PDA

View Full Version : Tell me about printing on canvas....



Darin Boville
1-Aug-2014, 23:21
O.K., I'll admit it. I used to hate seeing photographs on canvas, especially with the "gallery wrap" thing where the image continues on the edge. Ugh.

But now I'm thinking of trying it (the canvas, not the gallery wrap). I know there are other boards that have more canvas printers but this forum has the highest standards, and that is key for me.

One of the big attractions for me is durability. Inkjets on paper just seem so fragile. Are canvas prints more durable, as they would seem to be? Could my cat walk across one without me losing consciousness?

Coatings? I don't want sprays (my family is in the industrial painting business, only fools spray without masks, ventilation, and, indoors, without fire suppression). What do I use?

Can a large print be rolled for for storage? Will it hurt the print if it is kept that way long term?

Stretching? Alternatives to stretching? I just want the thing flat.

Regarding stretching, what if I wanted to do a single photo in multiple panels? Would I be able to get the edges to line up reasonably well?

I'm looking for the highest quality materials here....guidance is welcome!

--Darin

Lenny Eiger
2-Aug-2014, 01:33
There is a lot of very excellent canvas out there. I've used Frederix, IJ, Canson and Hahnemuhle. Hahnemuhle is excellent, but that could be that I've done so many profiles on Hahnemuhle products that I understand them.... All the top brands are very good.

When you stretch around an edge, I haven't found a way to keep the ink on the canvas, not perfectly, at least. I've tried different sprays, I have a nice spray unit. I experimented with lots of coats, mostly with a very nice, non-toxic Lascaux product, but there is nothing perfect (that I found). The only solution was a little acrylic paint if something chipped off... which worked. I should also add that I haven't tried for a couple of years..

The prints are a little more durable, but I wouldn't let the cat near it. I did a few very large banners and they were great for rolling up, but you don't expect much from them.

It isn't like a paper print.... Fine art reproductions work well but for photographs I don't think the collectors will like it (or pay you) as much...

Hope that helps,

Lenny

polyglot
2-Aug-2014, 04:34
I have a nice canvas triptych (3 of 20x40" verticals) stretched on wood; printed by Fuji in Australia. It looks good; not as good as a Cibachrome or optical C-print of course but still very good once you get a metre away. Your printer should be using pigment inks which have a pretty decent inherent longevity; I would expect that a varnish will only reduce the quality by providing a layer that will yellow well before the pigments fail. The frames mine are on have a 5mm radius routed around the edge and there is absolutely no issue with that bend radius and the printing. The surface feels kind of soft, slippery and very slightly rubbery, I would have no hesitation to give it a gentle wipe with a damp cloth.

The other thing is that canvas prints are very very cheap. Mine have been up for 3 years with zero degradation (well lit kitchen, plenty of cooking smoke/grease but no direct sun) and I expect that they will still look great after 10. Given that they cost me only $50 each, I'm pretty sure I will have replaced them by then.

I would not let the cat walk on them; the printing itself is tough enough but it's likely to stretch the canvas a bit or pull it around the frame (ask me how I know :( ) and you will end up with ripples that require re-stretching.

sanking
2-Aug-2014, 08:19
"Coatings? I don't want sprays (my family is in the industrial painting business, only fools spray without masks, ventilation, and, indoors, without fire suppression). What do I use?"

Consider over-coating your inkjet prints with a thin layer of gelatin. It would take some practice to learn how to do this, but the result is that you protect the pigment ink coating, give it a bit more gloss, the coating is traditional and archival, and is safe to apply. You would also distinguish your work from others because very few people are going to take the time and trouble to learn the procedure.

Sandy

Jim Andrada
4-Aug-2014, 13:39
I had two of them at my last show - would have preferred a "real" print but matting and framing a 3' x 5' print is - well, not so easy or affordable.

I found them to be really fragile and easily scratched, rubbed, stained, etc.

I didn't coat them because all the coatings I saw added too much sheen and seemed to emphasize the cloth pattern.

Darin Boville
4-Aug-2014, 14:01
I just dug up a few shets of canvas from variosu sampel packs laying about. I guess I'll do a little test run...thanks to all.

--Darin

Kirk Gittings
4-Aug-2014, 14:57
I have gone back and forth on this with tons of tests with a truly great printer here in town and have NEVER seen a test on any paper coated and uncoated that I would hang in a show of mine. Just saying.

sanking
4-Aug-2014, 15:48
I have gone back and forth on this with tons of tests with a truly great printer here in town and have NEVER seen a test on any paper coated and uncoated that I would hang in a show of mine. Just saying.

Just for the record, my suggestion for over-coating with a layer of thin gelatin was meant for inkjet prints on matte surface rag papers, not prints on canvas. I will leave canvas to others, it is definitely not for me.

Sandy

Darin Boville
4-Aug-2014, 16:15
I have gone back and forth on this with tons of tests with a truly great printer here in town and have NEVER seen a test on any paper coated and uncoated that I would hang in a show of mine. Just saying.

Do you mean canvas, not paper, or are you referring to the gelatin idea?

--Darin

Kirk Gittings
4-Aug-2014, 16:22
Canvas. He's does my large inkjet prints and we work very well together on those on mat and semigloss papers in B&W. I wouldn't leave him on his own without my direction. So he has taken my aversion to canvas as a personal challenge and has done numerous files of mine on a variety of canvas stock with and without coatings and I have rejected ever one of them but he keeps trying.

Darin Boville
4-Aug-2014, 17:19
Canvas. He's does my large inkjet prints and we work very well together on those on mat and semigloss papers in B&W. I wouldn't leave him on his own without my direction. So he has taken my aversion to canvas as a personal challenge and has done numerous files of mine on a variety of canvas stock with and without coatings and I have rejected ever one of them but he keeps trying.

What don't you like about canvas? Image characteristics? Durability and handling?

--Darin

djdister
4-Aug-2014, 18:14
I've done photo quality inkjet printing for about 10 years now, and in all that time I've only had one photo that worked out well on canvas. It was some rare combination of subject matter, tonality (it's in color) and the canvas used (from some sample package). Haven't been able to duplicate it since, although I've tried.

Kirk Gittings
4-Aug-2014, 19:01
What don't you like about canvas? Image characteristics? Durability and handling?

--Darin

For B&W it just looks like crap. I don't print any color. BUT in general it always looks like photography trying to look like a painting which in my mind is a silly pursuit. I have never seen a print on canvas that had the shadow or highlight nuance possible on paper and once you put the glop on it everything has all the delicacy of the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

Darin Boville
4-Aug-2014, 22:36
O.K., just did my first test print (two sheets of sample paper to go!).

This was on Harman canvas.

I see right away I would need a method of getting the printer to "catch" the paper. Quality-wise it looks low contrast, sort of lacking sparkle. I didn't adjust the image at all, except for setting up profiles for this canvas. Thinking about raising the highlights a bit and using my next sheet...

--Darin

Gary Tarbert
5-Aug-2014, 06:12
Canvas became very popular here in Oz , The reason a lot of photographers seemed to like it , Was you could do a bigger print than you would normally attempt from the file or Film you were using , Due to the forgiving nature of the surface, I never liked canvas very much , But the few times i did use it i found without the coatings it is very fragile particularly on the edges , Photographers seem to be moving away from canvas a bit here in the last two years , maybe the improved files they can get from their dslr's has something to do with it . Cheers Gary

gregmo
5-Aug-2014, 11:43
BUT in general it always looks like photography trying to look like a painting which in my mind is a silly pursuit.

I share the same opinion. Personally, I don't offer canvas directly to customers/ clients. Indirectly, I do have a foot in the canvas market via image licensing.

Tyler Boley
5-Aug-2014, 15:25
I'd listen to Kirk first as he's seen a lot of his own work attempted on it, but the main reason I don't like canvass prints, or have yet to like one, is that the process itself has no inherent "beauty", for lack of a better word, that can be exploited. It doesn't seem to bring tones to life in that indescribable way, either, when ink hits it. Some processes/materials just have some inherent esthetic intangible quality, others you have to work for it, and then there are those that just have none no matter what you do.
No offense to anyone working in canvass, I'm probably describing my own lack of affinity for it, and by all means, do what makes you happy.
Tyler

Jim Andrada
6-Aug-2014, 10:09
I have to admit that I don't love canvas. As I said I had two large prints in my last exhibition and they worked OK on it. Would have been better on real paper and framed etc, I just wasn't up to spending a fortune having a couple of 3' by 5' photos professionally matted and framed with Museum glass. And I needed the size for the impact I wanted, so I could have had a "better" print framed smaller and with less impact, or the whopping size I wanted. It was definitely a "size matters" sort of thing.

I doubt I'd use it again.On the other hand, folks liked them and they triggered a lot of good discussions and folks wound up buying a bunch of the smaller nicely printed and matted versions so they served their dual purpose well.

gregmo
6-Aug-2014, 10:25
I have to admit that I don't love canvas. As I said I had two large prints in my last exhibition and they worked OK on it. Would have been better on real paper and framed etc, I just wasn't up to spending a fortune having a couple of 3' by 5' photos professionally matted and framed with Museum glass. And I needed the size for the impact I wanted, so I could have had a "better" print framed smaller and with less impact, or the whopping size I wanted. It was definitely a "size matters" sort of thing.

I doubt I'd use it again.On the other hand, folks liked them and they triggered a lot of good discussions and folks wound up buying a bunch of the smaller nicely printed and matted versions so they served their dual purpose well.

You might want to look into Chromira Metal prints. Granted it's a completely different printing process/ look & not inkjet, but for large pieces, it's much more cost effective without the requirement & added expense of framing.

polyglot
6-Aug-2014, 23:19
You can also get inkjet on sheets of aluminium. Quality isn't much better than canvas but it has a nice luster like Endura Metallic RA4 (especially under a spotlight), without the need for framing. However, they are generally bolted to the wall.

Darin Boville
7-Aug-2014, 00:12
You can also get inkjet on sheets of aluminium. Quality isn't much better than canvas but it has a nice luster like Endura Metallic RA4 (especially under a spotlight), without the need for framing. However, they are generally bolted to the wall.

I thought about aluminum but I can't see how I would store them...

--Darin

paulr
7-Aug-2014, 06:02
I'm with Kirk on how they look. I don't like it. It's not just the esthetics; they look to me like they're trying to be paintings.

However, I understand the practical appeal. I'm working on a project with 60" prints right now. The costs of printing, and especially mounting and framing, are a serious burden. Canvas is much cheaper and easier than the other options. I'm still not using it, but I get the appeal.

Darin Boville
7-Aug-2014, 11:50
I'm with Kirk on how they look. I don't like it. It's not just the esthetics; they look to me like they're trying to be paintings.

However, I understand the practical appeal. I'm working on a project with 60" prints right now. The costs of printing, and especially mounting and framing, are a serious burden. Canvas is much cheaper and easier than the other options. I'm still not using it, but I get the appeal.

I'm not clear on how canvas is cheaper--haven't really priced it out--but I would love to get away from glass and get the image onto something more durable than paper. Big is nice, too. Really big, maybe.

--Darin

Jim Becia
7-Aug-2014, 12:05
Darin,

One option is to use a process like the one from http://www.duraplaq.com/index.html. I have been using them for years. I print my images on paper then send them the piece. They mount and laminate it to HDF that has itself been laminated with melamine on both sides. The melamine is smooth and inert. The mounted piece is then laminated with a luster laminate that is waterproof and has UV protection. The process is frameless. And the laminate I use does not take away form the image. I, like a few others here, do not like canvas for my images. I want to retain the detail, sharpness, and color, and this process seems to do the job. However, obviously the process is not reversible. I do not number my pieces and my customers really seem to like it. Here is a quick and old sample of some pieces. I think I have a better image on my iPad and will try to post it so you can see.

paulr
7-Aug-2014, 12:08
If you're making a big print, it's much cheaper to tack canvas onto a stretcher frame than to dry-mount photo paper (onto sintra or dibond or aluminum plate). And with the stretched canvas, you can be done. With the mounted paper print, you still have to deal with framing and glazing... or with face-mounting.

For prints like what I've been making, the print itself would cost about $40 less on canvas than on baryta paper. I don't know what the stretching would cost, but I think it would be less that the $300ish I'm paying for dibond mounting. And then it's costing customers $800 to $1200 for framing and glazing. The canvas could be hung just by screwing hooks into the back.

I don't know how durable the print on canvas actually is. It seems to me the ink and the coatings are the fragile part. Durability may not be so different between the two substrates. I'm guessing the durability of a canvas print depends on a lot of goop being sprayed over the top ... acrylic or the equivalent.

Jim Becia
7-Aug-2014, 12:08
Here is another photograph of the finished pieces. Jim

Jakelovesphoto
7-Aug-2014, 13:42
Maybe I'm just crazy here, but how would darkroom emulsion on canvas look? I'm talking like Rockland Colloid Ag+ on one of those board-like canvas panels

polyglot
7-Aug-2014, 20:31
I thought about aluminum but I can't see how I would store them...

Same as mounted prints I assume. In a box interleaved with tissue. The one I have on my wall is about 3.5mm thick, it's an Al/polyethylene/Al sandwich with the metal being about 0.7mm thick on each face.


I'm with Kirk on how they look. I don't like it. It's not just the esthetics; they look to me like they're trying to be paintings.

This I don't get. They look nothing like paintings - no lumps of paint, brush strokes, etc. They don't look like inkjets or C-prints or silver prints either, but that doesn't (to me) mean that they're trying to be paintings. They're just canvas prints: big and cheap with a tradeoff on print resolution. Certainly not for everyone, but worth a try IMHO.

paulr
8-Aug-2014, 09:04
This I don't get. They look nothing like paintings - no lumps of paint, brush strokes, etc. They don't look like inkjets or C-prints or silver prints either, but that doesn't (to me) mean that they're trying to be paintings. They're just canvas prints: big and cheap with a tradeoff on print resolution. Certainly not for everyone, but worth a try IMHO.

I see your point. For me there's such a strong association between canvas and paint that I have trouble shaking it. And I do think they look a bit like paintings, at least from a certain distance. Not all paintings on canvas have big globs of oil paint. Some have fairly fine detail, and an obvious texture of canvas.

A question: if it's all for practical reasons, why canvas? There are many other fabric or quasi-fabric substrates that could be rolled and stretched, and which would be smoother, allow finer detail, and a less intrusive surface. In other words, more traditionally photographic, and less traditionally painterly.

Darin Boville
8-Aug-2014, 11:34
A question: if it's all for practical reasons, why canvas? There are many other fabric or quasi-fabric substrates that could be rolled and stretched, and which would be smoother, allow finer detail, and a less intrusive surface. In other words, more traditionally photographic, and less traditionally painterly.

Through an inkjet printer? What do you have in mind?

--Darin

paulr
8-Aug-2014, 14:24
Through an inkjet printer? What do you have in mind?

--Darin

I don't know what exists ... but considering that it would be possible to manufacture any kind of fine-denier woven or non-woven fabric, with a smooth, ink-receptive coating, I have to think that the use of canvas is an esthetic choice. And one with deep roots in painting.

Here's some marketing copy plucked from around the web ...

"True canvas linen cloth used by artists for classic originals and reproductions for Giclee-like printing. This real canvas creates the feel and look of a classic painting. Our canvas can even be framed, stretched, or mounted."

"Unique texture for true artist look"

"Turn your computer-generated ideas into works of art on woven, textured canvas. Enhance photos, clip art, or illustrations, and make high-impact business presentations and reports"

And there are papers like the ones by Red River, that aren't real canvas but are textured to look like it.

I just don't think canvas inkjet material would exist if not for the ties to painting.

polyglot
8-Aug-2014, 16:26
A question: if it's all for practical reasons, why canvas? There are many other fabric or quasi-fabric substrates that could be rolled and stretched, and which would be smoother, allow finer detail, and a less intrusive surface. In other words, more traditionally photographic, and less traditionally painterly.

In my case, "because that's what the cheap vendor offers". Canvas probably was chosen for painterly-imitation reasons but is now so widely supported that it has become kind of a default. It's also pretty tough; you need the stretchy flexibility to wrap it around a frame cleanly. A flexible but non-stretchy film for example would be a problem.

paulr
8-Aug-2014, 20:22
In my case, "because that's what the cheap vendor offers". Canvas probably was chosen for painterly-imitation reasons but is now so widely supported that it has become kind of a default. It's also pretty tough; you need the stretchy flexibility to wrap it around a frame cleanly. A flexible but non-stretchy film for example would be a problem.

Agreed. There's the stuff they print billboards on, but it's pretty ugly. I see potential for some different substrates.

bob carnie
9-Aug-2014, 06:34
We do canvas here, personally I do not like it as well as many others, for certain commercial applications nothing works better but day to day I prefer on paper.

One thing not mentioned here is Canvas is very hard on your printer heads , and we have one 60 inch machine dedicated soley for commercial signage and canvas.

Canvas never goes on our other printers.

Bruce Watson
9-Aug-2014, 10:32
You aren't going to find much canvas love here -- just about all our community is still stuck on the "air dried F surface" idea of what a photograph is (or was). The lack of such a surface has been an ongoing rift between the darkroom printers and the inkjet printers.

I'm seemingly rare, in that I actually like inkjet prints, and specifically like that they are not air dried glossy darkroom prints. I can make a better inkjet print, using the Cone inks on matte paper, than I could a darkroom print. Ever. And I was trained as a darkroom printer. This isn't to say that darkroom prints are bad, or that inkjet prints are good. It's to say that I, personally, actively like inkjet prints. I know, I know, I'm a heretic.

Wait... it gets worse. I actively like inkjet prints on canvas. Possibly the only one responding to this thread. I think they look fine. I like that I can coat the print and display it without having to put it behind some glazing or other. That, by itself, improves the look significantly for me. And I like that a coated canvas print is pretty durable. Run a duster over it and it leaves no marks. Do that with an unprotected matte inkjet print and see what happens. I have; it's not pretty.

To me, inkjet on canvas is the only way to make large prints. But then, hardly anyone responding to this thread would ever make a print bigger than 50 x 40 cm. Yes, I'm looking at you Mr. Gittings. ;)

[EDIT: For readers that haven't read Kirk's numerous informative postings on printing and print sizes, as I have for the last decade, he has a well known and well articulated style and a well reasoned desire for enlargements no bigger then around 4-5x. I'm poking a little fun at him, but I mean zero disrespect; he may well be the finest printer on the LF forums, and I'm the first to concede he has already forgotten more about printing, and fine art photography, than I'll ever learn myself. Just sayin'.]

And, these people have a point. If you aren't making a big print, there's little reason to use canvas. But if you're going to make a print that's 89 x 143 cm (roughly a 12x enlargement of a 5x4 negative, and I have one that size hanging on my dining room wall right now, from 160 Portra), you have to think about how you're going to frame it.

Basically, you can't conventionally frame a print that big. At least, I can't. That frame has to be well bigger than the print -- show some matte board boarder, set off the print from the frame. That requires some frellin' big glazing (and only a fool would use glass that size, so I'm talking acrylic), and some huge matte board. And if I could find a framer who actually could make a frame that size, how would I transport the finished product? I don't have a vehicle with a large enough flat space -- in either dimension.

But with a canvas print, you can go bare. Just a print on stretchers. No frame. No matte board. No glazing. If you really want a frame, you can use a floater frame, which is just a tiny bit bigger than the stretched print.

So what do you loose? Fine detail for one. Even the smoothest canvas isn't going to be sufficiently smooth to even come close to good paper for holding detail. Can't. Nature of the beast. This is what ticks off most photographers the most, especially LFers. We love our detail. But again, if it's a really big print, it's designed to be seen at more distance. If you look at the final print from a print diagonal distance, just like you would a paper print, it looks fine, and it carries sufficient detail, at least for me. Not for Mr. Gittings. Thing is, a good canvas print carries more detail than most people who've not printed canvas before, think it does.

To some of your specific questions:

Are canvas prints more durable, as they would seem to be? Yes. Could my cat walk across one without me losing consciousness? No. Your cat would have to be climbing straight up a wall, claws out, on plaster / sheetrock. Not going to happen. For you to "see" that, you'd be so drunk you'd pass out, so you would of course loose consciousness.

Coatings? I don't want sprays (my family is in the industrial painting business, only fools spray without masks, ventilation, and, indoors, without fire suppression). Yes, you do want sprays. But if not, you can find liquid coaters. What do I use? Aqueous coatings, not solvents. Stay away from solvent coatings, spray or liquid.

Can a large print be rolled for storage? Not advisable. Will it hurt the print if it is kept that way long term? Probably. Depends on the coating. You might get layer-to-layer sticking inside the rolled up print, or the coating may get brittle which could make delayed stretching a disaster. Best to stretch it within a few weeks of coating, and store it on stretchers.

Stretching? Alternatives to stretching? I just want the thing flat. You want stretchers. Anything else, and you've got the same display problems as a paper print.

Regarding stretching, what if I wanted to do a single photo in multiple panels? Would I be able to get the edges to line up reasonably well? Yes.

A final word on gallery wraps. Gallery wraps don't require the image area to continue around the frame at a 90 degree angle from the front of the image. You can do that, but you don't have to. I don't. What I do is print a black border, usually 3cm wide, around the outside of my image. So the edge of the stretcher gets this black border. Otherwise, the edge of the stretcher shows canvas white, which can be effective, but usually not. The black makes it look like the image is floating out from the wall a bit.

Tyler Boley
10-Aug-2014, 10:18
Thanks Bruce, probably the most informative to the actual OP. Actually you are as much a long term contributor to these forums as anyone, so your considerable experience here has to be taken very seriously. All good points, and probably the use of canvas has been one of the few things we may disagree on, but since you've seen my prints, your point about maximum size is probably relevant to me too.
It's safe to say canvas for inkjet was developed primarily for the "giclee" market, painting reproduction, as that is what keeps most print shops open these days and where much of this began. So for those of us using inkjet as we did the darkroom, for original pieces, not reproductions, canvas is not a natural "go to". But it's wise to consider things for unintended use, they may address other issues. Handling inkjet prints is a big issue, and large scale presentation is a big issue for some. After all, printing on many kinds of fabrics is viable for a variety of fine art works. So.. there you go.
T

Darin Boville
10-Aug-2014, 14:19
Thank, Bruce. Outstanding.

I tested a few prints on canvas with the few canvas sheets that I had around the house from sample packs. Not too bad. Texture is too high on the 8x10 print but, of course , that will change with a much larger print. Will probably have the advantage of letting me print an image larger than I would normally be able to on paper (same situation with grainy prints being printable larger).

I want to order more paper for more tests. Doesn't seem to come in sheets so I'll buy a roll and cut it down.

What is the "best" canvas product? :) Or your favorite? What coating product do you recommend?

I'm looking at canvas from the perspective of offering a slightly different medium than inkjet, just like inkjet is slightly different from silver, just like silver is slightly different from platinum. Maybe not all images will work with it but maybe some will work better than with regular inkjet. And if I can come to understand its strengths and weaknesses maybe I can shoot images tailored to its capabilities.

Of course I realize that canvas is associated with paintings but I'm not worried at all about that.

Thanks again for a very informative post.

--Darin

paulr
10-Aug-2014, 16:13
Thanks for the informative post, Bruce.

One part I'd modify ...


YBasically, you can't conventionally frame a print that big. At least, I can't. That frame has to be well bigger than the print -- show some matte board boarder, set off the print from the frame. That requires some frellin' big glazing (and only a fool would use glass that size, so I'm talking acrylic), and some huge matte board. And if I could find a framer who actually could make a frame that size, how would I transport the finished product? I don't have a vehicle with a large enough flat space -- in either dimension.

It's possible, and pretty. It's just expensive. I've been having 4x60 prints mounted on aluminum dibond, and then framed shadow-box style (for these images at least, I prefer this look to overmats). Here's a pic sent to me by a customer.

119710

The frame is maple, with black lacquer. Not sure if it's stock or custom moulding. The white around the image the paper itself (a baryta-finish inkjet paper).

Darin Boville
10-Aug-2014, 16:23
Thanks for the informative post, Bruce.

One part I'd modify ...



It's possible, and pretty. It's just expensive. I've been having 4x60 prints mounted on aluminum dibond, and then framed shadow-box style (for these images at least, I prefer this look to overmats). Here's a pic sent to me by a customer.

119710

The frame is maple, with black lacquer. Not sure if it's stock or custom moulding. The white around the image the paper itself (a baryta-finish inkjet paper).

Hey Paul,

What does the aluminum mounting cost to do? I assume you can't do it yourself but you still print the print yourself? How heavy would one of those 40x60s be?

--Darin

paulr
10-Aug-2014, 16:33
At that size I don't do any of it myself. I have a friend with an art printing business who I collaborate with. We both work on color-managed systems. I bring him a match print (from my smaller epson printer) and my file, and then he does whatever tweaking he needs to do to get the same result on the big printers (he uses a RIP, which adds some variables).

It's ideal if you can have the mounting done by the same person who does the physical printing. Mounting is pretty high risk, and if you bring someone a print that you or someone else made, they'll make you sign a big waiver. But if they printed it themselves, and they wreck it, they just print another one and you never have to hear about it.

I've been paying around $300 for the mounting. I think this is pretty low. My friend's prices are actually higher for mounting on some cheaper materials, like Sintra. When I asked him about this he said his prices are out of date ... so I'm expecting an increase soon. $400 would probably be more typical.

I'm not handling the framing ... just suggesting styles and local framers. The printing studio crates the mounted print and couriers it off to the frame shop of choice.

Bruce Watson
11-Aug-2014, 07:34
I've been having 4x60 prints mounted on aluminum dibond, and then framed shadow-box style (for these images at least, I prefer this look to overmats).

This is a perfectly viable alternative for display of inkjet prints. I'm assuming that the print is coated since it has some handling challenges both in mounting it to the aluminum plate, and when displayed. There's got to be something between the pigments on the substrate and the sticky little hands of the public. Just sayin'.

What I was referring to was "conventionally framed", but I didn't specify what that means to me. For me, that's the Library of Congress method (http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/mat.html).

Bruce Watson
11-Aug-2014, 07:40
What is the "best" canvas product? :) Or your favorite? What coating product do you recommend?

Wish I could help you with this, but it's been more than five years since I had a canvas print made, and I haven't kept up with that market. I have relatively little idea what's available anymore.

Kirk Gittings
11-Aug-2014, 07:50
o me, inkjet on canvas is the only way to make large prints. But then, hardly anyone responding to this thread would ever make a print bigger than 50 x 40 cm. Yes, I'm looking at you Mr. Gittings.

[EDIT: For readers that haven't read Kirk's numerous informative postings on printing and print sizes, as I have for the last decade, he has a well known and well articulated style and a well reasoned desire for enlargements no bigger then around 4-5x. I'm poking a little fun at him, but I mean zero disrespect; he may well be the finest printer on the LF forums, and I'm the first to concede he has already forgotten more about printing, and fine art photography, than I'll ever learn myself. Just sayin'.]


Thanks Bruce (I think :) ). I rarely do large prints as you say-only when a collector wants one. I rarely exhibit large prints-24x30 being the largest I think and that was once or twice-they sold well. I used to refuse to make large prints period. It ruins the whole reason I shoot LF. "Viewing distance" only works if you can keep people from getting to close-they get too close and it ruins the tactility of LF. Since the recession I have given in on this for a couple of collectors simply because I need the money. I know that is crass but I have pared back my lifestyle as far as I can and a couple of winters the big prints have pulled me through. I work very hard to maintain maximum quality at large sizes always with drum scans from Lenny, but there are compromises. For one client who bought the largest print I have ever made for his ski lodge in Taos, I gave a framed 11x14 of the same print for his house because I wanted him to own one the way I prefer to them to be seen.

When I do make big prints they are treated exactly the same as small prints, matted, window matted, glazed with plexi and framed. The biggest problem at that size is warping so I use thicker mats and backing board and actually dry mount the window mat to the print mat. That is not a window mat that covers the edges of the print but one that allows a generous gap between the print edge and window. these are all inkjet prints. I don't do this myself but work with a local framer.

paulr
11-Aug-2014, 10:31
This is a perfectly viable alternative for display of inkjet prints. I'm assuming that the print is coated since it has some handling challenges both in mounting it to the aluminum plate, and when displayed. There's got to be something between the pigments on the substrate and the sticky little hands of the public. Just sayin'.

What I was referring to was "conventionally framed", but I didn't specify what that means to me. For me, that's the Library of Congress method (http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/mat.html).

Sorry, I left out the part about the glazing. It's glazed with UV-blocking plexi. We also looked into museum glass (heavy, fragile, expensive) and museum plexi (crazy expensive). Plain old UV plex seemed the most reasonable. The "shadow box" part means that the glazing is held off the print by spacers around the edge, since there's no overmat.

Most of my older work is done the way your library of congress link suggests. For this work, I'm doing it differently, partly for the size (mounting on the rigid substrate prevents warping) and partly because I wanted a more modern presentation. So the reasoning is a little bit practical and a little bit esthetic. I have another body of work that I considered face-mounting, for esthetic reasons, but I rejected the idea because it's so insanely impractical.

sanking
11-Aug-2014, 19:25
Has anyone printed very large prints direct to substrate such as aluminum dibond or other rigid synthetic surfaces? I am curious as to aesthetic of this compared to mounting prints on dibond or other surfaces.

Sandy

polyglot
12-Aug-2014, 04:03
Has anyone printed very large prints direct to substrate such as aluminum dibond or other rigid synthetic surfaces? I am curious as to aesthetic of this compared to mounting prints on dibond or other surfaces.

I haven't done it myself, but I have an inkjet-on-aluminium print mentioned a way up-thread. Looks OK, but there's a lot of metamerism if you have any totally-transparent highlight. It's very delicate and mine (on the loungeroom wall) now has two scrapes on it from clumsy people carrying stuff.