Question on Framing Large Photograph

[Josh-H]

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

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?

 

[bill t.]

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!

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[Justan]

I don’t know what shipping would cost to Au but this place offers really good values for larger frames.

[PeterAit]

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.

[wildstork]

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

[framah]

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/ This is the Picture Framers Grumble and there are a few of your mates from down under on there already.

good luck with it.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[dgberg]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[Alan Goldhammer]

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

[Mark D Segal]

Can't print that length in a 3800. Did it with a colleague in his 7900.

[dgberg]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[Sven W]

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

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[dgberg]

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.

[Josh-H]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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.