Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: weingrub on November 13, 2013, 12:06:48 am
-
All -
I have about 30+ images (and growing) that I want to facemount to acrylic with a dibond backer. I'm thinking that I want them 18x12 or 24x18. I could pay (hah!) to have them all done, but that will likely cost upwards of $6000 easy (approx $200 each), and hence I can't. And as my photography improves and I get more images that I want to print and face mount, then I will continue to go broke.
So I am thinking about doing it myself instead by ordering prints, buying a Drytac ML25 cold roller, precut acrylic and dibond, and then laminating them myself. Is this a really bad idea?
That's the main question. If the answer is yes, please tell me so ;-)
If the answer is no, is the Drytac ML25 a good entry point? Anyone know of dibond and/or acrylic distributors (who will precut, perfectly-ish) near Denver or Boulder? Any other good advice?
Many many thanks,
weingrub
-
All -
So I am thinking about doing it myself instead by ordering prints, buying a Drytac ML25 cold roller, precut acrylic and dibond, and then laminating them myself. Is this a really bad idea?
That's the main question. If the answer is yes, please tell me so ;-)
If the answer is no, is the Drytac ML25 a good entry point?
Trickiest thing with facemount is dust. Dust and static. I'd want to have both hands free to zap the dust. I'd also look at getting some sort of antistatic device, as, when you peel the release liners from the dibond and the acrylic, you build up a beautiful charge. Static on the dibond can be reduced by wiping with isopropyl alcohol. You don't want that anywhere near acrylic.
I'd look at the JM26 - having two hands for the material will make life much easier.
-
Is face mounting the only display method you can appreciate?
You would not dare to exhibit bare prints say RC Satin mounted on aluminium, sprayed with a protection spray like Hahnemühle's? Way cheaper method if done by a good lamination shop. Avoiding all the hassle of doing facemounting yourself.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
I do facemounting for myself but do not offer it for sale. The learning curve in itself is not so bad it is just the things you have to deal with already mentioned by Ernst and Richard.
When you have several free hours do a search hear on LuLa on face mounting and you will find tons of threads. For me it is the dust more then anything else.
I am working to get my studio more sterile and have just purchased an Idylis air purifier as well as one of their hudmidifers. Trying to keep my hudmitiy close to 50% should help with the static.
To show you how difficult this can be I believe my failure rate is at around 50% and I have some pretty good equipment. One speck of dust at the very end of the process and you throw the whole thing away.
Its a great look but If I were you I would farm it out.
-
Face mounting to acrylic can look sharp but it does permanently bond your print to a surface that is easily scratched or messed up if someone uses the wrong kind of cleaner on it.
-
Thanks for everyone's responses!
Then where to begin in trying to make a dusty basement dust free. Plastic sheeting for make-shift walls, humidifier, HEPA air filter, dust roller (hence jm26 hands-free). Ugh. What else?
What ill-effects does the static have? Is it simply a bad dust attractor?
Ernst, I can appreciate other mediums as well, eg dibond etc, but I just really like the acrylic and I think my B/W pics will look great under it.
I'm in such a painful quandary over this - do it myself or spend the big big bucks. I feel that I can't sell them until I print them (nicely) and I can't print them until I sell them. Around and around we go....
;-) Thanks,
Rob
-
Are you planning on using inkjet for the prints? While mounting c prints such as fujiflex and kodak metallic works well, face mounting inkjet to me is hit or miss, and I’m not sure how the bond between ink/inkjet receptor coat and paper backing will hold up over time. Maybe OK with resin back papers such as epson luster, maybe not so good with standard papers. The issue of the surface not being perfectly smooth if using pigment prints may create some bonding issues and cause some silvering.
Doing it yourself, while not a daunting process (plenty of youtube vides showing how to do it), the kill rate can climb pretty fast. The larger the print, the more challenging the process, and acrylic is definitely harder than glass for sizes up to about 40-50” (mainly because it’s easier to control the static.
After working on this for about a year, the thing that’s helped the most is one of these http://kinetronics.com/store/iag.html . Before that a large print was impossible.
I’m a do it yourself kind of guy as well, run a small camera store with a full print and frame shop so we’ve been trying to introduce this as a product. But to be honest you will spend a large amount of time making these, and you may find that it’s actually more economical outsourcing them to start and if you start selling them, you should have enough margin to handle the extra cost. Even if you do it yourself, you need to pay yourself the effort and time, so it really shouldn’t make a difference in your selling price.
-
I still think Face mounting is just a stupid idea. I'm sure I will get shit for this. But even AIPAD and Getty and Amon Carter as well as the Smithsonian think this is a bad idea for the collectibility of photographs. I'm still waiting to see the reports from Wilhelm or AArdenburg about this longevity ratings. But the ratings will be some what false since the test print will printed from a tube not a processor. The paper was originally designed for tube processing which has a longer longevity. But nearly 100% of the images are made with processors which can bring down the longevity very substantially. Then you have the glue which will interact with the dyes and lower the longevity. Then you spider scratches and scratches that will ruin the image. None of those galleries or museums think this is good thing. Tim
-
So what's your preference then, Tim? What sort of mounting/framing do you prefer?
-
Here's maybe a strange question, but what if you have two people working on the face mount? One to roll and pull, and the other to blow a couple cans of air? Would the success ratio be better?
This is a struggle…
Thanks,
Rob
-
I got so upset at the industry that I decided to create my own paper and my own proprietary coating to replace glass. But I've been designing pigment printing since the early 1990's.
But I hated the fact I had to use glass or the Optium Plexi to protect my prints. Everyone said it was impossible but I have always said impossible is possible, it just takes money, times and experts to make it happen. It took nearly 1.5 years and a dream of mine for many years when I met Ansel Adams and he was complaining about glass. It also took a lot of money to create an invisible coatings and paper to work together.
I just think it should be archival and you shouldn't make print and sell them if you open yourself up for lawsuits. But I want my images to last for hundreds of years.
Oh by the way if you at the history of pigment prints and you look at the old ones from the late 1800's and also the early 1900's they have all crackled due tot he fact they expanded and contracted over time. To minimize this destruction of your images over time I designed a mounting board that does not allow this to happen and keeps the print laying flat at all times. I've recently talked about this with the Smithsonian where I used to be a consultant with. But i'm not in the business of being a factory that sells my products nor do I intend too. I just wanted to solve the problems that I have had over time and create a great photographic printing process. Tim
-
Hi folks, my first post here. Kudos to Tim with your proprietary coating - I did the same, works pretty much on everything I put it down - glass, polycarb, acrylic, aluminum - you name it. I was even more pissed at the industry - to the point that I built a flat-bed printer - not of of these DIY t-shirt printers, but a big a$$ 42" machine.
As for mounting - the way I go about it is I print on non-glare acrylic - in reverse of course and then spray the print with a paint of choice - sometimes clients want to have "metallic" effect, so it will be gold or silver paint, otherwise it's just plain white. I have some pix and videos if anybody wants to see - not sure if it's allowed here
-
Those who decry facemounting should consider that Peter Lik uses it, (actually it's done for him). He doesn't use acrylic but uses Lexan (Polycarbonate) and is very successful. Those who mount for him produce over 100 pieces a week. At his prices that's a success story for face mounting.
That's what I know, but I also think he uses Fuji Crystal Archive paper.
-
Here's maybe a strange question, but what if you have two people working on the face mount? One to roll and pull, and the other to blow a couple cans of air? Would the success ratio be better?
This is a struggle…
Thanks,
Rob
Once you get to a 20x30 it's a two man job, and when you get to 30x40 or larger maybe even a 3 man job. be careful with the canned air, as it can easily spit out some propellant. Probably better with a small air compressor and decent water trap, and if you put the kinetronic blower on it, you will be amazed at how the static just goes away and the dust just flies off.
Those who decry facemounting should consider that Peter Lik uses it, (actually it's done for him). He doesn't use acrylic but uses Lexan (Polycarbonate) and is very successful. Those who mount for him produce over 100 pieces a week. At his prices that's a success story for face mounting.
That's what I know, but I also think he uses Fuji Crystal Archive paper.
According to several of his sales staff including one who claimed is his lead trainer, he has switched from Lexan to acrylic. He uses FujiFlex, which is one of several "fuji crystal archive" paper, although technically it's not a paper, but rather a polyester based product. The result is a mirror smooth surface which is ideal for face mounting. When you say someone "does it for him" I'd be curious what you mean, because I think the company that does it for him is also his company - a logical business approach and was under the impression they do not print for anyone else. If not, I'd love to find out who is actually doing his work and have them do a few for me.. Rodney Lough also face mounts fujiFlex to acrylic but his acrylic is treated with a scratch resistant and UV absorbing surface. The production side of his business is setup as a separate entity, but only produces his work.
Another person that falls in the conversation might be Gursky who's 4.3 million dollar print was face mounted using Diasec, a process I would be more concerned with than cold mount adhesives (which have been used for quite some time).
As far as archival, there are many that want their work to be presented in the archival definition used by museums and curators and I have no problem with that, I'm just not one of them and I think most photographers and even buyers just want assurances the work will "last a long time". Face mounted prints to quality UV glass or acrylic if done right will manage several decades depending on the condition it's displayed, so it amounts to a tradeoff of longevity for presentation impact. Peter Lik and his sales staff may be setting him up because they ALL make the statement the pictures are mounted in a special way so they will NEVER fade ... yes they use the word never and that is certainly not the case.
these conversations often remind me this article by Mike Johnston (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/06/eight-ways-to-preserve-your-pictures.html) , and his first point is pretty blunt ... become famous. I don't think anyone will care about the images I produce in a hundred years or so, and there aren't many photographers who fall into this category. 99.999% of images (or more) will die a death from something other than fading away.
I'm more concerned with the sudden move to aluminum, which has most of the visual qualities of face mounted prints but is more durable and very scratch resistant. However the testing shows me the magenta dyes will fade faster than others meaning the print will gradually turn green over time. I'd love to see Aardenburg test an aluminum print like this, because if it lasts as well as face mounted acrylic it's something I'd look into making.
-
Really! Your going to use Peter Lik as a success. Maybe in selling a lot and pulling the eyes over the buyers. But when the one year longevity glue he uses to face mount with starts to degrade they and he will be having fun in court. "This info comes from his framers". Yes he maybe selling a lot of prints but seriously the quality of the images is not there. Anytime anywhere he wants to take me up on the challenge. I hope he is. By the way Peter tell your framers and employees to stop coming over and snooping in my trash. You will never figure out what I'm doing and how I'm doing it. Just got to say good luck with upcoming lawsuits when the prints start to fade and the glue degrades and falls a part.
On aluminum, I like the look but the problem will be expansion and contraction. Time tells all. I have had the talk with the fore mentioned museum curators and it will crackle over time but it will take a while.
By the way Gursky has been talked about in an article called I believe Why C-Prints Fade. But its out there. All face mounting will be like the Warhol's of today. They can't stop the fading. By the artwork is meant to be seen. Not stored in the dark at a cold temp. Tim
-
Well, I guess I asked. Thanks for the different perspectives.
Anyway, if my images make it into a museum, then I will likely be successful enough to farm out the mounting/framing. If the images fade or whatever after 20+ years, I guess I can reprint them, considering they're digital. And I can't imagine I will ever get sued over a $500 print.
BTW, I am going to print with Lightjet to Fujiflex....
;-)
-
Regarding Ernst's suggestion of laminating to dibond, would that backing material help to minimize the amount of contraction/expansion do you think? I'd be printing my own injets.
Just how durable is the Hahnemühle spray? I experimented with Premier Printshield once and didn't really like the way it changed the look of the paper (and it was difficult to apply evenly).
In my area there's one printing company that suggests putting a protective laminate on the surface (with the dibond mounting) as well which gives a matte (somewhat plastic) appearance but would be more durable than a spray but looks kind of crappy. I just have questions about that materials stability and wonder if it might yellow over time. I've seen some quite large 40x120" pieces done this way in local galleries but most galleries still show mostly acrylic face mounted for larger pieces. Very rarely have I seen pieces done in a traditional frame.
I'd like to get away from traditional framing for large pieces as well, but am in a rural area, so it's more difficult to see what's out there. It seems it's either face mounting or laminating to dibond.
-
I still think Face mounting is just a stupid idea. I'm sure I will get shit for this. But even AIPAD and Getty and Amon Carter as well as the Smithsonian think this is a bad idea for the collectibility of photographs. I'm still waiting to see the reports from Wilhelm or AArdenburg about this longevity ratings. But the ratings will be some what false since the test print will printed from a tube not a processor. The paper was originally designed for tube processing which has a longer longevity. But nearly 100% of the images are made with processors which can bring down the longevity very substantially. Then you have the glue which will interact with the dyes and lower the longevity. Then you spider scratches and scratches that will ruin the image. None of those galleries or museums think this is good thing. Tim
We are talking apples and oranges here so it probably is not worth comparing.
Not everyone's work goes to galleries or museums.
I print and mount more for the every day working man and woman whatever that means.
Corporate boardroom with pictures of the industrial machinery they build.
Camera club member looking for a nice mount that will pop for their annual contest.
Or the housewife that wants a real cool print and mount for her boudoir shoot for her husband. ;)
It is very rare that anyone asks about longevity ratings especially when the average length that any piece like this will hang in these settings is a measly 7 years.
-
But when the one year longevity glue he uses to face mount with starts to degrade they and he will be having fun in court.
The adhesive is ph balanced and considered archival in nature, and is far more stable than one year. Facemounting has been around for a long time, and the fact the image is now virtually sealed reduces/eliminates the problems of humidity, ozone, and other gases. Most evidence indicates face mounting will enhance the longevity of color in the image and I’m aware of no evidence that it adversely affects the image quality.
The problem isn’t the face mounting, it’s the C-paper itself which is certainly far from the fade longevity attainable with other processes if that’s your goal. Work like this will look fine for many decades as long as it isn’t exposed to inordinate amounts of UV light. I’m not quite a positive about Diasec face mounting ... that process just sounds sort of iffy.
Since you mentioned museums, this article (http://www.imamuseum.org/blog/2013/02/07/the-virtues-and-potential-vices-of-face-mounted-photographs/) regarding face mounting from the Indianapolis Museum of Art discusses their perspective, mentioned they have face mounted work in the collection and what they view are the pros and cons of this process. The pros are many and the tone of the article is most of the cons are just about the unknown, and mentions work they are doing to evaluate this. But taken as a whole it appears they are pretty positive about the process and it’s benefits and seem to be hopeful that their research will validate face mounting as not being problematic for organizations such as theirs.
On aluminum, I like the look but the problem will be expansion and contraction. Time tells all. I have had the talk with the fore mentioned museum curators and it will crackle over time but it will take a while.
Makes sense, but wouldn’t contraction/expansion be less of a concern in a controlled environment? Most buildings vary only a degree or two in any direction, not sure there is enough expansion/contraction to be concerned about. I do agree aluminum prints may prove to be problematic for other reasons, so to me the jury is still out.
But considering physical damage/destruction is probably the greater enemy of print longevity than actual fading, the aluminum prints are probably the most durable of all the choices. this may not apply to images in museums which receive tender loving care, but then most museums don’t buy what they collect, and most photographers are trying to sell their work, so museums really aren’t their customers. If by some amazing chance a museum wanted me to donate one of my images, I certainly would discuss it with them and most likely would make efforts to provide something very archival, perhaps sacrificing visual presentation impact a little. But none have called yet ...
-
Wayne I understand what your saying but the adhesive is an assumption on your part that he cares. But when his framers tell me what he is using and they get in a fight with him about it. Then I have to think they are saying the truth. But if anyone thinks that the longevity of fuji paper is what was reported they smoking some weed. It was designed not to run thru a processor. Its always been part of the problem. I believe art should have some ability to get the look you want, but not at the cost of it hurting the whole market of the selling of prints. Look at the polaroid transfer prints, they look cool but now the lawsuits are flying. Same with Iris prints, soon Fuji and face mounting.
I will agree that mounting on aluminum will last a long time. The expansion contraction can be mitigated if temps due not fluctuate over the long time. But everyone who makes prints should understand and see the effect of processes over time. What's happening in Vegas galleries is that they are going for a quick fix. The reason they went to face mounting is because they were having issues with dust between the images and the glass/plexi.
Its ok though, because when I get my gallery there they will see what it should be looking like. Tim
-
I twasn't me who said "I got it from Lik's framers." My info comes from the manager in one of his outlets, as we got into a conversation about his work. The outlet has been where it was for many years and I visit it about every five. There are images there that have hung for at least ten years, nothing's fallen apart.
He's a multi millionaire, has sold at least one image for US$1,000,000. If earning an income is a measure of success, he's a winner. I don't thinkI'll be his critic.
-
I'm not going to mention the framers. Plural names. Because Lik will try to suit them. But a manager who is getting paid to say what Lik wants him to say. You mention ten years. Type in why C-print fade. They talk about Gursky's images fading. BUt when the museums, AIPAD and even the Smithsonian talk about well then the road is getting short.
When I see new reports from my old friend Wilhelm and Mark Mc Cormick at AArdenburg give rating then maybe I'll change my position. But we had the second Lightjet in the world at our lab. They have faded and they were made in 1995. But hey just ask Bill Atkinson and others. T
-
I've seen a few other galleries here in Las Vegas, in addition to Lik, that are selling prints that are acrylic/plexi face mounted. Even Art Wolfe is doing it, at the Rotella Gallery. It's what the consumers want, so I don't blame them for going for non-archival display methods.
-
Wayne -
I read somewhere out there that the ionizer, though it blows the dust away better, ionizes the air/dust such that it later sticks to anything and everything. Have you encountered this?
Thanks,
Rob
-
Wayne -
I read somewhere out there that the ionizer, though it blows the dust away better, ionizes the air/dust such that it later sticks to anything and everything. Have you encountered this?
Thanks,
Rob
No issues. Use it all the time. I’ve been using ionizers to keep film and such clean for over 30 years, and have never heard of this.
-
Excellent, thanks Wayne. Now on to making a clean room ;-) Emphasis, "clean".
- Rob
-
I've been mounting behind plexi for 25 years, mostly large backlit transparencies for lightboxes. Without a clean room, by which I mean positive pressure, hepa filters, and an ionizer bar on the mount press, it's virtually impossible to get a perfect dust free mount consistently. On backlits, it's not a big issue because the dust virtually dissapears when the backlight is turned on. It's also on display in busy environments and is not exposed to the scrutiny of a fine art piece. That's why it's still commercially viable.
I do not offer this service to fine art customers because I don't think that without a large investment in a clean room, I can offer up the quality that they need.
Starting in 1985, and continuing until 1999, I did large volumes of C-printing, and over time, the prints have started to fade and degrade. It's happened to images on display, as well as those stored in archivel boxes (from Light Impressions). Nothing lasts forever.
My personal take on the plexi mounted prints is that I don't like the look, and prefer more traditional framing methods. And yes, I've seen plenty of Gursky's Dia Sec mounted C prints, and am not at all impressed by the quality of them. As far as Peter Lik's work goes, I've been to his gallery in Miami Beach many times, and consider a visit there the visual equivalent to spending an hour at the loudest rock concert in the world. I swear my eyes are bleeding by the time I'm outside. Yes, he's incredibly successfull, but the work is really very LOUD. Sorry for being an opinionated old guy, but maybe more effort needs to focused no producing great images, and less concern about how we mount them to slabs of plastic.
-
You have some good points about Lik. His work and it’s look dates back to the introduction of Velvia, a film which caused a dramatic shift in landscape work. What he does today is try to duplicate that look digitally (and often maybe goes even further - similar to Tom Till). If you look through his available images the majority are velvia, only in the last few years has he been using digital extensively and in most galleries there are still some images being shown that are from film.
While many landscape shooters like a little less shouting and really aren’t drawn to his work, the challenge of making money is a real one. There are more and more photography galleries popping up, and succeeding, and almost all are doing it with this same approach. The appeal is strong. In Park City there are now 4 photographers selling their work on main street and another nearby in a shopping center. Other than Mangleson, they are all using either aluminum or face mounted Fujiflex (Fatali face mounts to museum glass, the others to acrylic). The two presentations (facemount or aluminum) look virtually identical ... high gloss, crisp saturated colors. Even Mangleson has some work this way, and he seems to be moving from canvas in this direction. Two photographers who used to sell more traditionally presented work are gone, replaced with these. Every where you go, (Las Vegas, Hawaii) this is what is being shown and sold. Just how it is. The demographic of buying public who can afford the work likes the look, they like the crisp colors.
Another reason I think some migrate to this presentation is the challenge of size. Most of these photographers are trying to sell large work (up to 4x10 feet). It’s really tough to present a piece this large and protect it. glass isn’t a viable option, and acrylic at this size will bow and warp. By face mounting the work, then bonding that to dibond or other stiffener they get a nice flat presentation.
I feel more like you, I prefer a well printed pigment print in a more traditional presentation, with perhaps a little different twist (such as floated or triple matted). But if I were to open a gallery, I’m not sure it would be successful. I also haven’t found a real answer to presenting my work in large sizes. Pano’s aren’t as bad, the bowing of the acrylic is acceptable, but other formats not so great.
-
Here's another option that is similar. I use Digital One Color in San Diego for this service, they charge $18/sf.
They make a Lightjet print on Fujiflex Supergloss then mount it to 3mm diBond. Then it's laminated with semi gloss film.
MUCH cheaper than an acrylic face mount and while it has a low sheen, it's not so reflective. I always frame these with a linen liner and one of my handmade hardwood frames.
-
For those considering facemount, I had a demonstration of a new (to me) acrylic product from Tru Vue named "TruLife." It's an anti reflection sheet designed specifically for facemounting. What seemed most remarkable is that it embodies antistatic technology I have not seen in previous peel-off glazing products.
Here in usually dry New Mexico when I peel away a cover sheet from plex I can sense the static field it generates, beckoning to dust and cat hairs and little bits of shattered Gatorfoam from every corner of the room.
Not so with TruLife. The technician took minimal special precautions, although he was wearing an electronic industry antistatic wrist strap. With a strong raking light across the surface as it fed into the rollers dust easily blew away without cling using a gentle stream of filtered shop air, and he was even picking little pieces of dust off with his antistatified finger tips, in areas where the cover sheet had just been peeled. This is in very dramatic contrast to my previous tests, where static seemed an insurmountable problem that put the yield down to about 2 for 3 on a good day. The tech claimed that the anit-static properties of the plex even transfered to the print itself as it approached the rollers.
Facemount is potentially a very efficient process for those involved in production level work, once you've overcome the technical learning curve and have solved your working space related issues. It's a very fast process that takes you in very short time from a print to an artwork package ready for framing. But you do need to dedicate a clean area to it.
The reflection properties of the TruLife package is excellent. Not so good as Museum Glass or Optium, but very good indeed. The reflections from eye-level windows and room lights that bedevil ordinary framed artwork are almost completely suppressed. It's mainly the reflections from the surface of the plex that kept me away from facemounting. Unless presented in a blackhole environment with lights positioned very high, like Mr. Lik's galleries, the reflections are horrid.
My little brain is squirming with the commercial possibilities of artwork presentation that looks as gloriously rich and clear as those facemount prints, although I'm not yet sure how one would pass on the expense of the project based on the look alone, other than to millionaires. One place it would work well is in galleries with my piece surrounded by others in standard framing, the TruLife would win that contest every time. You gotta be competitive.
Has anybody here worked with TruLife yet? Would like to hear about it.
-
I researched this years ago when clients insisted on it and I was willing to waste my time fooling with it. First off I think it is old fashioned looking now in my opinion. It was all the rage with ad photographers in the 90s. Then the big C print Germans like Gursky, Demond, and Struth started exhibiting their massive Lamda prints face mounted ( Cindy Sherman did it probably 10 years before them with her 15 foot long Cibas). But even though they used C prints they did do the face mounting right, which is Diasec. That is done by using liquid silicone. Lamont in Ny does Diasec. Very few labs in the US do. I priced it once and it was several thousand bucks for one 40x60 print with shipping.
None of the big commercial labs here in Atlanta can even do the standard film face mounting worth a damn. I lost a ton of money having them try to do a show of 40x60s when someone insisted on it. Right c prints work a lot better, inkjet prints are most usually problematic.It was a total disaster. Even if it had worked you will run into two issues down the line. First is the problem with it delaminating over time with changes in temperature and humidity. This film adhesive was never designed to last a long time. It was made for temporary advertising display. I had a friend that had several expensive prints delaminate after a year or less. Second problem you have is the plexi is going to yellow over time, and that is a fact. Before it does that though it will probably get scratched after the first time it is shown.
The whole thing is a huge waste of time in my opinion. All that money and expense to look like some cheap Las Vegas trade show.
Ernst was right on target - of you want something close to that just mount an inexpensive rc print to aluminum and spray it with a uv coat. That will probably last longer than a crappy face mount. Another thing that will give you a very similar presentation is to mount to aluminum or some cheaper substrate and have that framed with the plexi right against the surface of the print. I mean it isn't a great idea for print permanence to leave it that way but for a show or something it is fine, and a hell of a lot cheaper than diasec.
john
-
framing the face mount would defeat the purpose. What makes it nice is the bleeding off the page look into a single background. No mat, no frame. clean presentation. Like looking out a window.
-
Windows have frames too.
-
Thanks for the comments John.
The thing I was seeing with the anti-reflective plex is that there was a sense of there being no surface between the viewer and the image. That's what's impressive to me with the TruLife plex, and something completely lacking from the brutally reflective treatments used by Lik, Gursky, and that whole crew. In web shots of those installations the overhead lights and often the opposite wall and viewer are very much in evidence.
Over the last few days I have been experimenting with glossy fine art paper double coated with PremierArt Print Shield, which produces the glossiest print surfaces I have ever seen and completely removes all residual bronzing and hazing, and in so doing greatly enhances tonal separation in very dark shadows without upsetting brighter values. As Ernst suggested those are essentially equivalent to facemounting if one can get them mounted very flat, which is doable but not easy. But there is still a killer issue with strong surface reflections in many if not most typical kinds of installations, and that sense of the presence of a surface and the attendant reflections is what I would like to avoid, if possible.
I helped a friend with a facemount show several years ago, and it was the kind of disaster you mentioned. In that case a cancer or ever-growing delaminated pock marks started developing, probably aided by heating from the bright halogen spots. There was also some edge lift up. The show closed early. $1,000's down the drain. End of story. Nothing was salvageable except the fancy aluminum standoffs. OTOH my 13x19 surfacemount test plaques still look OK after about 4 years in relatively benign interior locations.
FWIW I have also seen a few very faded facemount pieces from very well known artists. Diasec mounting is not fully resistant to UV in bright lighting, especially in skylighted interiors. And I'm just dying to know when the $4.2M and $6.5M photographs are going to start delaminating.
Thanks for reminding me of Struth! Great work, before there was Gursky there was Struth.
Hey Phil, don't windows have frames? ;) Hah, I see John just beat me to it! From my perspective I don't care about facemounting as a style, but rather as a means to removing the sense of surface, frame or not.
-
Windows have frames too.
not my windows ;-)
I have no molding in my home. Made sure of that in the remodel.
One thing for sure, no matter what discouragements you get...Try it, small scalle, see how it goes, and then try it again to some point that you have to see if it is something to continue, or stop and farm out.
You will only learn, and possibly make it happen. The cost savings would be great, but knowing you did it will be....
Priceless!
-
Well that is totally right. Even the very expensive diasec face mounting is going to yellow due to the plexi. There is no getting around that. There is uv protected museum plexi but it is going to go too. If people are buying those giant c prints face mounted as an investment they better unload them before they wish they had never heard of these artists. A photo curator at a big museum once told me that they think of their role in collecting color photography as "renting the artists ideas" knowing full well they won't last. That's cool as long as the donors who are coughing up the cash to pay for them are informed of that.
-
Well that is totally right. Even the very expensive diasec face mounting is going to yellow due to the plexi. There is no getting around that. There is uv protected museum plexi but it is going to go too. If people are buying those giant c prints face mounted as an investment they better unload them before they wish they had never heard of these artists. A photo curator at a big museum once told me that they think of their role in collecting color photography as "renting the artists ideas" knowing full well they won't last. That's cool as long as the donors who are coughing up the cash to pay for them are informed of that.
So do the people who buy Lik prints at those prices get rights for the photograph so they can be printed again if they deteriorate and they will not be printed for other buyers?
R
-
Typical in the business of art, the policy on sales is that the art is supplied "as is" with no returns. Unless there is an agreement between the artist and buyer, the artist's responsibilities ends when the buyer walks off his property with the piece. I have replaced a few pieces accidentally destroyed by my buyers, and that has bought me a "nice guy" and "trustworthy" reputation. I just hope I don't finish last.
If one has a look at Pete's verbose web use policy (http://www.peterlikexposed.com/policies), one might infer there could be some tall fences to jump along the path to replacements. Or not.
Please forgive me for adding this, it's kinda interesting though only vaguely related. Nothing like a good Sunday morning rant.
http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2013/02/02/are-peter-lik-prospective-buyers-becoming-more-savvy/
-
Typical in the business of art, the policy on sales is that the art is supplied "as is" with no returns. Unless there is an agreement between the artist and buyer, the artist's responsibilities ends when the buyer walks off his property with the piece. I have replaced a few pieces accidentally destroyed by my buyers, and that has bought me a "nice guy" and "trustworthy" reputation. I just hope I don't finish last.
If one has a look at Pete's verbose web use policy (http://www.peterlikexposed.com/policies), one might infer there could be some tall fences to jump along the path to replacements. Or not.
Please forgive me for adding this, it's kinda interesting though only vaguely related. Nothing like a good Sunday morning rant.
http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2013/02/02/are-peter-lik-prospective-buyers-becoming-more-savvy/
Amazing. "Limited" prints of 950?
R
-
It was only 750 a couple years ago. And the $6.5M piece had been in circulation for a very long time, there must be a lot of pieces out there. Nothing pisses me off more than somebody who is wildly more successful at what I do than me.
-
I love this story by Scott.
http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery-photographer-my-story/ (http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery-photographer-my-story/)