Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Presenting Large Prints  (Read 6782 times)
photo4
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« on: March 13, 2009, 09:44:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I understand this topic was discussed few years back and was wondering whether there are new insights and/or suggestions.

I have been printing on canvas for the last year, with dimensions around 40" x 60".  I would like to print on paper but can't find a economical solution to frame such large prints.  I would like to have archival standard mats and glass, etc, but the cost is too high.  Any other suggestions as to frame/present large prints economically?

Thank you in advance for any suggestions.

Ed
Logged
whawn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2009, 10:11:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: photo4
I have been printing on canvas for the last year, with dimensions around 40" x 60".  I would like to print on paper but can't find a economical solution to frame such large prints.  I would like to have archival standard mats and glass, etc, but the cost is too high.  Any other suggestions as to frame/present large prints economically?
Same problem, although I've found that the max size most folks want is 30x45.  H'ever, having the BIGGIE WAN for them to see first is a good thing...

About the best source I've found is framedestination.com but even they get pretty pricey at the larger sizes.  I don't think there is any way around paying the pretty penny for the pretty large pieces.
Logged

Walter Hawn -- Casper, Wyoming
Jon Shiu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2009, 10:14:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: photo4
Hi,

I understand this topic was discussed few years back and was wondering whether there are new insights and/or suggestions.

I have been printing on canvas for the last year, with dimensions around 40" x 60".  I would like to print on paper but can't find a economical solution to frame such large prints.  I would like to have archival standard mats and glass, etc, but the cost is too high.  Any other suggestions as to frame/present large prints economically?

Thank you in advance for any suggestions.

Ed
I think mounted on aluminum looks nice. Not sure if you can do it yourself, though.

Jon
Logged

Mendocino Coast in Black and White: www.jonshiu.com
photo4
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2009, 10:19:58 PM »
ReplyReply

how about placing the prints in between two acrylic with four our eight knobs holding front and back together?  Will this work?
Logged
mrkahn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2009, 05:53:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: photo4
how about placing the prints in between two acrylic with four our eight knobs holding front and back together?  Will this work?


I have used that process with Walter Display's clips.  I placed the prints between two pieces of 1/2" Plexiglass that I had polished on the sides.  They look fabulous.  The Walker hooks will work in two ways:  1) as they present them with their rod hanging system and:  2) with their clips connected to a rod that does not extend beyond the picture.  I then use a key ring that is placed on the rod before the top clip is put in place.  The key ring allows me to hang the picture from both ends with a regular clip.  I have been able to get 30 x 43" x 1/2" Plexiglass for about $150, including polishing.  If you are looking for non glair and UV protected it will be double that cost.  I typically spray the pieces with Print Shiled several times to protect them instead of the more expansive Plexi.
Logged
photo4
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2009, 05:57:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Will you be able to post a picture of the clips and the end result?  Sounds very interesting.  Thank you so much.
Quote from: mrkahn
I have used that process with Walter Display's clips.  I placed the prints between two pieces of 1/2" Plexiglass that I had polished on the sides.  They look fabulous.  The Walker hooks will work in two ways:  1) as they present them with their rod hanging system and:  2) with their clips connected to a rod that does not extend beyond the picture.  I then use a key ring that is placed on the rod before the top clip is put in place.  The key ring allows me to hang the picture from both ends with a regular clip.  I have been able to get 30 x 43" x 1/2" Plexiglass for about $150, including polishing.  If you are looking for non glair and UV protected it will be double that cost.  I typically spray the pieces with Print Shiled several times to protect them instead of the more expansive Plexi.
Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2009, 06:31:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: photo4
Hi,

I understand this topic was discussed few years back and was wondering whether there are new insights and/or suggestions.

I have been printing on canvas for the last year, with dimensions around 40" x 60".  I would like to print on paper but can't find a economical solution to frame such large prints.  I would like to have archival standard mats and glass, etc, but the cost is too high.  Any other suggestions as to frame/present large prints economically?

Thank you in advance for any suggestions.

Ed

You may consider laminating them onto board. I've had this done for panos up to 24x80"; this results in a relatively light and rigid mounted print with a fairly tough surface you can clean off with a damp cloth. The ones I've had mounted came back with simple slots in the back you drop over screws on the wall to hang it; couldn't be simpler. The service provider I used charged about $120 (U.S.) for the 24x80" size.
Logged
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1536



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2009, 07:58:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I do canvas gallery wraps and canvas attached to the 1/4 board and use the precut metal frames.  If you buy the metal frames from American Frame this is the cheapest way to go. You can get the precut plexi from them as well. This is what Michael Reichman does and shows it in his Capture to Print series. Comes ready to put together with a screwdriver. And very affordable.

Dan Berg
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 07:59:03 AM by Dan Berg » Logged

rcdurston
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2009, 11:01:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Large prints over 24x36 tend to be very unruly when framed; if you used glass, any slight twist will crack it and cyro plexi ends up weighing a tonne. I using a less expensive route for my next show. Instead of aluminum this time, I'm going to use di-bond, which is two .5mm sheets of aluminum sandwiching foam. If you do take the aluminum route though Weldon Color Lab in LA can help you. Their prices are not cheap but they do exhibition quality work.
Logged

hsmeets
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2009, 01:53:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rcdurston
Large prints over 24x36 tend to be very unruly when framed; if you used glass, any slight twist will crack it and cyro plexi ends up weighing a tonne. I using a less expensive route for my next show. Instead of aluminum this time, I'm going to use di-bond, which is two .5mm sheets of aluminum sandwiching foam. If you do take the aluminum route though Weldon Color Lab in LA can help you. Their prices are not cheap but they do exhibition quality work.

Dibond seems to gain in popularity, I've seen big prints laminated between Dibond (back) and Acrylic/Plexi (front). I was told that the front is glued to the print with transparent glue. After all is mounted it is cut on a table-circularsaw to final dimension and the edges get a polishing to smooth them out. All sounded like many $$$$$
Logged

photo4
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2009, 04:23:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: hsmeets
Dibond seems to gain in popularity, I've seen big prints laminated between Dibond (back) and Acrylic/Plexi (front). I was told that the front is glued to the print with transparent glue. After all is mounted it is cut on a table-circularsaw to final dimension and the edges get a polishing to smooth them out. All sounded like many $$$$$

I was actually looking for something that can protect the picture surface, like a glass or acrylic.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8387



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2009, 07:52:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: hsmeets
Dibond seems to gain in popularity, I've seen big prints laminated between Dibond (back) and Acrylic/Plexi (front). I was told that the front is glued to the print with transparent glue. After all is mounted it is cut on a table-circularsaw to final dimension and the edges get a polishing to smooth them out. All sounded like many $$$$$

That sounds good except for the transparent glue... that doesn't seem to be very archival quality...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2955



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2009, 12:06:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: hsmeets
Dibond seems to gain in popularity, I've seen big prints laminated between Dibond (back) and Acrylic/Plexi (front). I was told that the front is glued to the print with transparent glue. After all is mounted it is cut on a table-circularsaw to final dimension and the edges get a polishing to smooth them out. All sounded like many $$$$$

Currently two ways to to face mount a print to the plexiglass.  One is using a seal product called optimount, an optically clear adhesive which is pH neutral. There are several companies that offer this.  This would seem to be more archival.

The other is a process called daisec, which uses a thin layer of silicon adhesive between the print and acrylic.  This seems to be more common in Europe. Currently I do not think this can be done with inkjet prints, the adhesive dissolves some ink, so it requires a silver halide print.

I've also heard of using Lexan instead of plexi.  I guess the advantage would be stronger so a thinner piece would offer similar protection but would be lighter. This is supposedly what Peter Lik is using, but I was told he doesn't face mount, the print is between aluminum and thin Lexan, which works as long as they are framed. (who knows how much sales people really know, but told the same thing in two different galleries of his).

As mentioned by Bernard, I'm not sure how either process affects the archival qualities of the print.
Logged

marcsitkin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2009, 03:06:33 PM »
ReplyReply

DiaSec is very popular in Europe. It's a wet mount process to the plexi, with an aluminum backer. The silicon adhesives are not meant to be used with inkjet prints. I've had sample materials here for a while, but haven't gotten around to trying them.

The optically clear adhesive Wayne refers to is something we have used for many years to mount duratrans to plexi. It also will work well with inkjet prints. The only drawback with it is that it is a dry process, so dust is a big concern. For commercial work, especially with a backlit material, it's not a big problem as the backlighting makes this disappear.

 For fine art, the standards will probably be a bit higher, so your success may be more limited. It really depends on how many dust spot's you can tolerate, and how clean you can work.
Logged

Regards,

Marc Sitkin
www.digitalmomentum.com
mrkahn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2009, 12:43:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: photo4
Will you be able to post a picture of the clips and the end result?  Sounds very interesting.  Thank you so much.


Go to my web site and click on exhibitions.   (malcolmkahn.com)
 I have a couple of pictures that were framed in Plexi.  They really stand out.
Logged
framah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1224



« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2009, 02:02:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Any time you put a chemical based adhesive on the image or the back of a print, it is not archival.  True archival means that the mounting process is able to be reversed with no effects on the print. Adhesives whether pH neutral or not have chemicals that migrate into the paper and thus change the original properties of the print.

Anytime you decide to dry mount or wet mount onto a substrate, you are changing the properties of the print and thus it is not archival.  Now with that said, mounting to a hard flat surface will give you a nicer looking display than T hinging with rice paste and mulberry paper hinges which is THE archival way to mount.
It comes down to what you really want. If you plan to sell to a very picky, upscale customer who demands true archival then you need to do it the right way.
For most people out there, they really don't care about reversibility of the mounting process, they want a nice piece of art for their walls.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 02:03:40 PM by framah » Logged

"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2955



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2009, 04:02:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: framah
For most people out there, they really don't care about reversibility of the mounting process, they want a nice piece of art for their walls.

Good point.  To me the entire presentation must be appealing, which for some a standard museum mount is, but many prefer something that fits the decor of room where the print will be displayed.

This type of presentation, while not technically "archival" shouldn't be mistaken as the short lived.  Mounted and framed correctly these images will last for many decades.  Since the end of life for nearly all images is physical damage or accelerated fading through improper lighting, these prints will most likely last about as long as those archival ones.

Logged

button
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2009, 06:47:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm considering using melamine hardboard (I have some in my workshop) to mount a 15" x 50" supergloss lightjet print.  I've also used 3M 77 spray adhesive in the past, although I have no idea how it would react to supergloss paper long term.  Does anyone have any suggestions, pro or con, for these two products, or for alternative materials?  BTW, Wayne, you're coming up on post #666....

John
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 06:48:48 PM by button » Logged
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2009, 07:11:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Geoff Wittig
You may consider laminating them onto board. I've had this done for panos up to 24x80"; this results in a relatively light and rigid mounted print with a fairly tough surface you can clean off with a damp cloth. The ones I've had mounted came back with simple slots in the back you drop over screws on the wall to hang it; couldn't be simpler. The service provider I used charged about $120 (U.S.) for the 24x80" size.

Same experience - very reasonable cost, looks particularly good good if you print with a border and ensure the laminator cuts OUTSIDE it! I printed my first one with a white border and the framer assumed that was waste and mounted it as a full bleed.

The point'n'shoot pic shows both, if rather darkly!

Bill
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 07:11:54 PM by billcb » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2910


« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2009, 04:40:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
Currently two ways to to face mount a print to the plexiglass.  One is using a seal product called optimount, an optically clear adhesive which is pH neutral. There are several companies that offer this.  This would seem to be more archival.

The other is a process called daisec, which uses a thin layer of silicon adhesive between the print and acrylic.  This seems to be more common in Europe. Currently I do not think this can be done with inkjet prints, the adhesive dissolves some ink, so it requires a silver halide print.

I've also heard of using Lexan instead of plexi.  I guess the advantage would be stronger so a thinner piece would offer similar protection but would be lighter. This is supposedly what Peter Lik is using, but I was told he doesn't face mount, the print is between aluminum and thin Lexan, which works as long as they are framed. (who knows how much sales people really know, but told the same thing in two different galleries of his).

As mentioned by Bernard, I'm not sure how either process affects the archival qualities of the print.


I can not comment on the archival properties of the Diasec process when inkjet prints are used but there's a misunderstanding that inkjet prints can not be mounted that way. On the Dutch pages of Wilcovak the following is written:

"We have to protect inkjet media first with an invisible protection foil to assure a good bond. Photorag and similar inkjet media do not need that extra protection"
 
http://www.wilcovak.nl/nl/diasec/diasec.htm

A mix of their information and my comments:
The usual sandwich is 3 mm acrylic at the front and 4 mm Dibond at the back. Dibond is a further development of Alucobond, in both cases the internal plastic is a solid polyethylene, the Dibond outer aluminium sheets are thinner and of a harder grade than the original Alucobond had. That makes it more rigid at the same thickness than the Alucobond and allows thinner sheet qualities like 2mm. Polycarbonate (Lexan) can be used instead of the acrylic for the front panel. It has a better impact resistance but less scratch resistance and acrylic remains superior on the optical aspects. Instead of Dibond there are other backing materials like Aluminium, Polystyrene, opal Acrylic possible. The print has to have an extra area around the image (half an inch) for the mounting process and that extra area will be removed in the final stage, sides then polished.

There's an English section on the Wilcovak pages but it is less informative on inkjet prints


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/






Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad