IGFS Wrinkling When I Mount on Adhesive Foam Core

[fike]

I am having trouble with my Ilford Gold Fiber Silk images that I have mounted on foam core.  I have used both pre-applied adhesive backed foam core and spray glue on regular foam core.  In all of my larger mountings (larger than 10"x15" or so) it has developed a large wrinkle. 

Of course this is caused by some sort of moisture differential between mounting and display conditions, but how can I avoid this?  Where does that extra paper actually come from?  Most of the image remains well adhered to the foam core, but then this one area just pops up.

I am perplexed.  I think I might have to try a different paper for mounting on foam core. 

I already consider the IGFS to be a difficult paper to work with for adhesive mounting because it is so thick.  It can be really hard to adhere well.  I also have to wait at least a few days after printing for the ink to completely dry. Otherwise I find that I get scratches on the surface--even when I put a pieces of wax paper or newsprint on top before rolling or rubbing it down.

[John Caldwell]

I don't know the cause, and will be interested to learn from others here. The answer my lie in the mounting method, or in the expansion coefficients of your board and adhesive.

I mount all of my prints larger than A4 size, simply because I so dislike prints that don't lie flat. In all cases of paper similar to your GFS, I send the prints to a local shop for mounting to either 1/4" acid-free foam core, or 1/2" Gator Foam. The shop uses an interleaved adhesive sheet for bonding, and we've never had a wrinkle like what you describe - even for very large prints, and even when they are, or are not, laminated after mounting. The paper most often mounted is the Canson Baryta, which I'm told is very much like your Ilford. Sometimes I do mount matte fine art media to self-adhesive foam core, probably along the lines of your material, but the heavy weight matte papers are very wrinkle resistant.

I offer these anecdotes in case they shed light.

John Caldwell

[fike]

Heavyweight matte papers haven't given me problems either.  I have been using acid-free foam core with either spray adhesive or adhesive backing that is pre-applied to the foam core.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Heavyweight matte papers haven't given me problems either.  I have been using acid-free foam core with either spray adhesive or adhesive backing that is pre-applied to the foam core.

These are not RC papers which is probably why you see better adhesion.  You are battling against chemistry here.

[fike]

These are not RC papers which is probably why you see better adhesion.  You are battling against chemistry here.

Isn't IGFS an RC paper? I thought that would make it more stable?  The Matte papers I used (Moab Entrada) have had no problems like this.

[Czornyj]

These are not RC papers which is probably why you see better adhesion.  You are battling against chemistry here.

I've mounted dozens of RC prints (24x16", 36x24") on self adhesive foam boards - Canon Photo Glacier, some Hahnemuehle Barytas - and never had any wrinkles.

[Randy Carone]

RC papers have a layer of polyolefin - usually Polyethylene - as a barrier on the front and back of the paper. This has always caused these papers to be difficult to mount. You'll have better success if you use a mounting adhesive from a roll. The problem is that the best way to apply these products is with a cold laminator. The adhesive can be applied to the board or the image in one step, then mount the image on the substrate in the second step. Shoot me an email and I can discuss this with you and perhaps we can mount an image for you to see how it holds up.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Isn't IGFS an RC paper? I thought that would make it more stable?  The Matte papers I used (Moab Entrada) have had no problems like this.

RC papers are more stable in terms of their physical characteristics but as Randy notes in his response the polyethylene backing is the problem.  I don't know much about Moab Entrada as I don't print on it but any rag or alpha-cellulose paper will be porous on the back allowing adhesive to form a better bond to the surface.  I confess to not having much experience here because I do all my matting using either mounting corners or hinges with an overmat.

[BillK]

I have experienced similar problems with RC type papers. Most of the methods mentioned above work fine for 11x15 and smaller sizes.

I am sure there are several overlapping causes. My guess is, one of the bigger issues, is a difference in the expansion/contraction
rate of the print and the mounting board. In my case the problem crops up when the piece is subjected to greater temperature
extremes than encountered normally indoors. I do outdoor art shows, so the temperature is all over the map.

The solution for me has been to mount all my larger prints in a vacuum press using permanent heat activated adhesive.
Not one wrinkle, buckle or delamination since I started doing that. This method is not considered "Archival" because it can not
be reversed. I don't consider photo's irreplaceable, so don't have a problem using this method. I also offer a life time guarantee for problems like this
and have yet to have anyone collect on it.

For all my smaller stuff, I use PMA. It comes on a roll and is applied cold, either with a squeegee or a cold laminator, similar to what Randy Carone
is talking about.  If I try and use PMA on larger pieces, I begin to have problems when the print size gets to around 16x20 or larger.

Your mileage may vary, but its what works for me.
Hope this helps,
Bill

[bill t.]

The problem with RC media is, it's a rigid plane with almost no ability to expand or contract.  By comparison, paper is more like fabric in it's ability to give and take along its plane.

If you lay an RC print on a flat surface and see ripple along the edges (caused by ink drying or bad handling) chances are the you're gonna get a rippled or bubbled mount.  The stuff is just too rigid to go flat, there's no place for local stresses to go except into bubbling.  Best way I know to solve that is to press the print in a heated drymount which will flatten it out very well.  If you are actually drymounting, you need to do separate presses to flatten, then cool, then do the  mounting press.  Second best is roll your print onto the adhesive from a roll.

You can almost always fix bubbles on mounted paper with a tiny pin hole, but that's a lot less certain with RC.

And once an RC print is in bonded to the adhesive or drymount tissue, drymount pressing will rarely help remove ripple.

[Wayne Fox]

Isn't IGFS an RC paper?

IGFS is not an RC paper, it is a fiber paper with a printable surface on a barium sulfate layer (baryta).

Are you printing on sheets or rolls?  The curl of prints from rolls can easily cause wrinkling when mounting, decurling can help.  I have an expensive cold laminator and precoated fiber mounting boards and have no problems mounting this paper.  I've never tried doing it by hand.

[Alan Goldhammer]

IGFS is not an RC paper, it is a fiber paper with a printable surface on a barium sulfate layer (baryta).

I'm not sure; certainly the back of IGFS has a polyethylene coating.

[Wayne Fox]

I'm not sure; certainly the back of IGFS has a polyethylene coating.

mmm ... seems odd. 

Not the roll I've got here.  I'll admit I bought it a couple of years ago.  I suppose it's possible they put a poly coating on the back, but an RC paper has the poly coating on both sides with the inkjet receptor coat on top of that .. not sure if you can put a baryta surface on poly. 

I've also never seen anyone refer to a RC paper as a fiber paper ... the name wouldn't seem to make much sense Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk if was an RC paper. But since I don't have a recent box or roll I suppose I could be wrong.

Isn't there an Ilford rep hanging out on the forum sometimes?   

[Alan Goldhammer]

Wayne,

I haven't found anything other than comments from users about a coating on the back of the paper.  It's clear to me that the back surface of IGFS is much different from rag papers (both gloss and matte) because of its smoothness and apparent lack of porosity.  This is what leads me to believe there is a coating and I've seen some posts indicating that this makes it curl less after printing.  I think this is why the OP may be having problems with adhesion.  As was noted, if there is differential shrinking/swelling of the two surfaces (print and mounting material) this will lead to issues with the print.  I guess as you note the only way to know for sure is the hear from Ilford.

Alan

EDIT:  Here is a posting from Mark McCormick-Goodhart that I found through Google.  Unfortunately it was a plain text return of the search and I don't know the date it posted to LuLa.

MHMG:
Quote from: Guigui

"Yes, this is the curl that was causing the jamming. I was hoping it was just my box, but it looks like it's always like this.
Oh well, I'll just buy a roll next time.

Thanks everyone for their reply."

Coated papers almost always have humidity coefficient of expansion differences between the coating and the substrate. Cellulosic materials and hygroscopic layers like the inkjet receiver coatings also have hysteresis effects with humidity cycling where a quasi-permanent curl towards the coated side will naturally develop over time. Papers on rolls also develop a "core set" due to plastic deformation when wrapped around narrow diameter tubes.  And paper also has anisotropic material properties which means that in terms of expansion/contraction behavior there is a difference between the lengthwise and widthwise expansion/contraction response to changes in temperature and humidity.  Paper conservators talk about the "wane" and "weft" of papers to identify and discuss these lengthwise and widthwise material handling and property differences.

A manufacturer can apply an anti-curl layer on the verso to counteract the differences between the top side coating and the base, but this anti-curl coating can then obscure the paper "feel" of the base.  For a fine art paper, this is bit of a dilemma because the prized feel of the paper can be hidden underneath that dual coated sheet.  Hahnemulhle papers tend to have little or no anti-curl layer to in order to preserve that artistic tactile experience when you pick up the paper. Other fine art paper manufacturers also use limited or no anti-curl coating treatment on the backside for the same reason, but it varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.  In contrast, for example, Ilford Gold fiber Silk has a very obvious anti-curl coating technology on the verso which IMHO works well but also clearly prevents it from mimicking precisely the "look and feel" of traditonal darkroom processed fiber based papers (which have no anti-curl layer on the back). 

Bottom line is that there is no free lunch with coated fine art papers. Better layflat characteristics come at the expense of the fine art paper aesthetic. Hahnemuhle errs on the side of giving you a better fine art aesthetic, but you have to pull out that de-curling roller more often!

cheers,

Mark

[Wayne Fox]

Some good points. The question was whether or not it is an "RC" paper ... a lower  quality paper that is sealed between two layers of a polyethylene material and then has a printable surface on it (and typically uses lower quality materials for the paper itself since it is sealed) , or is it a fiber paper which usually means it is made from better materials.  

So while I agree that the back of Gold Fiber Silk seems "odd" in relation to most fiber papers, being extremely smooth, I do not believe there is any polyethylene coating. In comparing RC papers and this (including tearing, etc) the two papers are not the same. I have no way to really "prove" this, although with RC papers you can literally peal this layer away from the paper.  In fact I've seen a transfer process which peels the back coating off, then soaks the paper to peal it away from the top layer leaving the top layer of poly with the emulsion in tact.  Other than discussions like this one about the challenges of the surface of the back, or it being different from most fiber papers, I can find no reference anywhere that it is a RC paper, and indeed I believe once you make a paper "RC", it can no longer be called a fiber paper, since the paper type no longer has any bearing on the quality of the paper once it is sealed.

So I would agree that Ilford seems to be applying some type of coating or treating the paper in some way, I still don't think its poly and I don't believe this is an RC paper.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I agree with you that it's not an RC paper in the traditional sense because the printing surface is traditional.  I remember printing on the first RC papers way back in the 1970s when they were first introduced.  All kinds of problems started appearing about six months or so after printing and it was a huge disappointment. 

[fike]

After going back and looking at the back of IGFS, it does indeed look like a more traditional paper backing instead of an RC backing.  So, it would seem that this layer causes the adhesion and swelling problems.  Aside from a dry mount (which I don't have easy access to) I think I am stuck with finding a true RC paper (through and through) or using a matte paper that is more stable.  Large IGFS prints just won't easily mount on foam core and remain nice for months and years.

I haven't yet been able to find an inkjet 'fiber' paper that has a texture and performance that I like. I kind of like the texture and sharpness of Inkpress Baryta Warm, but it is REALLY warm and, to me, ill-suited to landscape work.  I would use the Baryta Warm for portrait work though.

[fike]

A new wrinkle to add to this discussion.  I HAVE had success mounting IGFS on directly onto rolls of adhesive coated magnet backing.  I made a large refrigerator magnet several years ago and it hasn't got any wrinkles or creases on it.  The print is about 20" x 40".  I have a few other large refrigerator magnets I have given people, and none of them have any problems.  I am guessing that this is because the magnetic backing is completely stable and impermeable to humidity and moisture, so it basically seals the IGFS backing. 

I still haven't resolved what to do about this.  I got some Epson Exhibition fiber and it seems to match the IGFS performance pretty closely, but its backing looks identical.  Epson Premium Luster 260 is often mentioned as a good paper, but I find the texture to be lacking in the organic feel that the fiber papers have.  I have also considered going back to matte paper and then applying a coating, but that task is so time-consuming that it really becomes and PITA.