Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Gloss Media For Plexi Facemounting  (Read 9872 times)
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« on: March 11, 2010, 04:17:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I need reliable inkjet gloss media for facemounting on large 40x60 plexi sheets backed by dibond. 12 of them.

The ILford Omnijet Photo Gloss White Film - 195gsm - OP2WF5 seems to  be the best thing to use but I just haven't tested it and this is getting time consuming and expensive to test everything.

The Ilford is similar to the Pictorico but comes in a 42" rolls which Pictorico isn't, which I need for facemounting on plexi. All the HP papers seem iffy and Pro Satin for sure is a failure due to the silvering specks across the surface.

Looks like this Ilford may be the only thing that works really well outside of C prints. But, I haven't used it on the Z3100 yet and it's expensive, and I worry about roller marks. It isn't that thick so maybe that is no issue and I'm just paranoid. The only roller marks I've ever seen were on the Harmon very glossy and hard sheets.

john

Logged
a.lorge
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2010, 06:13:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I use HP premium instant dry gloss photo paper for face mounting.  It works great in my opinion.
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2010, 07:01:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Well thank you for commenting on that. That is what I have and what I would definitely like to use because it is a sure thing on the Z.

Have you done big ones  and or done a lot of them?

john





Quote from: deanwork
I need reliable inkjet gloss media for facemounting on large 40x60 plexi sheets backed by dibond. 12 of them.

The ILford Omnijet Photo Gloss White Film - 195gsm - OP2WF5 seems to  be the best thing to use but I just haven't tested it and this is getting time consuming and expensive to test everything.

The Ilford is similar to the Pictorico but comes in a 42" rolls which Pictorico isn't, which I need for facemounting on plexi. All the HP papers seem iffy and Pro Satin for sure is a failure due to the silvering specks across the surface.

Looks like this Ilford may be the only thing that works really well outside of C prints. But, I haven't used it on the Z3100 yet and it's expensive, and I worry about roller marks. It isn't that thick so maybe that is no issue and I'm just paranoid. The only roller marks I've ever seen were on the Harmon very glossy and hard sheets.

john
Logged
a.lorge
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2010, 07:50:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I've probably facemounted about 50 photographs to plexi, with the largest being 24" by 30".  Even using 3/8" plexi, I've never had any issues with the paper delaminating.  On top of that, I've also made 100s of lenticular inkjet prints (also a facemounting process for which I also use the HP premium instant dry photo gloss paper).  I haven't had any issues with the paper on those either.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 07:56:08 PM by a.lorge » Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2010, 08:02:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Excellent.





Quote from: a.lorge
I've probably facemounted about 50 photographs to plexi, with the largest being 24" by 30".  Even using 3/8" plexi, I've never had any issues with the paper delaminating.  On top of that, I've also made 100s of lenticular inkjet prints (also a facemounting process for which I also use the HP premium instant dry photo gloss paper).  I haven't had any issues with the paper on those either.
Logged
cbcbell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2010, 07:25:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Several years ago, I purchased a Drytac 26" laminator, and drove to Toronto for a day of training on facemounting. I was printing on a 24" HP Designjet 130nr printer at the time, and learned that the best results would be had from the smoothest possible surface, so I standardized on HP Premium Plus Photo Gloss paper for facemounting using Drytac Facemount, "an optically clear pressure-sensitive mounting adhesive protected on each side by a clear polyester release liner." With rigorous attention to detail, I learned to facemount 24 x 36" prints on 1/8" plexi and Dibond, and adhered aluminum braces to the back of the Dibond to stiffen the straighten the print, and provide a support for hanging the work. The mounted prints looked pretty good, but I was always bothered by the inevitable silvering that was most visible in the dark areas, an effect which is completely absent in Diasec mounting using the silicone adhesive.

To my chagrin, after a year or two, I started to see the aluminum bracing structure telegraph through to the image side of the print with an effect like accelerated silvering. At that point, I switched to having Laumont Studio (NYC) do all my large facemounted pieces, and they have always done an excellent job. In working with Laumont, I learned that Diasec (the process they use), is chemically incompatible with inkjet prints, so I was also forced to let them produce C-prints on their Lambda printer. This was somewhat unfortunate, as the Lambda simply does not have the D-max and color gamut of modern inkjet printers. Even though they supplied me with their printer profiles, and I used Jeff Schewe's method of soft-proofing with final adjustment layers for punching black and tweaking contrast and saturation, the C-prints were always a bit disappointing in comparison with my HP proofs.

More recently, I purchased a Canon iPF8100, a 44" 12-color pigment printer that produces substantially more beautiful prints than the Designjet ever did, prints which are in a completely different league than the Lightjet or Lambda. Knowing that these prints should not be facemounted, I have switched display tactics, and moved to using the gorgeous welded and powdercoated aluminum frames that Smallcorp builds (and which Laumont also distributes).

http://www.smallcorp.com/aluminum.html

I still mount my prints on Dibond and brace them with aluminum, but by putting them in a Smallcorp shadowbox frame, I solve several problems at once: I can have the best possible print, I can protect that print from dirt and damage, and if the plexiglas ever gets scratched, it can easily be replaced.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 11:46:32 AM by cbcbell » Logged

Christopher Campbell
http://www.cbcampbell.com
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2010, 11:24:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, exactly. That is what I wanted to do but this client insisted on face mounting for this particular show. The other problem with face mounting is that plexi in general is not guaranteed to keep from yellowing after 25 years or so and in that method it obviously can't be replaced. And, like you say you end up paying a hell of a lot by avoiding frames, so not buying frames doesn't really save you anything. And, with the shadow box you can use any stable paper and inks you desire.


By the way Laumount told me on the phone that they do both Diasec and the pressure film mounted method of facemounting. These days they do a lot of inkjet prints but they did mention having issues with Epson papers, like Premium Luster obviously.










I still mount my prints on Dibond and brace them with aluminum, but by putting them in a Smallcorp shadowbox frame, I solve several problems at once: I can have the best possible print, I can protect that print from dirt and damage, and if the plexiglas ever gets scratched, it can easily be replaced.
[/quote]
Logged
cbcbell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2010, 11:53:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Wow, I'm surprised that Laumont is doing any facemounting with pressure-sensitive film, as the attendant silvering makes the end result so markedly inferior to the Diasec method. I suppose, however, that at a certain point the demand for mounting inkjet prints was great enough that they figured it made sense.

It will be interesting to see what material you finally select, and how happy you are with the results. These questions are never simple!
Logged

Christopher Campbell
http://www.cbcampbell.com
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2010, 12:09:44 PM »
ReplyReply

So with the Smallcorp frames are you basically back to "ordinary" framing but with a very nice frame and a very a flat mounting board?  Is there a space between the plex and the print such as from a matte?

Beyond the screw holes to support wood braces what are the special qualities of these frames?  Are they so flat they do not distort the plex?
Logged
a.lorge
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2010, 01:47:42 PM »
ReplyReply

"Wow, I'm surprised that Laumont is doing any facemounting with pressure-sensitive film, as the attendant silvering makes the end result so markedly inferior to the Diasec method"

This statement made me somewhat paranoid so I have been scrutinizing the facemounted prints in my living room with a magnifying glass for the past 15 minutes.      I'm not seeing any silvering.

This is my method if you are interested.  I think it's pretty solid.

Step 1:  Laminate double sided adhesive onto photo.  I use HP premium instant dry photo gloss for the paper and seal optimount ultra for the laminate.  Remove any dust with one of these:  dust removal roller.  Also make sure that the laminator pressure is high and even.  Use a piece of plexi as a sled to send it through the laminator.
 
Step 2:  Laminate photo with double sided adhesive onto plexi with the photo face down (i.e. the laminator roller against the back of the photo) Again removing any dust with the dust removal roller.  Use a sled for this step too.  Tape down a strip of plexi to the leading edge of the sled so that when the laminator hits the actual piece of plexi you are laminating the print onto, the laminator roller is already on that level.  If you don't do this and you let the roller jump right onto the plexi, it won't adhere properly where the initial contact is made.  The result will be an ugly mark that is impossible to remove.  Not good for frameless display.

Step 3:  Adhere the backing.  I don't use dibond as a backing.  Instead I go with sintra board.  This is mainly because I don't have a way to cut the dibond and plexi (with polished edges) to the exact same size.  The advantage of the sintra board is that it is very easy to cut.  Once it's mounted to the print + plexi, you can just take a utility knife and carefully cut around the edge.  It makes the edge very neat and presentable for frameless display.

Step 4:  Adhere the bracing.  For the bracing I use decor moulding company stretcher bars flipped upside down (i.e. flat part facing the backing)  I Usually make these about an inch smaller than the size of the plexi piece.  I attach them to the sintra board with a 2 part epoxy and put pile on a few weights while it is drying.  The sintra, wood, epoxy combination makes a very strong bond.  Then you can screw any type of hangers into the wood.  I usually go with 4 hole hangers just to be safe.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2010, 02:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: a.lorge
This is my method if you are interested.  I think it's pretty solid...

Thanks for that detailed write up!

Some questions...

-What is a reasonable expectation as to overall yield?  90%?  50%?  I have heard reports of less than 1/3 of attempts being reasonably presentable.

-How do I answer the question, "...and how long will this last?"

Besides the dramatic presentation and premium prices, face mounting looks very interesting because if a smooth, high yield workflow could be implemented it would be one of the fastest ways to prepare framed prints for sale.
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2010, 02:28:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your experience, but... I wouldn't dream of doing this myself, not in a million trillion years, even if someone gave me the large format mounting equipment for free. I'm at the mercy of a huge well equipped service bureau that does a good job ( with C Prints onto dibond). Small prints possibly, but not 12 huge ones.

My whole problem with all this is that my 40x60 prints done with Vivera pigments end up having to be done on cold looking paper with huge amounts oba and mounted to plexi that will eventually yellow. And now I'm very worried about long term adhesive issues.

And, having to go through all this trouble, research, and expense to arrive at something that looks so 1980s. Why .... is the question I keep asking myself. It's become a total cliche now and I really much prefer the look of a dibond float mounted with several inches space between the print and the plexi in a nice frame ( with no mat of course). I hoping that is what I'll talk them into doing. I'm going to price those welded frames at that size now. I'll probably be in for another shock.

john




Quote from: a.lorge
"Wow, I'm surprised that Laumont is doing any facemounting with pressure-sensitive film, as the attendant silvering makes the end result so markedly inferior to the Diasec method"

This statement made me somewhat paranoid so I have been scrutinizing the facemounted prints in my living room with a magnifying glass for the past 15 minutes.      I'm not seeing any silvering.

This is my method if you are interested.  I think it's pretty solid.

Step 1:  Laminate double sided adhesive onto photo.  I use HP premium instant dry photo gloss for the paper and seal optimount ultra for the laminate.  Remove any dust with one of these:  dust removal roller.  Also make sure that the laminator pressure is high and even.  Use a piece of plexi as a sled to send it through the laminator.
 
Step 2:  Laminate photo with double sided adhesive onto plexi with the photo face down (i.e. the laminator roller against the back of the photo) Again removing any dust with the dust removal roller.  Use a sled for this step too.  Tape down a strip of plexi to the leading edge of the sled so that when the laminator hits the actual piece of plexi you are laminating the print onto, the laminator roller is already on that level.  If you don't do this and you let the roller jump right onto the plexi, it won't adhere properly where the initial contact is made.  The result will be an ugly mark that is impossible to remove.  Not good for frameless display.

Step 3:  Adhere the backing.  I don't use dibond as a backing.  Instead I go with sintra board.  This is mainly because I don't have a way to cut the dibond and plexi (with polished edges) to the exact same size.  The advantage of the sintra board is that it is very easy to cut.  Once it's mounted to the print + plexi, you can just take a utility knife and carefully cut around the edge.  It makes the edge very neat and presentable for frameless display.

Step 4:  Adhere the bracing.  For the bracing I use decor moulding company stretcher bars flipped upside down (i.e. flat part facing the backing)  I Usually make these about an inch smaller than the size of the plexi piece.  I attach them to the sintra board with a 2 part epoxy and put pile on a few weights while it is drying.  The sintra, wood, epoxy combination makes a very strong bond.  Then you can screw any type of hangers into the wood.  I usually go with 4 hole hangers just to be safe.
Logged
a.lorge
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2010, 03:10:37 PM »
ReplyReply

"-What is a reasonable expectation as to overall yield? 90%? 50%? I have heard reports of less than 1/3 of attempts being reasonably presentable."

I estimate somewhere is the 80-95% range, depending how picky you want to be.  Unless you are working in some sort of HEPA, dust free government laboratory, you will more than likely end up with a piece of dust or two in the final product.  That being said, the surface of the hp photo paper is soft enough than when you do get a small piece of dust in there that it sort of isolates itself.  There isn't a halo around it or anything like that, and you'd really have to be agressively searching for imperfections before you'd notice them.  My work space is more or less a dusty old attic over a frame store and I am using a relatively cheap imported Chinese laminator, and I still feel pretty confident in that estimate.  I also give a lot of credit to that dust removal roller that I linked to above.  It's an extraordinarily useful tool.

"-How do I answer the question, "...and how long will this last?"

I have no idea.  It seems like all the "ingredients" are relatively stable.  The sintra is pH neutral, the adhesive is pH neutral.  I haven't had any issues with delamintaing (my oldest prints are about 3 years old at this point with 3/8" plexi which is a pretty heavy load).  As John mentioned above, I think the biggest concern would be the OBAs and the plexi.  Also notable is immense amount of UV filtering offered by the combination of the plexi and the optically clear adhesive.

"And, having to go through all this trouble, research, and expense to arrive at something that looks so 1980s. Why .... is the question I keep asking myself."

Are you questioning my taste?  j/k     I got into because I had most of the materials around from my lenticular printing business.  Also, I worked at a framing store for a number of years and developed a moderate aversion to frames.  I can't really say there are a lot of benefits to it unless you are enamored with the way it looks.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2010, 03:31:05 PM »
ReplyReply

All evaluations of taste are futile.  Face mount is hot, just ask Peter Lik at any of his 4 or so Las Vegas galleries.  It's what the high-rollers and the high-roller wannabees are buying.  As I think Justan reminded us, money does not stink, no matter what the smell of face mount adhesive.  Peter Lik doing face mount...now ain't that the best!
Logged
jschone
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2010, 04:51:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I facemount prints on plexi on a weekly basis. For clients(photographers) and for my own work (http://www.360cities.net/image/icipici-jochem-schoneveld-rome)

-I always print on Epson Premium glossy for pleximounts (on Epson 7880, 9800 or 7900 printers).
-Mounting is done with a simple 105 cm silicon roller machine (the mounting machine I use you can see in the link above)
-Clean the plexi with some alcohol beforehand (also for anti-static reasons)
-First mount the optical clear adhesive to the plexi
-Then mount the print to the plexiglass
-To avoid silvering, the trick is to roll very slow and at consistent speed (by hand)
-For clients I use 3 mm dibond (and 3mm plexi) and regular aluminium profiles (I don't use glue, but 3M bonding tape)
-For my own work, I use 4 mm plexi, mounted on wooden whitewashed boxes(see link). This is very labour intensive so not really something I could sell to a client, but something I enjoy doing during my weekends in the country side. All boxes I create and whitewash myself. With different gradations of abrasive paper I make sure that the box and the plexi become one...

Jochem
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 05:03:56 PM by jschone » Logged
cbcbell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2010, 04:40:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bill t.
So with the Smallcorp frames are you basically back to "ordinary" framing but with a very nice frame and a very a flat mounting board?  Is there a space between the plex and the print such as from a matte?

Beyond the screw holes to support wood braces what are the special qualities of these frames?  Are they so flat they do not distort the plex?

Smallcorp is actually quite extraordinary framing. The profiles are extremely minimal, but with elegant proportions; the corners are TIG-welded and ground before the frame is powder-coated, and they make matching internal fillets also powder-coated that trap the plexi in place. Because they begin with strong aluminum profiles and weld them, the frames can essentially be any size and are exceedingly flat.
Logged

Christopher Campbell
http://www.cbcampbell.com
cbcbell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2010, 05:07:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: deanwork
And, having to go through all this trouble, research, and expense to arrive at something that looks so 1980s. Why .... is the question I keep asking myself. It's become a total cliche now and I really much prefer the look of a dibond float mounted with several inches space between the print and the plexi in a nice frame ( with no mat of course). I hoping that is what I'll talk them into doing. I'm going to price those welded frames at that size now. I'll probably be in for another shock.

John, I wouldn't despair about the "1980s" look. I was just in New York last week for the big art fairs, the Armory Show 2010 on the Chelsea piers, and the ADAA Art Show. Between them, one sees the works of the top galleries from all over the world, and I would estimate that the majority of the large photographic works exhibited were facemounted. Yes, framed works offer more protection, but they also inevitably include more visual "distraction." When facemounting is done well (which in my experience means Diasec), all the evidence of mounting absolutely disappears, which I believe has to do with the silicone adhesive's refractive index matching that of the plexi. In addition, it is the ability of the silicone rubber adhesive to completely and invisibly fill all the inevitable microscopic spaces in the surface of the plexi, in the print, and in the spaces in between (especially those around inclusions) that makes a Diasec mount so unified visually. I have never seen a pressure-sensitive mount that came close to that look, but the next time I'm at Laumont I'll ask to see some of their facemounted inkjet prints, and perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised!

As for archival concerns, as I'm sure you know, the literature is vast and complex. I own a copy of the American Institute for Conservation's volume, Coatings On Photographs: Materials, Techniques, and Conservation, ed. Constance McCabe, and can't draw any simple conclusion about the archival value of facemounting. At some level, I've decided to buy good papers, use good inks (Canon's Lucia inkset), and not worry about long-term stability too much. In the long haul, the real guarantee of image quality over the decades is the ability to re-generate prints as they are needed, and as technology improves.
Logged

Christopher Campbell
http://www.cbcampbell.com
hsmeets
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2010, 06:26:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Spoke some month ago someone about facemounting and dibond sandwiches to get a quote. He said that he by preference used regular RA4 prints (aka C print) instead of inkjets because of the mounting/glue he used. He said c prints could handle that better then inkjets. he also did not use plexi but polycarbonate. What I understood is that he uses somewhat oversized poly and dibond and then cuts it with a bandsaw to final dimensions. As a last step he uses a edge cutter (machine with high speed spinning cutter)  to give the four sides a somewhat rounded polished shape to remove the sharp edges. He did not tell what type of mounting tissues or glue he used and I did not ask that at that moment.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 06:27:50 AM by hsmeets » Logged

deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2010, 10:59:58 AM »
ReplyReply

That doesn't surprise me. I have a friend here who is actually in that Amory 2010 show and I'm doing tests for her next week. Her work in that show is Lamda face mounted too.

It's just the more I think about this, the coolness of it has worn off and now I'm thinking this has become such a cliche since the days of Cindy Sherman doing her cibas that way that now it is Vegas standard. I think I'm going to dibod mount and float in a nice clean frame edge to edge, IF my client will allow me to. This has been a very interesting learning experience though, and if they weren't so big and costly I'd probably go for it as just an experiement. But I do want these to last and I'm very concerned about them coming unglued or silvering a couple of years from now in some collectors home. I have enough to worry about these days.

john





Quote from: cbcbell
John, I wouldn't despair about the "1980s" look. I was just in New York last week for the big art fairs, the Armory Show 2010 on the Chelsea piers, and the ADAA Art Show. Between them, one sees the works of the top galleries from all over the world, and I would estimate that the majority of the large photographic works exhibited were facemounted. Yes, framed works offer more protection, but they also inevitably include more visual "distraction." When facemounting is done well (which in my experience means Diasec), all the evidence of mounting absolutely disappears, which I believe has to do with the silicone adhesive's refractive index matching that of the plexi. In addition, it is the ability of the silicone rubber adhesive to completely and invisibly fill all the inevitable microscopic spaces in the surface of the plexi, in the print, and in the spaces in between (especially those around inclusions) that makes a Diasec mount so unified visually. I have never seen a pressure-sensitive mount that came close to that look, but the next time I'm at Laumont I'll ask to see some of their facemounted inkjet prints, and perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised!

As for archival concerns, as I'm sure you know, the literature is vast and complex. I own a copy of the American Institute for Conservation's volume, Coatings On Photographs: Materials, Techniques, and Conservation, ed. Constance McCabe, and can't draw any simple conclusion about the archival value of facemounting. At some level, I've decided to buy good papers, use good inks (Canon's Lucia inkset), and not worry about long-term stability too much. In the long haul, the real guarantee of image quality over the decades is the ability to re-generate prints as they are needed, and as technology improves.
Logged
Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2010, 04:12:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cbcbell
As for archival concerns, as I'm sure you know, the literature is vast and complex. I own a copy of the American Institute for Conservation's volume, Coatings On Photographs: Materials, Techniques, and Conservation, ed. Constance McCabe, and can't draw any simple conclusion about the archival value of facemounting. At some level, I've decided to buy good papers, use good inks (Canon's Lucia inkset), and not worry about long-term stability too much. In the long haul, the real guarantee of image quality over the decades is the ability to re-generate prints as they are needed, and as technology improves.
Maybe this white paper makes some sense?
http://www.martinjuergens.net/Assets/downl...is_Juergens.pdf

What I understand is that true Diasec is under license protection and patended by Diasec Sovilla S.A. in Switzerland.
And that it was developed for photographic emulsions in the 60's, but beeing in someway changed or modified to fit more contemporary media.
Like our beloved pigment prints. That's my info from a mountingstudio with the license here in EU.
/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad