Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: VDye on August 26, 2011, 12:44:54 pm
-
I like the look of this process for some of my fine art images. I am looking for information on the process. I am not interested in doing it myself.
What kind of archivability does this have? I was concerned with some posts on another thread saying this process does not last for long. I sell archival prints so this is a huge concern for me.
What labs have anyone used? Was the product good?
I have read about the different methods, Optimount and Diatec, mostly interested in how long it lasts.
Thanks,
Victoria
-
From my research this is the place to direct your questions. They do a hell of a job but are quite expensive. However, they will talk to you about your options. I don't think anyone knows as much about it as they do.
http://www.laumont.com/services/mounting-lamination.html
Laumont does both Diasec , face mounting with a silicone liquid, which is the best way to do this BY FAR, but very tedious and few know how to do it well. This is the original method developed in Switzerland and can last for decades if done well. It can be very effective visually.
And, the other less permanent method, which uses thermo plastic ( heat ) mounting. The problem with this pressure/heat adhesive method is that even if it IS done right, which is extremely rare, eventually this is going to become "delaminated" and pull of the mount. How long it will last is a crap shoot. I've had friends who had work in galleries that de-laminated in a matter of weeks, and turned them off to it forever. This method also requires very smooth gloss papers with inkjet. C prints seem to work the best. Our attempt with even a fairly smooth HP Satin inkjet paper was hit and miss due to the slight texture. We had to switch to a totally gloss surface, and they even screwed that up.
The deal is with face mounting is the lab has to be totally ultra-clean and have totally pristine mounting rollers if you are using the pressure method. MOst of these lab use the same equipment for print mounting and plexi-face mounting. Not good. I've had this done twice in Atlanta by different labs and they screwed it up several times. I gave up after 4 40x60 prints were ruined. The primary reason being the rollers of the press that adheres the mounting adhesive were not clean and stuck to the plexi, and in the other lab's case the mounting area was less than perfectly clean of debris and resulted in debris under the plexi which was horrendous.
Almost no commercial labs do the good Diasec method because the cost is prohibitive and the other methods are usually used for non-permanent commercial ad photo uses that don't have to be totally free of dirt and bubbles.
I've talked to several people in different parts of the US who bought expensive equipment do both methods and wish they had never gotten involved with it. It is very demanding to do it right and very time consuming. Laumont does a lot of it though for galleries in NY and I've seen their work and it is first rate, if you have the cash.
j
-
I read about a reasonably new venture that specializes in acrylic prints, called AcrylicPix. They were touted by Andrew Darlow in his newsletter. I haven't tried them yet, but wonder if anybody else on LL has used them, and how their direct printing compares to the face mount process in print quality and durability?
http://www.acrylicpix.com/
-
THis is really bad idea. I had dinner with Henry Wilhelm, and of course if you know my background. I had to bring this subject up and I think he new it was going to be brought up. He knows how I feel about processes that inherently hurt the value or life expectancy of an image.
Those of you who do not my background I helped design the Evercolor process and in 1994 made the first pigment inkjet photograph. The goal was to turn dye based printing processes to have everything being worked on in the pigment printing technology. I figured if we could change this idea of dyes to pigments then the whole photographic color printing would move to archival development.
So you have brief idea of my mindset. This idea has no merits outside of display. But selling these prints, when they get scratched 'the plexi' the prints will look horrible and not have any display purposes or value to your customers.
There is an old saying never ever let your customers see the faults in your work. But Henry and discussed this at great length and we both said there is no upside to this idea. Just use AR truVue or Optium atleast you have some value. Tim
-
I recently saw an exhibition of Catherine Nelson's (http://www.dominikmerschgallery.com/Guest.aspx?id=70) highly manipulated photography in Sydney. She would have sold close to US$200 000 worth of face mounted prints here and she is represented in Melbourne and Paris. I could easily see here selling over US$500 000 in prints from this series. It would be interesting to see what will happen in the future to these prints. The workmanship on the framing was of a very high standard and the one and a half metre square prints looked fantastic.
Cheers,
-
PlexiFlex (http://www.plexiflex.net/home) does this. But be warned, their customer service is terrible. I tried to email them after Darwin Wiggett blogged about their prints and got no response. I finally had to call them to get any information. Darwin's written an updated blog post (http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/seriously-great-prints/) about them and their service.
-
I will wait and laugh as they the photographer and the gallery gets sued for selling a product that has no upside once the images gets scratches on it or if its made with chromagenic dyes it also fades quickly. The higher the price the faster the law suit. I'm not saying they don't look very good. When Iris prints and polaroid prints were made they looked good, but the lawsuits happened and its just not good for the photographic industry. T
-
The one who knows most about face mounting is Martin C Jürgens:
http://www.martinjuergens.net/Assets/download/Queens_Thesis_Juergens.pdf
And everything you want to know about the rest of digital printing:
http://www.martinjuergens.net/deutsch/buch.htm
/Sven
-
Sven
Interesting article but I'm not sure about why he would age plexi at 55-65C. Don't know about you but I don't know any of my customers that would be viewing the images at those temps. I didn't gather that he did testing using light aging like Wilhelm or others. Wouldn't that make more sense.
I do agree that for 'archival' prints that I don't think I would want a print I bought (Ansel Adams, etc) face mounted. But for the consumer who is using it to decorate a home I would ask why not if they are happy with their purchase I the maker discloses the downsides to acrylic mounting.
-
Do a forum search on this - it has been very well covered in these pages. There is no need to repeat that.
Laumont does both Diasec , face mounting with a silicone liquid, which is the best way to do this BY FAR, but very tedious and few know how to do it well. This is the original method developed in Switzerland and can last for decades if done well. It can be very effective visually
Laumont does NOT do Diasec, they do their own version of it using liquid silicone face mounting.
As you say the process was developed in Switzerland, and Diasec is a licensed process with propitiatory silicone. There is nobody in the USA with a full Diasec license. Including Laumont.
Be careful about using them as well. If they trash your prints when they mis-mount them, they say it is not their problem, and give you no compensation.
-
I have been in the Photofinishing,Art, and Framing business since 1972 and have seen and sold many products that lay claim as being 'archival', 'permanent', or have 'preservation quality', come and go with the passing wind.
There are just way too many variables from the quiality of the materials and labor used to manufacture them , to quality of the end users viewing and storage conditions, to be able to guarantee that you can expect these prints to last longer than a reasonable product lifetime.
Truth is if you like the look, are willing to accept the fact that your prints may not realistically last for more than 5-10 years in a non degradable state of enjoyable viewing ...fine.
Don't put your reputation on the line by trying to represent these products as anything other than the "Decorative Art" that they are!
David
-
I would like to thank everyone for their opinions. It is as I feared, the process looks cool but is not archival. I will continue to look into other methods.
Victoria
-
I agree with the conclusion, but I just wanted to rebut one of the issues raised in the discussion.
When acrylic is scratched (and it can be, fairly easily), it is no big deal to take the scratches out with the right polishing compounds. Most minor scratches will come out in seconds. Even rather deep gouges can be worked out with some effort and skill.
Obviously, if you go at the surface with an awl you can damage it beyond repair, but minor sideswipes are no big deal.
-
'Archival' is one of those terms that is thrown around, sometimes by people with little understanding of it's meaning.
Archival in this context means products that stand the test of time and are produced in a method that is PH neutral.
It refers to the ability of paper or other items to withstand the effects of time. In the case of printed items and Photographs, the ability of the images to retain their color or blackness over long periods of time. In the case of paper, it is made with the intent of having an extended lifespan without discoloration or deterioration.
Let me start by stating that I am a Diasec® licence holder. (yes it is correct that there are no Diasec® producers in North America).
Diasec® was the first method of face mounting to acrylic. It was developed in Europe for the advertising industry primarily. After time, the fine art photographic industry came to realise that although it is not a true conservation method of mounting (it is not reversible), images that are face mounted with Diasec®, are holding their colours and paper integrity. Images from the early 1970's are still going well. The process contains no plasticisers and cures to be an inert product (in the PH sense). the acrylic and aluminium materials used are also inert product in the conservation sense, and these combine to ensure a long life of the Diasec image.
Many factors determine whether a product is 'archival'or not. The paper and the printing process of photos is one major factor. We have all seen images fade or deteriorate before our eyes due to poor paper quality or poor printing processes. These items are sometimes mounted or framed and it is usually the framer or mounting person who is called on first, to explain themselves when images lose condition.
Many of the world's great art galleries including Metropolitan Musem of Art, Tate Galleries, etc, etc all carry Diasec® mounted images in their collections.
They often get around the 'archival',factor by taking two copies of the image intothe collection - one to be 'archived' and one for display.
Some golden rules when face mounting or any other form of non reversible mounting such as self adhesive boards, wet mounting etc.NEVER mount anything that cannot be reproduced. Shall I say it again?...NEVER mount anything that cannot be reproduced.
When you get this sort of thing done, use experienced businesses with a strong reputation. Many many things come into the equation of a quality and successful permanent mounting job.
If you truely want an 'archival" process for your image (by this I assume you mean reversible and will not cause deterioration of the photos), you will need to hinge the photos and place it in a frame with a UV glazing and unbuffered (yes folks - photos like acids!!) mat boards that contain Zealite microchamber technology and a corflute or aluminium backing with a cotton rag barrier to absorb moisture). You may not like the cost though! You cannot glue, stick, adhere any photos if you want 'archival" - hinging is the only 'archival' option.
But let me tell you, not many are doing this. We work with lots of internationally known fine art photographers with their images in major art galleries, worth $100,000's and some of them do so, but many do not. One of our clients recently sold an image of $1,000,000.00 (and the work was not 'archival".) - No we did not mount or frame it.
Scratches on acrylic are indeed becoming a smaller issue as there are great scratch removal products available. You can also use scratch resistant acrylic if this is such an issue for you. We use it some high traffic jobs such as the 2.4 metre image going in a lightbox in a lift (elevator) in a major city skyscraper.
Laminate face mounting products (or any sort of laminate) are not 'archival" and they have a high failure rate. even the experts have a 15% wastage of images they try and face mount this way. Less experienced people have a failure rate of 30 -50%. Trying to work with a highly static material such as acrylic and a sticky laminate film with no dust particles falling on the image is impossible. This is one of the great benifits of working with Diasec (as an aside). Even when you get the image to work, you face the problem of having the photo backed Often with a PVC material which caused degradation of the photo over time from the Chlorides. The acrylic expands a lot and this causes the face mount laminate to create a 'spider web' appearance over time on the face of the image as it is stretched when the acrylic expands etc. I have gone on long enough I am sure. If you are still reading this, I hope it helps.
-
Almost no commercial labs do the good Diasec method because the cost is prohibitive /quote]
Diasec is not prohibitive. I charge about the same as the guys who use laminates to face mount.
-
Let me start by stating that I am a Diasec® licence holder. (yes it is correct that there are no Diasec® producers in North America).
Mandy,
Thanks for that eloquent explaination of the term "archival"
It is many times misunderstood, misinterpreted, and unscrupulously misused.
Preservation is a far better general term ;-)
I am very curious as to why there are no licensed Diasec vendors here in the states .Do you know if it is a matter of not being able to legally control the license, or could it be a matter of exporting or importing the material (patent rights infringments)?
there are a couple who are misrepresenting themselves saying their process is AKA Diasec
David
-
If you have a good laminating setup, you can facemount to glass or acrylic using a product like seal Optimount or Optimount Ultra.
Here's a decent video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZBxJglc5b4) that shows the process ... it makes it look pretty easy but I haven't tried it yet so I have no clue how easy/difficult it might actually be.
-
WOW,
The term "Archival" again, yuk! This has been discussed ad infinitum and I'm sorry Mandy, your ambiguous definition is no better or eloquent than any other.
'Archival' is one of those terms that is thrown around, sometimes by people with little understanding of it's meaning.
Archival in this context means products that stand the test of time and are produced in a method that is PH neutral.
Isn't "Stand the test of time" ambiguous at best? Seriously, what does that mean? 100 years? 200 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? 30,000 Years (some cave paintings have survived this long)
I doubt many if any photographers here or elsewhere will print a photo that somebody will want in its current state in 1000 years (a very short period of time, geologically speaking).
Diasec® was the first method of face mounting to acrylic. It was developed in Europe for the advertising industry primarily.
OT, I'm not being pugnacious, but am always curious why people state "It's from Europe" or "It was developed in Europe" do people say "It was developed in North America" or "I'm going to North America"
they are after all both continents. I do suppose some people think Africa is a country! Diasec was developed in Switzerland; my favorite country!
NEVER mount anything that cannot be reproduced. Shall I say it again?...NEVER mount anything that cannot be reproduced.
You can say it 1000 times and it still is nonsense! IOW, EVERYTHING, including the Mona Lisa can be reproduced and I mean so well in fact that it will fool 99.99999% of all people including all the experts.
Just look at the forgeries that have fooled everybody, need I list them? If somebody can duplicate a Da Vinci so well that they have to study and test it for years to verify its authenticity doesn't it become the "original"? I'm sorry, I'm not hung up on the art's history as most are, but rather the art itself. A Van Gogh is only worth $100 million today because of the hype! Many works by Van Gogh were burned, thrown out, put into storage, etc. because they weren't deemed valuable. Now the "pundits" try to preserve them because of their "value" :-)
Diasec, they try to sell it as the original formula to Coke or KFC, but seriously, it's silicone! I know, it's all in the primer. However at the end of the day, ALL photographs can be replicated and I can only imagine that in the future it'll even be easier. There is the rare (very rare) photograph that sells to some idiot with more money than brains for over $1 million, but it's not like the crazy art (paintings) world and never will be. There isn't a photograph or painting that can't be forged well enough to fool everybody.
"archival" give me a break, it's a BS term and has no meaning regarding the "art" world. Preservation, sure, I'll agree, we can preserve art for a certain amount of time, however as time has shown, NOTHING is forever! The earth isn't forever, who cares if a photograph or painting will last 1000 years?
-
I agree with a lot of what you say Gemmtech and David.
We prefer to use the word "preservation"' also.
Two of my favorite words are Ärchival"and ( my personal "favorite!! ) ""äcid free"" !!
I sometimes feel like screaming when people bandy these words around.
I also love the term ''archival ink" . What the heck is that?
Well this is best for a different thread.
Diasec is not in USA or Canada for a variety of reasons. This will not always be the case.
-
An even worse term that has been perpetrated on the masses is
"COLLECTABLE"
-
Does anyone know a company in Toronto the does the Seal Optimount method?
-
There may not be anyone actively doing it, but you might find there are companies that specialize in mounting and laminating services that have the equipment and might be willing to set up to do it for you.
-
Try Photocraft in Boulder, CO. Www.Pcraft.com.
-
Concerns about a facemounted photo being "archival" regardless of exactly how defined are
virtually always pretty senseless. What's being mounted in practically every case these days
is a digital print which is totally replaceable. And I don't know anyone who buys a decorative
something for their home, who expects (or even would want) that piece to last 100 years.
Facemounting is superior because it does what a display technology is supposed to do -
provide a visually superior product. Concerns about scratching are pointless. As are concerns
about delamination - these are concerns mainly manufactured by photo frame shop operators
who don't know how to facemount a photo.
-
Hi,
Could you explain this "Facemounting is superior because it does what a display technology is supposed to do - provide a visually superior product" a bit further? In what way superior and superior compared to what?
Allmost all gallery and museum shows that I've seen (I've seen many) featuring facemounted images have been dissapointing because unless the images are shown in a very dark room and with a dark opposing wall facing the photos and with well designed lighting, all you see is reflections. White walls and either daylight or very broad spotlights are the worst especially when the photos have lots of dark areas in them.
What about replaceability? With an edition of 6 (or 3 or 7+1), there won't be any replacements (digital or not) unless you find someone else who also bought from the same edition and is willing to sell.
Cheers,
J
-
Allmost all gallery and museum shows that I've seen (I've seen many) featuring facemounted images have been dissapointing because unless the images are shown in a very dark room and with a dark opposing wall facing the photos and with well designed lighting, all you see is reflections. White walls and either daylight or very broad spotlights are the worst especially when the photos have lots of dark areas in them.
What about replaceability? With an edition of 6 (or 3 or 7+1), there won't be any replacements (digital or not) unless you find someone else who also bought from the same edition and is willing to sell.
Cheers,
J
I"m not necessarily agreeing with the post ... personally I think correctly mounted and framed fine art paper is stunning as well, and yields some texture and character that face mounting eliminates.
But I also like face mounting, and reflections are no different than using glass - displaying any image requires care in position and lighting. Additionally, if you face mount to museum glass or reflection controlled acrylic, the results are pretty stunning. Peter Lik is probably the most successful landscape photographer right now, and his work is face mounted to lexan. Rodney Lough also face mounts, and Michael fatali's presentation is superb, face mounted on museum glass and framed so the image appears to float.
As far as being an edition of 6 ( I assume you are referring to the recent image sold by Gursky ), guessing that replacement of a limited edition is acceptable in maintaining the edition as long as the original is destroyed.
-
. . . .if you live in the States and you want diasec. . . .then what? are you s.o.o.l? or what? also. . . .my understanding is that you can't use diasec with inkjet prints.
rh
-
. . . .if you live in the States and you want diasec. . . .then what? are you s.o.o.l? or what? also. . . .my understanding is that you can't use diasec with inkjet prints.
rh
which official diasec agent told you that? almost all our diasec mounts are from inkjet prints and they're wonderful.
-
As far as being an edition of 6 ( I assume you are referring to the recent image sold by Gursky ), guessing that replacement of a limited edition is acceptable in maintaining the edition as long as the original is destroyed.
You might be mistaken on that last part. Insurance may have another view on this. I know of a conceptual piece of art (based on photography) that was more ore less destroyed by a flood in a museum's basement. The artist was willing to make a new copy following the logic of conceptual art. The museum agreed. The insurance company not. They were not sure whether the value was in the old piece or in the new product. You can see it again in full glory, the new one is made on top of the old one. Restoration in a new sense.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
a couple of years ago i contacted laumont about diasec-mounting a few of my images which had been printed on hahnemeuhl paper. this person wasn't quite sure that it could be done. maybe it had something to do with the paper (photo rag) and not the fact that it was printed on an inkjet printer. if you're diasec-mounting (plexi-mounting) is it best to use a particular type of inkjet paper - baryta rather than photo rag - etc.?
rh
-
Hi,
I was not referring to any particular artist although Gursky is a good example. In Europe the fashion has been to limit the editions to pretty low numbers (except in Lumas gallery where the prices are considerably lower) and most of the succesful artist I know or hear about usually sell their editions completely.
Anyway, even if all other parties agreed on making a new facemounted image when someone dropped a Diasec on the floor, what happens if the artists has destroyed the original files or the artist is dead or or or...? I've seen a couple broken Diasecs with no replacements. Actually the only replacements I've seen have been produced because the original pieces have had a defect (bubbles, delamination etc) as new and the defected ones have been destroyed purposefully.
There's no doubt that facemounted images can look stunning if and only if they are lit and displayed properly. That is kinda rare though and any tactile experience is limited to plastic blingbling (except for the lucky fellas carrying a huge diasec packed in torn bubble wrap to the seventh floor). Facemounting on Schott Mirogard might look very nice indeed. When taking into account the difficulties in cutting it and the already astronomical price of this very fine museum glass I have yet to see one. Is there anti-reflection acrylic without magenta/green reflections? If yes, that should work perfectly.
Yes, I'm not against facemounting but there are severe limitations that many people don't realise when they think of buying/making one as home decor.
Cheers,
J
I"m not necessarily agreeing with the post ... personally I think correctly mounted and framed fine art paper is stunning as well, and yields some texture and character that face mounting eliminates.
But I also like face mounting, and reflections are no different than using glass - displaying any image requires care in position and lighting. Additionally, if you face mount to museum glass or reflection controlled acrylic, the results are pretty stunning. Peter Lik is probably the most successful landscape photographer right now, and his work is face mounted to lexan. Rodney Lough also face mounts, and Michael fatali's presentation is superb, face mounted on museum glass and framed so the image appears to float.
As far as being an edition of 6 ( I assume you are referring to the recent image sold by Gursky ), guessing that replacement of a limited edition is acceptable in maintaining the edition as long as the original is destroyed.
-
Rodney Lough also face mounts, and Michael fatali's presentation is superb, face mounted on museum glass and framed so the image appears to float.
Wayne,
Do you know who the shops are that do face mounting on museum glass? I've asked the people I use in Wilmington DE to do it for me and they don't want to even try as they are sure the glass will break going through the laminator. What do they back it with?
Thanks.
Rob P
-
You might be mistaken on that last part. Insurance may have another view on this. I know of a conceptual piece of art (based on photography) that was more ore less destroyed by a flood in a museum's basement. The artist was willing to make a new copy following the logic of conceptual art. The museum agreed. The insurance company not. They were not sure whether the value was in the old piece or in the new product. You can see it again in full glory, the new one is made on top of the old one. Restoration in a new sense.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Interesting ... so the insurance company would rather write out the big check than accept the fact that with some mediums a "perfect" duplicate can replace the "original" (since there is no such thing as an "original" in photography, unless the means to make that original lost).
So technically, does that mean if you create a limited edition of "x" prints, once you sell that edition out all means to create those original copies should be destroyed to insure their "value"?
-
Wayne,
Do you know who the shops are that do face mounting on museum glass? I've asked the people I use in Wilmington DE to do it for me and they don't want to even try as they are sure the glass will break going through the laminator. What do they back it with?
Thanks.
Rob P
We're just getting it setup in my shop and have mounted about 10 prints, both Kodak Metallic (traditional chemical paper) as well as Moab's new metallic inkjet paper to several types of glass. We are using optically clear double sided adhesive and are bringing in Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl and may even try some Fujiflex.
As long as the rollers of the laminator are clean the pressure of the rollers doesn't seem problematic. I"ve experimented with increasing pressures and so far haven't broke a piece of glass yet, and I normally make 3 to 5 passes of the glass through the rollers at greater pressure than when I'm mounting to a board or applying laminating film.
My biggest challenge is to get a "perfect" mount without any "silvering" (caused by small bubbles). Currently I'm using a manual laminator and lose control of the print for the last inch trying to turn and control things at the same time, so I end up with a few minor spots (you have to look very hard to see them) . I've shown them to many customers and none of them feel they are unacceptable but I want them perfect. We are just getting ready to order a wide enough laminator to do large prints and it will be motorized so I think I can maintain control without the last inch "flipping" onto the adhesive.
It's hard to keep things perfectly clean, but so far the few small specs of dust are almost impossible to see.
If they are afraid of breaking the glass (it isn't as fragile as you might think) you can also get "museum" acrylic (http://www.tru-vue.com/Tru-Vue/Products/49/), same anti reflective quality's.
-
Interesting ... so the insurance company would rather write out the big check than accept the fact that with some mediums a "perfect" duplicate can replace the "original" (since there is no such thing as an "original" in photography, unless the means to make that original lost).
So technically, does that mean if you create a limited edition of "x" prints, once you sell that edition out all means to create those original copies should be destroyed to insure their "value"?
The insurance company had to write a big cheque anyway. Yes, it is about the difference between art value and media costs.
That limited edition policy has been used for the graphic arts and even for sculpture. Plate images wiped, molds destroyed. It would not surprise me if there was some relation to the birth of photography and that practice in the graphic arts. Of course not every artist, print shop or gallery could be trusted on the right bookkeeping. See: http://www.dalifraud.com/abuses.html There are more. Much further back intaglio plates would have been used for many editions during the artist's lifetime if not longer. Reworked by the artist when worn down or the style no longer in fashion or with a changed artistic view on the subject. Often as copies of paintings but also as originals. Rubens, Rembrandt, Segers, etc represent the last.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Wayne...
Check out this listing on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180764249720#ht_7922wt_1398 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180764249720#ht_7922wt_1398)
It seems like a good price compared to what some of the others are going for.
-
Wayne...
Check out this listing on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180764249720#ht_7922wt_1398 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180764249720#ht_7922wt_1398)
It seems like a good price compared to what some of the others are going for.
it does ... almost too good. Worth checking out though, thx.
-
My apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I'm hoping I stand a better chance of getting quick feedback by posting to a thread that already has a number of followers with experience face mounting.
I have a client that is in need of having a 40" x 52" image face mounted to 1/2" thick acrylic. So far, all of the companies I have spoken with seem to max out at 1/4" thick material. She has samples that were done for her a couple of years ago by Harvest Productions, but they no longer do this, now that they have moved on to the less discriminating, but more financially rewarding market of being Costco's print supplier.
Have any of you seen vendors with setups to utilize this process with extra thick material? We would prefer a U.S. based company, if possible.
Thanks,
Ron
-
1/4" is the standard for face mounting to acrylic but I do not see why you cannot use 1/2". Our mounting machine has a 1" roller gap (which I also believe is a standard size) so we could do this on our machine. We have not done it before because we have not had any requests for it but if you are interested feel free to contact me off list. Maybe other shops do not want to do it because either there roller gap is not wide enough or they do not want to have to order 1/2" thick material.
Best,
Patrick Allen
KenAllenStudios (http://www.KenAllenStudios.com)
www.PatrickAllenPhotography.com (http://www.PatrickAllenPhotography.com)
-
Recently saw a 24 x 90 pano print face mounted on reflection-free Optium, which is like acrylic. It's the hatchet and acid proof stuff most museums are using on their Gauguin's. The print buyer paid more for the sheet of Optium than he did for the print! But the effect is that there is just this print hanging in air suspended by nothing. You really have to look hard to find the teensiest light bulb reflections which are much less apparent than with museum glass. Last time I checked a 40 x 60 x 1/8 sheet would cost about $1,000. Don't let people get too close, they'll try to poke their Slurpee-coated fingers right through the surface.
How do put a price on presentation effect? I like the depth I see in face mounted prints, but I also feel the so-called drama of the effect is much over-stated in the literature. And lousy fprints are made to look even worse by the face mount process. Bare, high gloss prints look just as snappy, and I am very much liking the looks of some of the new high gloss canvases which can be presented bare and are pretty stunning on the wall even in places with reflection problems.
Also, I just don't buy into the replacement concept. Good luck even finding most artists 5 years down the road. If you do find him, he'll be a real estate agent by then and uninterested and unable to make a new print.
-
Does anyone know a company in Toronto the does the Seal Optimount method?
smlsolutions.ca
-
I don't know if you are still looking but for anyone researching this at a later time would do well to look into
http://www.nevadaartprinters.com
They did the work for Art Wolfe at the Natural Wonders Gallery / Rotella Gallery in Las Vegas.
-
smlsolutions.ca
As cool as their website is, after 3 minutes of searching and also going to their other site, onesquarefoot, I cannot seem to find a price list other than for printing a 1 foot by 1 foot picture on satin paper. I was looking for the acrylic mount stuff, or even anything in this area, but their either don't seem to push this as they are doing so many things, or they are making it really hard to find. Maybe I'm just not that bright, but if they are trying to sell me something, they should make it easier to find.
-
I clicked on the link provided above and within 2 seconds (literally) I brought up their price list by going to Ordering > Price List
-
I clicked on the link provided above and within 2 seconds (literally) I brought up their price list by going to Ordering > Price List
Oh.. my post was in reference to the link provided just above the last one... the smlsolutions.ca in Toronto. I can see how the link for nevadaartprinters provides exactly what I would be looking for. Night and day difference. :)