Question Facemount Photos to Plexi - what backing substrate?

[echavez123]

After several tries, I successfully facemounted a couple of inkjet photos to plexi (OP-3). What really surprised me is that when the plexi and photo came out of the roller press, there were many, many small areas where the adhesive had not made proper contact, leaving what looke to be miniscule air pockets. I was really dissapointed. However, the next morning I looked at them again, and the miniscule air pockets were gone, leaving a smooth finish, much better than I had expected! The two mounts I did were 10x14 and 16x20 (see example below).



Now, my question is what type of backing to use? I am aware of gator with adhesive on one side as a possibility. Then, how will it be hung? My coworkers say, frame it. So, if framed, should I use glass to protect the plexi? Or is it better to put a strainer behind the gator and hang it with a float look?

 

[diyframer]

Normally, these are backed to aluminum. I've seen plexi sandwich, but I've only had aluminum done.

I'd worry about those bubbles.

ETA: glue cleats to the back of the mounting substrate for hanging.

 

[echavez123]

I assume you use aluminum cause it is smooth and strong. So, the adhesive required for the cleat needs to work with metal.

Bubbles - these were not bubbles with debris, just seemed like something to do with the way adhesive tacks initially. Cant think of how to bring 'em back -- heat, sunlight? Will try this.

Only reason I can think of using plexi in the back is for backlighting, perhaps. Otherwise, if it aint going to be seen, I would rather keep costs down. Do you think gator is strong enough?

My real concern is how to keep the front plexi safe from scratches.

 

[diyframer]

Smooth and strong and ... smooth. Preferably super smooth. You don't want any surface defects showing through the back of the print, so the smoother the surface the better.

My concern with gator would be that the backing material, permanently adhered to the print, is not designed to last as long as the rest of the material used. If I'm looking at a plexi-print-gator sandwich, I know what's going to fail first.

Sintra is cheaper, if you wanted to shave dollars but not lose as much durability.

 

[more_so]

This is second hand info, but I have more than once heard that the backing needs to be more flexible than the plex, otherwise any buckling in the backing will gradually lever the print away from the adhesive.

Another option is to use no backing at all by putting the print + plex assembly in a frame. You need to the back of the frame to be opaque.

And it is important not to mistake the plex for glazing. The surface mount sandwich is basically an unprotected print presented without glazing.

 

[diyframer]

And it is important not to mistake the plex for glazing. The surface mount sandwich is basically an unprotected print presented without glazing.

Oh no doubt - look closely at well-traveled surface-mounted prints and you will see all the damage to the plexi, degrading the image permanently!

 

[more_so]

Forgot so say...

Hey Ernesto, AWESOME SHOT! Totally a perfect surface mount candidate.

PS Peter Lik has a ton of surface mount over at his two Caesar's galleries, including some frameless treatments.

 

[echavez123]

Forgot so say...

Hey Ernesto, AWESOME SHOT! Totally a perfect surface mount candidate.

PS Peter Lik has a ton of surface mount over at his two Caesar's galleries, including some frameless treatments.

Thank you. I will have to visit Lik's gallery again, now that I have moved on to the next step. I will be looking more carefully at the mounting job, looking for defects etc.

The two papers I tried are Luster and Chrome (a new metallic like inkjet surface). Next, I need to have some Fuji Crystal Archive Supergloss printed so I can perform the next test. I wanted to stay away from having to have someone else print my work - but I aint got no Lambda Chromira printer $$$. Worth a test, in case I start offerring this service to customers.

I noticed Fatali is facemounting his work, but then encases in a frame with A/R glass.

 

[more_so]

I aint got no Lambda Chromira printer $$$.

What are you printing with? My new iPF8300 can make prints on canvas that are jazzier than my 9880 can print on gloss. I'm sure I could reach Lambda level snap on inkjet glossy papers with either the iPF8300 or a 9900.

PS again...look close at those Lik Lambda prints...highlights totally clipped, shadow detail dumped down into blackness, gruesome looking midtones. Pretty ugly prints IMHO. But I should have that much showmanship.

 

[Jared Davis CPF GCF]

What really surprised me is that when the plexi and photo came out of the roller press, there were many, many small areas where the adhesive had not made proper contact, leaving what looke to be miniscule air pockets.

In the mounting & laminating industry, this effect is called "silvering". It is caused by lack of pressure. Depending on climate (ie: Cold), adding extra heat to the application process, through "heat assisted" rollers can help eliminate this as well. 40-50 degrees centigrade is ideal.

I was really dissapointed. However, the next morning I looked at them again, and the miniscule air pockets were gone, leaving a smooth finish, much better than I had expected!

This effect is called "cold flow". The adhesive can take 24-48 hours to "mellow out" and the silvering disappears. However it differs greatly between different brands of facemount adhesive. More expensive adhesives = better cold flow.

The two mounts I did were 10x14 and 16x20.

Only small ones, huh?... it gets much harder, the larger you go...

Now, my question is what type of backing to use?

Because the image is mounted and supported to the plexi, you can use anything as a backing, but you do not need to adhere it, unless you are doing an edgeless frame look.

Then, how will it be hung?

Either frame it, or use "panel mounts" - for a modern, contemporary look.

My coworkers say, frame it. So, if framed, should I use glass to protect the plexi?

No

Or is it better to put a strainer behind the gator and hang it with a float look?

No

Cheers,

Jared

 

[echavez123]

What are you printing with? My new iPF8300 can make prints on canvas that are jazzier than my 9880 can print on gloss. I'm sure I could reach Lambda level snap on inkjet glossy papers with either the iPF8300 or a 9900.

I have a 9800 and a 9600. Dont use the 9600 much. iPF8300 sounds pretty cool -- I may consider for next printer. I was thinking Fuji Glossy to see how the facemount adhesive binds to the Fuji photo. Jared just explained to me about the "silvering effect and cold flow". Wonder if this happens with Fuji paper too?

 

[Jared Davis CPF GCF]

Jared just explained to me about the "silvering effect and cold flow". Wonder if this happens with Fuji paper too?

Yes, it happens with Fujiflex, etc too.

 

[echavez123]

Jared - great feedback info. I am glad to hear about silvering and cold flow. Now I have a better understanding. I am using Drytac Facemount. I thought adding some heat, since the roller press has a heating element -- however, I was worried what it might to do the print.

If the artwork is going to be framed, then adhering a substrate would be overkill. I kind of like the framed look with a liner separating the frame from the plexi. Obviously, the liner will then be exposed to the airborne dust, hence the thought about glazing.

Once again, your explanation about silvering and cold-flow is invaluable. I was already beginning to toss inkjet prints out as candidates for face mounting. The next step will be to face mount a 24x30 image (yikes!)

Thank you.

 

[echavez123]

PS again...look close at those Lik Lambda prints...highlights totally clipped, shadow detail dumped down into blackness, gruesome looking midtones. Pretty ugly prints IMHO. But I should have that much showmanship.

The top photogs are always good targets to bash. We used to bash Galen Rowell's work, especially about the vignetting he added.

I went to a clients home to pick up some art for framing and noticed a Peter Lik facemounted photo, which really looked dull. I suggested to the owner that she should paint her walls black and seal off all light except for overhead spotlights dedicated to the photo ...

Peter Lik has enjoyed tremendous success on the Strip. Some of his photos are extremely oversaturated, but the presentation in the dark gallery lit by overhead lights sells it.

Now Rodney Lough and Steve Carr are trying to follow suit, but their photography is not at the same level ...

 

[more_so]

Yeah nothing as much fun as tearing down the folks who are kicking our butts!

My critique only goes to prove that ordinary art photographers don't know #### when it come to selling photographs, especially to basketball players and other high rollers! Contrast sells, color sells, size sells, but mostly selling sells.

I gotta admit, Peter came clean on the new downstairs Caesar's gallery, which is a nice well lighted open space. But there are still dazzling spotlights on the otherwise too-dark prints which literally look brighter than if they were back lighted transparencies.

 

[Rhonda in MT]

When Galen would come to town for his Glacier Park workshops we processed the film. When mounting the slides I thought his were always better than the class participants. I got to chat with him several times after working all night processing film. Very nice guy and he liked our processing which is always a plus.
Of course, when you have equipment that is all top of the line it's easier to get the super sharp, properly exposed images.

 

[DVieau2]

.....In the mounting & laminating industry, this effect is called "silvering". It is caused by lack of pressure. .......

Thanks for the good information.

I sure wish they would use different terminology. When I hear "silvering" I think of the shinny metallic effect that happens to the shadows of an old B & W silver gelatin print.

Doug

 

[diyframer]

Of course, when you have equipment that is all top of the line it's easier to get the super sharp, properly exposed images.

Funny you should say that, particularly in his case. He would often sacrifice the absolute best bodies and lenses to portability. He was famous for shooting with lenses like a cheep 20mm fixed and a clunker 75-150 zoom, among other 'garbage' lenses.

Technique > gear

 

[more_so]

He would often sacrifice the absolute best bodies and lenses to portability. He was famous for shooting with lenses like a cheep 20mm fixed and a clunker 75-150 zoom, among other 'garbage' lenses.

Some of the best photographers I have known have carp gear that they've carried for decades. One in particular just jammed his prime Nikkors into a bag without lens caps or back covers, just a couple leather chamois in there to kinda sorta keep things from clunking too badly. He liked the quality he was getting from those scraped up lenses, wouldn't consider changing them.

I'm NOT one of the best photographers I have known, but I still use many of the Nikkor lenses I picked up during my Vietnam tours with my Canon 5D Mk II body in total manual mode. That 1965 model 55mm Micro Nikkor is so sharp on landscapes it still gives me the shivers.

 

[diyframer]

Some of the best photographers I have known have carp gear that they've carried for decades. One in particular just jammed his prime Nikkors into a bag without lens caps or back covers, just a couple leather chamois in there to kinda sorta keep things from clunking too badly. He liked the quality he was getting from those scraped up lenses, wouldn't consider changing them.

I'm NOT one of the best photographers I have known, but I still use many of the Nikkor lenses I picked up during my Vietnam tours with my Canon 5D Mk II body in total manual mode. That 1965 model 55mm Micro Nikkor is so sharp on landscapes it still gives me the shivers.

Amen! The newsroom's F4 back in the early 90s was the nicest camera I'd ever touched, and I still didn't like it as much as a Pentax ME I'd gotten used to.

I find myself up over 10,000 feet often these days, and I will not haul the absolute best gear because it'd kill me. Small, old primes are good, and in the winter when you don't dare make a lens change in the snow on digital cams, I get my best work out of a 24-85 that most camera snobs wouldn't stop to pick up if it was lying in the gutter.

 

[more_so]

You need to know only one thing about any lens. At f8, you can't hardly tell 'em apart. Except the f8 on a prime will still knock the socks off the f8 on a zoom, but only gently.

 

[diyframer]

... and be there.

Cheers!

 

[Rob Markoff]

We have seen excellent results with face mounting to 1/16" Lexan and then backing with black 2-3mm Sintra. We also have recently received some beautiful work from Belgium that is mounted to 6MM Evonik acrylic and the backing seems to be some form of plasticized white paper.

 

[more_so]

Hi Rob. So what's your favorite facemount adhesive? And if you tell me I have go to a class, just say when and where!

Also, where do you see facemount in the overall scheme of commercial artwork?

Forgetting any other issues, I find it tempting because it seems to involve the least amount of steps going from a print to a presentable package. The steps require a lot of operator skill and a fastidious work environment, but the hard work is done by a machine and everything should be repeatable once it's nailed down.

For instance, facemount seems to involve only 1 workstation to create a mounted print. My current coated canvas workflow needs 2 separate workstations (coat and mount) taking twice the floorspace, and the coating station is still problematical here.

So should I just forget it, keeping thinking about it, or what?

 

[echavez123]

What other facemount adhesives are there besides Facemount and Optimount? Who has used them and what are the results. I understand that both of these are made with a solvent based acrylic adhesive, which may, in the long term harm the photo. There is a whole industry banking on this methodology. Can anyone shed light on this?

Is Diasec a better technology? Little is known about this process, since it is proprietary.

 

[diyframer]

What other facemount adhesives are there besides Facemount and Optimount? Who has used them and what are the results. I understand that both of these are made with a solvent based acrylic adhesive, which may, in the long term harm the photo. There is a whole industry banking on this methodology. Can anyone shed light on this?

Is Diasec a better technology? Little is known about this process, since it is proprietary.

Everything I've seen suggests that Diasec is a silicone adhesive that requires some kind of activation coat, but it's not suitable for inkjet prints so I haven't explored it since I moved away from wet process.

I have read a couple articles that suggested that the diasec process itself might have accelerated image fade in several Gursky prints. It's hard to trust the process since so little is known.

 

[Miranda Smith]

Sorry I am late to post this but in case anyone is interested -

You can certainly mount inkjet prints with the Diasec method. The process has been around for 40 years and the images that have faded are caused by the printing process, quality of inks and the incorrect use of emulsions etc, rather than the face mounting.

 

[diyframer]

Sorry I am late to post this but in case anyone is interested -

You can certainly mount inkjet prints with the Diasec method. The process has been around for 40 years and the images that have faded are caused by the printing process, quality of inks and the incorrect use of emulsions etc, rather than the face mounting.

Hi Miranda - could you direct me to a printer in the US who is doing Diasec rather than using Optimount Ultra or equivalent for facemounting?

Thanks!

 

[Miranda Smith]

Diasec is not a printing process. It is a method of face mounting photographs and prints on paper to glass or acrylic that does not rely on using adhesive film to do the job. It relies on a patented process to achieve the adhesion between paper and acrylic. It means the problems with air bubbles, dust in the face mounting process etc are a thing of the past. Oh Joy!

The are currently nine Diasec licences in the world and unfortunately none in North America. (yet!) Diasec has become a generic name for face mounting using silicone or similar products but these businesses are not using the Diasec authentic method and this does affect the end process.

 

[Creepshow]

Back to the original question (and really just out of curiosity) what is the advantage of face mounting over glazing if you're going to add an opaque backing and a frame? The only face mounting I've done has been for a specific aesthetic. That is, plexi or glass on both sides, mounted with standoffs. A very clean, contemporary look.

 

[echavez123]

Back to the original question (and really just out of curiosity) what is the advantage of face mounting over glazing if you're going to add an opaque backing and a frame? The only face mounting I've done has been for a specific aesthetic. That is, plexi or glass on both sides, mounted with standoffs. A very clean, contemporary look.

It must be out of curiosity because no one on this thread asked the "original question" you reference. Nevertheless, there are two main advantages:

1) Face mounting is smoother - no ripples, no orange peel effect, no waviness associated with regular mounting onto a substrate

2) Reflectivity of image is amazing - perhaps this is due to how flat the image is mounted against the surface and the way the image is rendered as light strikes the surface of the plexi, bounces off the image and pops back so cleanly in your face. Any physicist out there (or wannabes) who can explain how light is rendered through the molecular structure of plexi?

Whether you add a backing and frame or use standoffs are optional way to present the artwork and is a matter of preference.

 

[Creepshow]

It must be out of curiosity because no one on this thread asked the "original question" you reference. Nevertheless, there are two main advantages:

1) Face mounting is smoother - no ripples, no orange peel effect, no waviness associated with regular mounting onto a substrate

2) Reflectivity of image is amazing - perhaps this is due to how flat the image is mounted against the surface and the way the image is rendered as light strikes the surface of the plexi, bounces off the image and pops back so cleanly in your face. Any physicist out there (or wannabes) who can explain how light is rendered through the molecular structure of plexi?

Whether you add a backing and frame or use standoffs are optional way to present the artwork and is a matter of preference.

I appreciate your answer, that does make sense. I guess I was just wondering how much of a difference it made to the appearance/reflectivity to warrant the pain of doing the face mount in the first place.

As to whether or not reference to an opaque backing and a frame were made in the original post, well...

"Now, my question is what type of backing to use? I am aware of gator with adhesive on one side as a possibility. Then, how will it be hung? My coworkers say, frame it. So, if framed, should I use glass to protect the plexi? Or is it better to put a strainer behind the gator and hang it with a float look?"

...any of that look familiar?

Let's not get bogged down in semantics... or some antics.

 

[diyframer]

Diasec is not a printing process. It is a method of face mounting photographs and prints on paper to glass or acrylic that does not rely on using adhesive film to do the job. It relies on a patented process to achieve the adhesion between paper and acrylic. It means the problems with air bubbles, dust in the face mounting process etc are a thing of the past. Oh Joy!

The are currently nine Diasec licences in the world and unfortunately none in North America. (yet!) Diasec has become a generic name for face mounting using silicone or similar products but these businesses are not using the Diasec authentic method and this does affect the end process.

Yeah, I am aware of the process. Juergens wrote a master's thesis on equivalent processes, IIRC. I am not aware of anyone who was advertising Diasec for inkjet prints, though. Everything I have seen indicated that it was unsuitable for water-based pigment or dye.

Who in Australia is doing this on inkjets? I'd love to have a chat about papers, inks, and suitable materials.

 

[Miranda Smith]

"Now, my question is what type of backing to use? I am aware of gator with adhesive on one side as a possibility. Then, how will it be hung? My coworkers say, frame it. So, if framed, should I use glass to protect the plexi? Or is it better to put a strainer behind the gator and hang it with a float look?"


.

...You do not need to put glass in front of plexi. You can frame it and they look great framed. you can back it with lots of things - depends on the longevity and budget. Acrylic, Di Bond or aluminium is best for professionals.

 

[Miranda Smith]

Who in Australia is doing this on inkjets? I'd love to have a chat about papers, inks, and suitable materials.

I am the Diasec person in Australia. I mount inkjet prints to plexi. I am not a printer. We are framers. We have clients using Canson, Epsom, and Hahnemuhle papers for thier Inkjets prints. We mount Photo Rag, etching paper, Ultra smooth, etc.

We do not mount Canson-Photo Highgloss Premium rc Canson-Photosatin Premium rc,Epson-Premium Luster, Epson-Traditional Photopaper.

I hope this gives you some assistance.

 

[diyframer]

I am the Diasec person in Australia. I mount inkjet prints to plexi. I am not a printer. We are framers. We have clients using Canson, Epsom, and Hahnemuhle papers for thier Inkjets prints. We mount Photo Rag, etching paper, Ultra smooth, etc.

We do not mount Canson-Photo Highgloss Premium rc Canson-Photosatin Premium rc,Epson-Premium Luster, Epson-Traditional Photopaper.

I hope this gives you some assistance.

That's wonderful assistance, thank you!

Based on the papers you've listed, it appears that you are able to mount properly regardless of the surface texture of the paper - the photo rag has a mild texture but the etching paper's texture is definitely too aggressive for Optimount or similar solutions. This is expected with a good thick layer of silicon acting as the adhesive.

However, the papers you do list all have one thing in common: they are fairly resistant to moisture. I've worked with water-based acrylic gel on Photo Rag and Museum Etching without bleed, where with something like Photo Rag Pearl or Epson's Premium Luster I have found some bleed or spot color shifts using even mineral spirit-based topcoats.

Is there a particular amount of water fastness (or moisture resistance, or whatever would be an appropriate term here) you're looking for in order for a Diasec mount to be successful?

Also, does it work with both pigment and dye ink?

 

[Miranda Smith]

Is there a particular amount of water fastness (or moisture resistance, or whatever would be an appropriate term here) you're looking for in order for a Diasec mount to be successful?

Also, does it work with both pigment and dye ink?

It works with both pigment and dye ink.

 

[diyframer]

It works with both pigment and dye ink.

Thanks! One more, if you don't mind. In another thread over on LL you appear to have said that inkjet prints have to be treated before mounting with Diasec. Can you tell me how that works?

 

[Miranda Smith]

inkjet prints have to be treated before mounting with Diasec. Can you tell me how that works?

Now this is where it gets complicated. Yes some inkjet prints are treated before they are mounted. And ... some are not! Confused??

There are a number of variables involved in deciding what needs what and what is done to those that need something done.

Such simple language.

Sorry if I have left you confused - but we have to view each project individually in deciding the approach we finally take.

 

[diyframer]

Now this is where it gets complicated. Yes some inkjet prints are treated before they are mounted. And ... some are not! Confused??

There are a number of variables involved in deciding what needs what and what is done to those that need something done.

Such simple language.

Sorry if I have left you confused - but we have to view each project individually in deciding the approach we finally take.

No confusion, so no apologies necessary We're talking about a range of papers from swellable to microporous with pigment or dye ink with RC/plastic or rag or alphacellulose behind the inkjet receptive layer, with a variety of textures from none at all to fine-line baryta to dimply to watercolor. I've been printing long enough to know that nothing here is simple, and no size fits all

In the case where an inkjet does need to be treated, is that lamination or topcoating or something else?

Also, will you guys ship to the states? I might need a test on Photo Rag Baryta. Nobody in North America does this, so it's either the across the Atlantic or the Pacific.

Thanks!