want to screw on a door skin or other strong, rigid bracing device to the back of the frame. My best advice is, find a solution that doesn't require glazing.
Have heard that Gator is tough to find down that way, but ordinary foamcore must not be used if you use glue because the piece will warp badly. Masonite is another cheaper possibility, I have Masonite mounted pieces nearly 4 decades old and they are still in great shape, although very heavy.
The $700+ framer pricing is what you would probably get in the US as well.
Edit...and come to think of it, those 4-decade-old Masonite mounted pieces were silver emulsion prints just glued to the Masonite with the edges wrapped around and glued to the back. Looks great! Not sure how well inkjet prints would stand up to this treatment, but it's something I want to try soon.
BTW, nice shot!
-
I don't think the mounting will decrease longevity or contribute to yellowing if done correctly. A museum archival mounting means the image must be able to be removed from the frame without damage thus the t-hinges but large prints will bubble and look pretty bad over time unless they are mounted.
Gator offers a light and flat surface. I wouldn't allow a "reveal" of the gator - I don't think it would look that nice. With inkjet papers I would avoid allowing the surface of the print to touch the glass/acrylic/lexan by either a matt or having a frame with a liner, and the glass between the liner and the frame. This is actually a very nice look.
Pricing on custom framing can vary dramatically, and the quality of the frame shop also can change the pricing. For a high end molding and that large of a print, $700 is certainly not extreme but maybe towards the high end. You can certainly shop it around. There is a lot of margin in frame molding but framing something that large is difficult and even a slight mistake and all the profit goes out the window, so many frame shops will pad very large jobs a little.
-
I don’t know what shipping would cost to Au but this (http://www.pictureframes.com/scripts/WebObjects/PictureFrames.woa/wa/Home) place offers really good values for larger frames.
-
I've never had a serious problem with rippling when using the hinge method. Some prints don't lie 100% flat but does that really matter?
Why not skip the acrylic? Your print will look better, no reflections, and you'll save a heap of dough.
-
David,
You're obviously not aware that Gatorboard is polystyrene as first you say polystyrene SUCKS and then you recommend it. Here is some info on Gatorboard (aka Gatorfoam): "Produced by Alcan Inc., Gatorfoam is an extruded polystyrene foam mounting board encased between layers of a melamine and wood fibre veneer. Gatorfoam/Gatorboard has a harder outer surface than other foam core boards and resists warping. For miniature builders, Gatorboard is often used as a backing for wet materials like paperclay or stucco finishes which require a water resistant backing while the coating dries. Gatorboard is more durable than foam core boards and is a good choice for non archival applications, where strength and light weight are important. It is not suitable for archival applications as the facings offgas."
Gatorboard is the last thing I'd use for mounting a fine art print that I expect to last.
Lawrence
-
Lawrence, he meant the poly FRAMES that suck, and on a piece that wide, i agree. They will not provide the rigidity required.
To the OP, the prices you got are well within the range depending on the moulding you chose. Remember that a piece that big requires the materials to be oversized and thus considerably more expensive. The other factor a framer needs to charge for is the challenges oversized pieces provide..some need a second person to help or special machines to cut materials to those sizes. UV acrylic for a piece that size would require a full 4x8 ft sheet and you will be paying for the whole sheet, not only the size of your piece.
As for mounting it with a white border, you could have the framer mount a piece of white rag mat board to the gator board and then mount the photo to that rag mat. Again, everything about this job will have to come out of a piece of 4x8 ft whatever. 4x8 rag mat and 4x8 gatorboard. It's all available here but not sure down under. A drawback here is that very few framers have heat presses that will take a piece your size. Not many have the 4x8 ft size press, most like me, have the 40x60 inch size.
Hinging this piece is asking for trouble and overall you will be disappointed in the final look.
When it come time to hang it, try to use a pinch cleat system as it will spread the weight out over the wall and not limit it to a couple of tiny spots. A suggestion is called "Z Bar".. it is a very flat aluminum system that screws to the back of the frame and to the wall.
If you want to ask on a framers forum go to: http://www.thegrumble.com/ (http://www.thegrumble.com/) This is the Picture Framers Grumble and there are a few of your mates from down under on there already.
good luck with it.
-
The new approach to this problem is to mount the prints on aluminium sheeting. One hour ago I just came back from SML here in Toronto where they will be mounting a 14" * 60" pano for me. I first saw this technology at an art/photography event in Hamburg Germany recently, and it is VERY slick. By far the cleanest, flattest, safest mounting and display technology on the market. The aluminium sheet is about 1/8 or so inches thick, and it is rigidified with aluminium stripping around the four sides on the back of the sheet, hence invisible in front. Holes are made on the top strip, so the whole thing can be screwed into a strip of wood anchored to the wall, invisibly. They mount the print onto the aluminium sheet using an ultra-thin archival skin with adhesive on both sides. This is done in a machine which assures that the whole thing will be completely flat with no air pockets or creases. I'm informed most galleries here in Toronto are using this method now. I don't know where you are, but check it out. While it is expensive, I don't think it works out to more than a good framing job.
-
Mark,
If you know ,who is the mfg. of the laminate material covering your print? Are they using a roll laminator or hot press?
Lastly what paper did you print on and the sheen of the laminate they are using. I have 6 or 7 sample rolls here I have been experimenting with and am still searching for a sheen I can live with.
-
Dan - no laminate. I don't want anything on the surface of the image. I printed it on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk and it will be hanging on a wall inside a house with moderate illumination, so it should last a very long time without deteriorating.
-
Dan - no laminate. I don't want anything on the surface of the image. I printed it on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk and it will be hanging on a wall inside a house with moderate illumination, so it should last a very long time without deteriorating.
Did you print on your 3800 or have it printed for you?
Alan
-
Can't print that length in a 3800. Did it with a colleague in his 7900.
-
Sorry Mark I misunderstood.
When you said 2 sided adhesive I was thinking laminate.
You mean the aluminum or Dibond had the 2 sided adhesive?
Appoliges to Josh, no intent to hijack your thread.
-
Sorry Mark I misunderstood.
When you said 2 sided adhesive I was thinking laminate.
You mean the aluminum or Dibond had the 2 sided adhesive?
The two-side adhesive these guys are using comes separately in a roll with a backing which gets peeled off to expose the adhesive on both sides of the sheet, which is the meat in the sandwich between the aluminium and the photo - one side hits the aluminium and the other the back of the photo - all squeegeed together in a machine.
-
The new approach to this problem is to mount the prints on aluminium sheeting. One hour ago I just came back from SML here in Toronto where they will be mounting a 14" * 60" pano for me. I first saw this technology at an art/photography event in Hamburg Germany recently, and it is VERY slick. By far the cleanest, flattest, safest mounting and display technology on the market. The aluminium sheet is about 1/8 or so inches thick, and it is rigidified with aluminium stripping around the four sides on the back of the sheet, hence invisible in front. Holes are made on the top strip, so the whole thing can be screwed into a strip of wood anchored to the wall, invisibly. They mount the print onto the aluminium sheet using an ultra-thin archival skin with adhesive on both sides. This is done in a machine which assures that the whole thing will be completely flat with no air pockets or creases. I'm informed most galleries here in Toronto are using this method now. I don't know where you are, but check it out. While it is expensive, I don't think it works out to more than a good framing job.
This method is quite common here in Sweden and EU.
1.8 mm aluminum.
40 x 40 inch mounting is around $ 250 and $50 extra for the invisible alu frame on the back. Almost floating on the wall,
very slick and sturdy. And very high archival standard due to "natural" material. (except the adhesive, then)
/Sven
-
You're getting better value than I am here. Mine is 16*60 inches and the total cost will be about $240 before 13% sales tax.
-
As far as my education on adhesives...
I have been taught that there is no such thing as any pressure sensative adhesive or "reversable" adhesive being truly archival despite all the claims and tests.
While there are many inert materials for use as backings, the choice adhesive itself can negate the archival quality of the mount.
I say do what you need to do to use 'relatively stable' non acid materials and enjoy the print.
I think there is way too much hype about framing for millenia,unless your photography will hang in the Louvre...
Chances are it will come off the wall at some point and go to storage in the future,when it comes time for redecorating anyhow;-)
Good points David.
The stastitics I have seen show 7 years as the average pictures will hang in the home or office. (Excluding family photos)
More concern should be put on protecting the originals in your hard drive, reprints are super cheap.
-
Thanks all for the thoughts and advice. Framing really is another 400 pound gorilla.
In the end I have settled on a dry mount to acid free foam core with a hand finished solid timber frame and UV Acryllic. Total damage - $1000.
The frame and acryllic bearing the brunt of that cost. But it should look good and will sit flat in the frame. The acryillic is being spaced off the print.
-
As far as my education on adhesives...
I have been taught that there is no such thing as any pressure sensative adhesive or "reversable" adhesive being truly archival despite all the claims and tests.
While there are many inert materials for use as backings, the choice adhesive itself can negate the archival quality of the mount.
I say do what you need to do to use 'relatively stable' non acid materials and enjoy the print.
I think there is way too much hype about framing for millenia,unless your photography will hang in the Louvre...
Chances are it will come off the wall at some point and go to storage in the future,when it comes time for redecorating anyhow;-)
I'm curious to know from what authoritative source you "have been taught". Not that what you were taught would necessarily strike me as incorrect. The term "archival" can be used quite loosely. When I think of "archival", I think of "no material change for at least 100 years". Now what is a "material change", and who will be around in 100 years to know what it looked like 100 years earlier, or will measurements be passed down in peoples' testaments from generation to generation? Of course there are accelerated light testing technologies, but also debate about their predictive accuracy - I don't pretend to know the physical and chemical interactions well enough to opine on any of it. But when photo framers tell me something is "archival", they probably know at least as little as I do about it, so I think what they really mean is that the material they are using is non-acidic, drawing an inference therefrom that as long as it is non-acidic it will not affect the media. Is that necessarily true? I have no idea. So for that reason alone (and of course no other) I can't even aspire to hanging a few of my photos in the Louvre - oh well...... :-) But I still want them to last a while in my house and beyond. I think long after we are gone our children and grandchildren may see merit and interest in some of the images we leave behind.
-
Interesting David - are you providing aluminium mounting for large photographs? If so what adhesive are you using, how "safe" do you consider it, and what do you charge per sq. ft. for the whole package? I have a sense from what I hear of the European pricing that we may be a fair bit higher in Toronto, but it's hard to compare without having apples to apples specs.
-
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".
-
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! ;)
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.unitedmfrs.com/cart/detail.cfm?item=3071)
Miracle Muck (http://raphaelstoday.com/miraclemuck.aspx)
-
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!