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 , 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.