PDA

View Full Version : how to display color 30x40s



luke snyder
26-Jan-2004, 08:19
I need to send a gallery a 30x40 type-c print. They want it to "conservation standards" but window matting seems impractical. I've seen the general negative response to dry mounting in this forum but i've seen pieces in musuems that are mounted on some type of board with out any glass or plex for protection. What should i do?

Mark_3709
26-Jan-2004, 08:38
You can have it face mounted, cold mount to 1/4" clear acrylic. This seems like the popular choice as of the last 5 years in galleries. Andreas Gursky's giant C-prints are mounted this way. Archival? not sure, but the C-print isn't archival anyway.

kallitype
26-Jan-2004, 08:48
I have sold some 30x40 mounted flush (no borders, "full bleed") on 1/2 foamcore. Optional is clear glossy overlay to protect from UV and fingerprints. They look gorgeous as is, but they will mount nicely in Nielsen 97 aluminum frame for better portability/stability.

tim atherton
26-Jan-2004, 10:21
Face mounting is certainly one way to go for large Dye Coupler prints. Paul Grahams recent show at MOMA's PS! was done this way, as are most of the large Gursky and Struth photographs I've seen. The Diasec process seems to be popular with one crowd, though the cold Seal mounting process seems as popular now. It would appear it has no serious effects on the longevity of chromogenic dye coupler prints (presumably you are using something like Ultra Endura?). Indeed, it appears it may actually enhance longevity by protecting the front surface of the print. The one weak spot is the outer surface of the acrylic/plexi itself - which is susceptible to damage - then what do you do....

But why not let the gallery do the mounting to their requirements, in consultation and agreement with yourself?

Bruce Watson
26-Jan-2004, 13:28
You can certainly do a window mount. Mat boards are available in 40x60 inch size in the USA and equivalent sizes in other countries. That's easily enough for a window mounted 30x40. You'll want the window mat itself to be 8 ply - it just looks better at that size.

For a good current definition of "conservation standards" in framing a print, try this:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/preserv/care/mat.html

YMMV of course, but it *is* hard to argue with the Library of Congress.

Curators tend to object to anything that is not reversible. That's why they don't particularly like dry mounting. I find this interesting because there is research coming out now that shows that dry mounting prints makes them last longer because the mat board slows down penetration by pollutants coming in from the back of the print. Curators are a conservative lot though, and this will have to be shown without doubt before they begin to believe. As it should be probably. This is why they probably will object to face mounting, lamination, lacquer coatings, etc. They aren't reversible.

All that said, I think Tim has the right idea. Ask the gallery to specify what they mean by "conservation standards." Make them be explicit. If you can (particularly if you aren't paying for it) get them to do it. Then they'll get exactly what they want and you won't be stuck playing mind reader ;-)

luke snyder
26-Jan-2004, 13:42
The idea of face mounting is kind of counter-intuitive for me. I thought that that it was harmful to a print to be in contact with glass, in a frame for instance. I have been looking on the web all day about this and it seems that the adhesive used to face-mount is completely clear and is used to keep the print flat and also to adhere another piece to the back to sandwich the print. Am i not understanding this properly? The reason i am confused is that if that is the case, and i don't want any borders around the picture but a frame, why would you use the adhesive at all? One could simply sandwich the print between two pieces and use clips or something to keep it together if no frame was wanted. Am i totally off base, or is that a totally legitement option. That way you could also change the front piece if it was ever damaged. Is the concern that it would warp? By the way, i use Fuji Crystal Archive. Thanks for the help too.

Oh and i tried to reach the gallery and due to "unplanned travel" they wont be available to talk to until it is past the deadline. I am open to matting but I just thought being so large and glossy that any waviness would make them hard to see(not to mention 40x60 is larger than the dimensions allowed for this because it is a group show) anyway, thanks for the advice

tim atherton
26-Jan-2004, 14:05
there are various reason Luke - generally, it is used for very large prints where almost whatever you are putting it on is likely to shift/warp somewhat. Sandwiching the two is likely to leave you with some areas where the print touches the plexi and other areas where it doesn't. It is quite often done with just the front layer of plexi and no second backing layer.

It is also often used as a display mount in it's own right without framing.

A good example of what can go wrong with very large pieces: We had some large 5'x6' type pieces comes up to the Museum here as part of a travelling exhibition. The prints were mounted in a tradition sort of way (not dry mounted to a backing, with a Nielsen type frame, mat etc). There was either enough flex in the back, or the print itself just warped slightly due to the changes in temperature during shipping that the centre of a couple of pieces had come into contact with the inside of the glass. Moisture had formed at this spot and destroyed the emulsion of the print where it had touched - as well as left a residue on the inside of the glass... And this was work that had been mounted and framed by the National Gallery of Canada.

One thing with the face mounting, is that because of the direct contact between the face of the print and the acrylic with the barrier of the mounting "glue" is that many artists feel it gives and added depth, richness and "glow" to the colours of the print. This certainly seems so with the ginat "Gursky's" I've seen at the Tate Modern

Frank Petronio
26-Jan-2004, 14:27
Unfortunately I can confirm your experience with large traditionally hung and overmatted C-prints - I never could get 30x40s stable enough not to warp or do something self destructive. Maybe in a controlled environment 24/7/365 but in the real world I'm afraid I'd just laminate it to something as archival as possible and call it art.

Bruce Watson
26-Jan-2004, 16:13
Tim brings up another excellent point. If the framed work is going to be boxed and shipped, it's probably impossible to keep the print off the glazing while in transit. To keep it off the glass, you have to control the print, and about the only way to do that is to mount the print to a backing board. If that's the kind of treatment the print is going to get, I would certainly entertain the idea of dry mounting it to a 4 or 8 ply mat board. That, and an 8 ply window mat, should keep it off the glazing.

Tim, I'm curious - did the Nat. Gallery actually use glass, or was it acrylic? Most galleries and museums really shy away from glass for fear of destroying the artwork if the glass shatters in an accident.

Speaking of glazing, I should mention that most "conservation standards" specifiy that the print has to be behind some sort of glazing that blocks UV light. The reason being the light, and particularly UV, damages prints and papers.

robert lyons
26-Jan-2004, 22:04
luke there are several issues to think about concerning face mounting of prints. first is the aesthetic and how the diasec(plexi) makes the image appear. the next is where to have it done.the process one sees with gursky, struth, et al is a specific process that was developed in switzerland and is liscensed to specific labs....and according to tests conducted supeior to some other methods that are commonly practiced by labs here in the usa. the process used by greiger lab in dusseldorf has a silicone binder..in most other cases (in the usa) an adhesive "film" is used and thought to be less stable over long term. upon asking the lab in dusseldorf about the "archival" issues they felt that the superior method for longevity was not mounting the print at all,next best according to them was the diasec face mount. all this being said i recently did a show with prints that were 45"x61" and also 65"x88" and i had the prints mounted in a traditional manner (on the verso) used a large white border of the paper to "float" the image and had a frame with a 1/2" spacer - so the print had space between the plexi and the surface. i personally do not care for the face mount look...it seems cheap and commercial to me and also scratching the plexi was an issue for pieces that are shipped.

Mark_3899
26-Jan-2004, 22:26
One could simply sandwich the print between two pieces and use clips or something to keep it together if no frame was wanted. Am i totally off base, or is that a totally legitement option. That way you could also change the front piece if it was ever damaged.

This would be like encapsulation. That is a method of preserving archives, unfortunately you would never get the tension necessary to keep the 30x40 print flat enough. Acrylic isn't used behind the surface mounted print. Usually we put a piece of 4 ply behind the surface mount print to protect the back. I've seen corplast used also. Like Tim said, it adds depth and richness and it's really quite beautiful. Gursky and Struths are done this way and they go for between 40 and 60 thousand, so don't worry about reversable.

the one weak spot is the outer surface of the acrylic/plexi itself - which is susceptible to damage - then what do you do....

You make sure whoever is showing your work is insuring it.

tim atherton
26-Jan-2004, 22:31
Yes, unfortunately there is very little research on face mounting to date.

Some has been done on the Diasec method and a little on the others. There is basically one conservator in Hamburg doing research, who did some work at Kingston and the CCI in Canada, and a conservator at the Tate, that I know of.

From looking at their papers, it does overall seem fairly promising and quite stable, and their are doubts that the Diasec process is superior in an major way to similar processes such as the Seal one. Diasec keeps things pretty close to their chest though,

The process itself, if done correctly seems fairly stable. Off gassing of acetic (ethanoic) acid from the acetoxy-curing silicone rubbers coming from the edges of the prints have been of some concern, but has been shown to occur at a fairly low and controlled rate.

I also seem to recall some concerns about the highly acid environment that occurs as part of the Diasec proprietary process - but I might be wrong on that.

It was also found that much depended on the quality of workmanship of the lab doing the mounting - which seemed to vary quite substantially

Basically, as stuff has only been mounted like this since the 90's, it's all fairly new, with limited research. I think our OCnservator has my copies of the various papers, but I'll see if I can track them down.

luke snyder
28-Jan-2004, 16:26
i live in boston so i'm going to see if i can find a place that does face mounting. How much is usually charged for that and whats the difference between that and cold seal? This is very interesting and i appreciate the help.

Michael W. Ringler
29-Jan-2004, 14:20
Take a look at http://www.MiGallery.com My wife and I have developed a process using high quality liquid water based acrylic emusion, we mount a standard print to an artboard that is coated with acrylics then coat the print with this emusion. It is much thicker than the can spray-on type sealers and much safer (no toulenes or other type of ...lene chemicals). If you are interested, e-mail or call us.

Michael Ringler mringler@qtm.net cell ph: 574-329-1451

tim atherton
30-Jan-2004, 10:13
Luke

Color Service in Needham have been recomended by others for this (using Optimount by Seal) - talk to them and see what they say and see if it fits what you really want

Color Services, Needham, 781-444-5101

me
16-Sep-2005, 12:12
http://www.martinjuergens.net/Assets/download/Queens_Thesis_Juergens.pdf

this may help

jay archibald
14-Dec-2005, 11:53
duggal visual solutions in new york (duggal.com) provides excellent service for sandwich plexi frames. though i have yet to deal with the insistencies of a museum, most galleries and collector's i work with now insist i print out of new york to achieve this look. full bleed print that comes off the wall and looks downright sexy. as for the fragility of the frame itself, be careful, it will scratch and chip if dropped. does anyone know of a place on the west coast that provides this service? thanks, jay

Scott Fleming
14-Dec-2005, 17:54
There's a woman out here who is a photography professor at some college or other. She has just opened her own gallery. She has her own Epson 9600 and she is 'stretching' prints just like canvas on a wood frame. She wraps the printed edge around the edge of the frame. Looks pretty good. The prints lay very flat. One could frame and mount such a framed piece to look like a traditional mount. She has one large print like this about 36" x 60" or thereabouts. I don't know if she has springs or what behind the frame keeping the paper tight.

tim atherton
14-Dec-2005, 17:59
is she printing on paper or canvas?

Paul Shambron did this on canvas with the big prints from his "Meetings" project

( http://www.photoeye.com/templates/mShowDetailsbycat.cfm?Catalog=ZC285 )

Scott Fleming
14-Dec-2005, 18:54
I don't know much about these inkjet papers. Don't use em. The paper she is using has a canvas like texture and I assumed it was one of those I'd seen mentioned in conjunction with inkjet printers. I just thought it was a paper with a texture. It's not really canvas is it?

tim atherton
14-Dec-2005, 19:42
yes, probably - they are a canvas (veriety of different types) with an inkjet receptive coating.

But with most you can just fold them around the stretcher as you would a painted canvas

Richard Ide
14-Dec-2005, 20:23
One method I have used is to place a C print between 2 sheets of acrylic and tape the edges. I used 3M #850 polyester tape which seems to last forever. I have a roll which I have had for 30 years and is as good now as when made. The adhesive shows no signs of degradation.

Richard