Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Face Mounting on Plexi Glass  (Read 14198 times)
freakfx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2011, 10:49:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone know a company in Toronto the does the Seal Optimount method?
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2011, 02:02:36 AM »
ReplyReply

There may not be anyone actively doing it, but you might find there are companies that specialize in mounting and laminating services that have the equipment and might be willing to set up to do it for  you.
Logged

ghaynes754
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2011, 10:41:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Try Photocraft in Boulder, CO. Www.Pcraft.com.
Logged
theBike45
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2011, 01:07:22 PM »
ReplyReply

 Concerns about a facemounted photo being "archival" regardless of exactly how defined are
virtually always pretty senseless. What's being mounted in practically every case these days
is a digital print which is totally replaceable. And I don't know anyone who buys a decorative
something for their home, who expects (or even would want) that piece to last 100 years.
Facemounting is superior because it does what a display technology is supposed to do -
provide a visually superior product. Concerns about scratching are pointless. As are concerns
about delamination - these are concerns mainly manufactured by photo frame shop operators 
who don't know how to facemount a photo.
Logged
juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2011, 02:49:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Could you explain this "Facemounting is superior because it does what a display technology is supposed to do - provide a visually superior product" a bit further? In what way superior and superior compared to what?

Allmost all gallery and museum shows that I've seen (I've seen many) featuring facemounted images have been dissapointing because unless the images are shown in a very dark room and with a dark opposing wall facing the photos and with well designed lighting, all you see is reflections. White walls and either daylight or very broad spotlights are the worst especially when the photos have lots of dark areas in them.


What about replaceability? With an edition of 6 (or 3 or 7+1), there won't be any replacements (digital or not) unless you find someone else who also bought from the same edition and is willing to sell.

Cheers,
J
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2011, 04:54:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Allmost all gallery and museum shows that I've seen (I've seen many) featuring facemounted images have been dissapointing because unless the images are shown in a very dark room and with a dark opposing wall facing the photos and with well designed lighting, all you see is reflections. White walls and either daylight or very broad spotlights are the worst especially when the photos have lots of dark areas in them.


What about replaceability? With an edition of 6 (or 3 or 7+1), there won't be any replacements (digital or not) unless you find someone else who also bought from the same edition and is willing to sell.

Cheers,
J
I"m not necessarily agreeing with the post ... personally I think correctly mounted and framed fine art paper is stunning as well, and yields some texture and character that face mounting eliminates.

But I also like face mounting, and reflections are no different than using glass - displaying any image requires care in position and lighting.  Additionally, if you face mount to museum glass or reflection controlled acrylic, the results are pretty stunning.  Peter Lik is probably the most successful landscape photographer right now, and his work is face mounted to lexan.  Rodney Lough also face mounts, and Michael fatali's presentation is superb, face mounted on museum glass and framed so the image appears to float.


As far as being an edition of 6 ( I assume you are referring to the recent image sold by Gursky ), guessing that replacement of a limited edition is acceptable in maintaining the edition as long as the original is destroyed.
Logged

richardhagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2011, 09:54:26 PM »
ReplyReply

. . . .if you live in the States and you want diasec. . . .then what? are you s.o.o.l? or what? also. . . .my understanding is that you can't use diasec with inkjet prints.

rh
Logged
fetish
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2011, 01:45:54 AM »
ReplyReply

. . . .if you live in the States and you want diasec. . . .then what? are you s.o.o.l? or what? also. . . .my understanding is that you can't use diasec with inkjet prints.

rh

which official diasec agent told you that? almost all our diasec mounts are from inkjet prints and they're wonderful.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2011, 02:28:39 AM »
ReplyReply



As far as being an edition of 6 ( I assume you are referring to the recent image sold by Gursky ), guessing that replacement of a limited edition is acceptable in maintaining the edition as long as the original is destroyed.

You might be mistaken on that last part. Insurance may have another view on this. I know of a conceptual piece of art (based on photography) that was more ore less destroyed by a flood in a museum's basement. The artist was willing to make a new copy following the logic of conceptual art. The museum agreed. The insurance company not. They were not sure whether the value was in the old piece or in the new product. You can see it again in full glory, the new one is made on top of the old one. Restoration in a new sense.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

330+ paper white spectral plots:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm





Logged
richardhagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2011, 11:09:17 AM »
ReplyReply

a couple of years ago i contacted laumont about diasec-mounting a few of my images which had been printed on hahnemeuhl paper. this person wasn't quite sure that it could be done. maybe it had something to do with the paper (photo rag) and not the fact that it was printed on an inkjet printer. if you're diasec-mounting (plexi-mounting) is it best to use a particular type of inkjet paper - baryta rather than photo rag - etc.?

rh
Logged
juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2011, 01:55:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I was not referring to any particular artist although Gursky is a good example. In Europe the fashion has been to limit the editions to pretty low numbers (except in Lumas gallery where the prices are considerably lower) and most of the succesful artist I know or hear about usually sell their editions completely.
Anyway, even if all other parties agreed on making a new facemounted image when someone dropped a Diasec on the floor, what happens if the artists has destroyed the original files or the artist is dead or or or...? I've seen a couple broken Diasecs with no replacements. Actually the only replacements I've seen have been produced because the original pieces have had a defect (bubbles, delamination etc) as new and the defected ones have been destroyed purposefully.

There's no doubt that facemounted images can look stunning if and only if they are lit and displayed properly. That is kinda rare though and any tactile experience is limited to plastic blingbling (except for the lucky fellas carrying a huge diasec packed in torn bubble wrap to the seventh floor). Facemounting on Schott Mirogard might look very nice indeed. When taking into account the difficulties in cutting it and the already astronomical price of this very fine museum glass I have yet to see one. Is there anti-reflection acrylic without magenta/green reflections? If yes, that should work perfectly.

Yes, I'm not against facemounting but there are severe limitations that many people don't realise when they think of buying/making one as home decor.

Cheers,
J





I"m not necessarily agreeing with the post ... personally I think correctly mounted and framed fine art paper is stunning as well, and yields some texture and character that face mounting eliminates.

But I also like face mounting, and reflections are no different than using glass - displaying any image requires care in position and lighting.  Additionally, if you face mount to museum glass or reflection controlled acrylic, the results are pretty stunning.  Peter Lik is probably the most successful landscape photographer right now, and his work is face mounted to lexan.  Rodney Lough also face mounts, and Michael fatali's presentation is superb, face mounted on museum glass and framed so the image appears to float.


As far as being an edition of 6 ( I assume you are referring to the recent image sold by Gursky ), guessing that replacement of a limited edition is acceptable in maintaining the edition as long as the original is destroyed.
Logged
Robcat
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2011, 08:14:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Rodney Lough also face mounts, and Michael fatali's presentation is superb, face mounted on museum glass and framed so the image appears to float.
Wayne,
Do you know who the shops are that do face mounting on museum glass? I've asked the people I use in Wilmington DE to do it for me and they don't want to even try as they are sure the glass will break going through the laminator. What do they back it with?
Thanks.
Rob P
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2011, 01:26:52 AM »
ReplyReply

You might be mistaken on that last part. Insurance may have another view on this. I know of a conceptual piece of art (based on photography) that was more ore less destroyed by a flood in a museum's basement. The artist was willing to make a new copy following the logic of conceptual art. The museum agreed. The insurance company not. They were not sure whether the value was in the old piece or in the new product. You can see it again in full glory, the new one is made on top of the old one. Restoration in a new sense.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

Interesting ... so the insurance company would rather write out the big check than accept the fact that with some mediums a "perfect" duplicate can replace the "original" (since there is no such thing as an "original" in photography, unless the means to make that original lost).

So technically, does that mean if you create a limited edition of "x" prints, once you sell that edition out all means to create those original copies should be destroyed to insure their "value"?
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2011, 01:39:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Wayne,
Do you know who the shops are that do face mounting on museum glass? I've asked the people I use in Wilmington DE to do it for me and they don't want to even try as they are sure the glass will break going through the laminator. What do they back it with?
Thanks.
Rob P
We're just getting it setup in my shop and have mounted about 10 prints, both Kodak Metallic (traditional chemical paper) as well as Moab's new metallic inkjet paper to several types of glass. We are using optically clear double sided adhesive and are bringing in Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl and may even try some Fujiflex.

As long as the rollers of the laminator are clean the pressure of the rollers doesn't seem problematic.  I"ve experimented with increasing pressures and so far haven't broke a piece of glass yet, and I normally make 3 to 5 passes of the glass through the rollers at greater pressure than when I'm mounting to a board or applying laminating film.

My biggest challenge is to get a "perfect" mount without any "silvering" (caused by small bubbles).  Currently I'm using a manual laminator and lose control of the print for the last inch trying to turn and control things at the same time, so I end up with a few minor spots (you have to look very hard to see them) . I've shown them to many customers and none of them feel they are unacceptable but I want them perfect. We are just getting ready to order a wide enough laminator to do large prints and it will be motorized so I think I can maintain control without the last inch "flipping" onto the adhesive.

It's hard to keep things perfectly clean, but so far the few small specs of dust are almost impossible to see.

If they are afraid of breaking the glass (it isn't as fragile as you might think) you can also get "museum" acrylic, same anti reflective quality's.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2011, 02:31:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting ... so the insurance company would rather write out the big check than accept the fact that with some mediums a "perfect" duplicate can replace the "original" (since there is no such thing as an "original" in photography, unless the means to make that original lost).

So technically, does that mean if you create a limited edition of "x" prints, once you sell that edition out all means to create those original copies should be destroyed to insure their "value"?

The insurance company had to write a big cheque anyway. Yes, it is about the difference between art value and media costs.

That limited edition policy has been used for the graphic arts and even for sculpture. Plate images wiped, molds destroyed. It would not surprise me if there was some relation to the birth of photography and that practice in the graphic arts. Of course not every artist, print shop or gallery could be trusted on the right bookkeeping. See: http://www.dalifraud.com/abuses.html There are more. Much further back intaglio plates would have been used for many editions during the artist's lifetime if not longer. Reworked by the artist when worn down or the style no longer in fashion or with a changed artistic view on the subject. Often as copies of paintings but also as originals. Rubens, Rembrandt, Segers, etc represent the last.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

330+ paper white spectral plots:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
framah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1174



« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2011, 11:44:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Wayne...
Check out this listing on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180764249720#ht_7922wt_1398

It seems like a good price compared to what some of the others are going for.
Logged

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

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2011, 10:17:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Wayne...
Check out this listing on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180764249720#ht_7922wt_1398

It seems like a good price compared to what some of the others are going for.
it does ... almost too good.  Worth checking out though, thx.
Logged

Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2012, 03:51:28 PM »
ReplyReply

My apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I'm hoping I stand a better chance of getting quick feedback by posting to a thread that already has a number of followers with experience face mounting.

I have a client that is in need of having a 40" x 52" image face mounted to 1/2" thick acrylic.  So far, all of the companies I have spoken with seem to max out at 1/4" thick material.  She has samples that were done for her a couple of years ago by Harvest Productions, but they no longer do this, now that they have moved on to the less discriminating, but more financially rewarding market of being Costco's print supplier.

Have any of you seen vendors with setups to utilize this process with extra thick material?  We would prefer a U.S. based company, if possible.

Thanks,
Ron
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 03:56:59 PM by Colorwave » Logged

PatrickAllen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2012, 10:38:47 AM »
ReplyReply

1/4" is the standard for face mounting to acrylic but I do not see why you cannot use 1/2". Our mounting machine has a 1" roller gap (which I also believe is a standard size) so we could do this on our machine. We have not done it before because we have not had any requests for it but if you are interested feel free to contact me off list. Maybe other shops do not want to do it because either there roller gap is not wide enough or they do not want to have to order 1/2" thick material.

Best,
Patrick Allen
KenAllenStudios
www.PatrickAllenPhotography.com
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2012, 11:37:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Recently saw a 24 x 90 pano print face mounted on reflection-free Optium, which is like acrylic.  It's the hatchet and acid proof stuff most museums are using on their Gauguin's.  The print buyer paid more for the sheet of Optium than he did for the print!  But the effect is that there is just this print hanging in air suspended by nothing.  You really have to look hard to find the teensiest light bulb reflections which are much less apparent than with museum glass.  Last time I checked a 40 x 60 x 1/8 sheet would cost about $1,000.  Don't let people get too close, they'll try to poke their Slurpee-coated fingers right through the surface.

How do put a price on presentation effect?  I like the depth I see in face mounted prints, but I also feel the so-called drama of the effect is much over-stated in the literature.  And lousy fprints are made to look even worse by the face mount process.  Bare, high gloss prints look just as snappy, and I am very much liking the looks of some of the new high gloss canvases which can be presented bare and are pretty stunning on the wall even in places with reflection problems.

Also, I just don't buy into the replacement concept.  Good luck even finding most artists 5 years down the road.  If you do find him, he'll be a real estate agent by then and uninterested and unable to make a new print.

Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad