Greetings all! I'm new to this forum - subscribed so I could respond to this post and add some clarity.
First a bit of background, so you know I'm not just blowing smoke out my backside.
30+ years in the fine art printing world and full disclosure: I work for the only North American facility who currently holds a Diasec license - Reed Art & Imaging.
Some questions I cannot answer due to contractual agreements, but I can clear up some questions along with adding some clarity to some mis-understandings.
NFAP states on their website they use a silicone adhesive. This statement alone does not mean they use a silicone gel. Silicone is also used in several pressure sensitive adhesive films (hereout referred to by me as PSAs). There is much ambiguity on their site, likely in effort to protect the star of their show and their marketing leverage. I certainly won't wrong them for that.
Because you seem familiar with them in the past, why do you suppose they're using a rather gooey silicone process instead of a rolled adhesive?
The advantages of using a PROPER silicon gel are numerous, and you can check Reed's website for more detail, but here's a semi-brief outline:
Once cured the silicon remains very flexible, protecting the presentation from edge separations, tunneling, snowflaking, etc. These are well known issues that occur with PSAs.
UPS data states that their trucks can reach summer time temps up to 130°f. The expansion of a 48" acrylic going from 70° to 130° is approx 1.4". This expansion along with the softening of PSAs can cause separation - ruining a print before it arrives at the gallery or the buyer's home. And yes, acrylic is sensitive to humidity and will expand and contract with such changes.
I found that originally, at least for the Diasec method, they used Gurisil No. 575.0 as the adhesive. Personally, all proprietary talk aside, I believe that any current optically clear, uv-resistant, vulcanizable silicone would work for face mounting.
Not quite. UV-resistance is not enough. There are several knock-offs using UV-resistant gel that is yellowing after a few years. The formula must be specific, not just for the gel but other proprietary ingredients used in the process. There is more to doing it properly than just squirting on some gel and going to town.
It will be interesting to see what remaining acetic acid in face mounting does on the long term.
After curing the silicon is completely inert and pH neutral. The semi-permeable nature of acrylic allows the acetic acid to outgas. Diasec has been around for 50 years and thus far there have been zero indications of acid damage on any prints. How the chromagenic print is handled in process and post process are bigger concerns.
Yeah, sort of marketing speak (like the whole process) my best guess is whatever “iridium” there is in the RC paper base that they are using.
According to their web site it seems like nothing more than transparency film laminated to acrylic in the front and a white base on the back, similar to printing on glass with a backing.
Given this, how then is their process different from just printing on white film with face mounted acrylic?
NFAP's website states that the iridium is in the transparency layer. With a white poly backer. "thanks to the transparency layer that is infused with iridium particles and is encapsulated in a layer suspended between the white poly surface and Acrylic."
My personal estimation is that the poly is something akin to fuji flex or an inkjet flex. The result would be two pearlescent layers - the trans and the backer, contributing to the "depth" that people speak of. by having a few mils of PSA between the two could result in some shadowing that would also add to the 3D effect touted in their marketing.