Question How do I frame a fine art print without matting/mount? (Full-bleed)

[SirMicho]

Hi,

I’m new to framing and I have a fine art print on the way, I want to frame it safely in the way I find most visually pleasing but I also want to preserve it the best I can and reduce any potential negative arising in future like discolouring, rippling and whatever else could happen.

I don’t really like the matting/mount around art, I hope that doesn’t offend - just preference. I’d hope to go for the full-bleed look but I am aware that matting serves the purpose of creating a gap between the art and the glazing to create some breathing room… so how can I do this safely? I have read about spacers but also read that they shouldn’t be used against artwork because it pinches the edge of the art and can potentially cause the centre to buckle. Do people who usually go for full-bleed not really consider this? It seems common with posters which I guess could just be throwaway or am I just overthinking and the glazing will be fine to make contact?

I’d imagine that the answers could differ here depending on whether it’s glass or acrylic used too.. I was originally going to go with acrylic glazing after comparing it to glass online. I read it can be less reflective, and I like the fact it’s lightweight and less devastating in the worst case scenario of being dropped because the piece may not have a permanent place for a while. Unfortunately though it appears acrylic with anti-reflective capabilities is expensive in comparison to glass and glass itself is easier to get ahold of - I don’t mind either way now and open to both.

If anyone has an opinion on how I can best achieve my favoured aesthetic while safely framing this print it would be appreciated.

Thanks,

 

[alacrity8]

When framing art, you have to consider whether the aesthetic or the preservation is more important.
These are all things you mentioned:
Glass or Acrylic should not be laid directly on top of the art.
Matting or spacers can be used to raise the glass.
Spacers should not be placed directly on the art.

You mention the term full-bleed.
If you want all of the art to be seen, you have to consider that a frame will traditionally cover about 1/4" on all sides.

I would recommend having your art floated on a mat with about 1" of mat showing on all sided, then using spacers to raise the glass.
This will keep the glass off of the art, show all of the art, and have a minimum of matting.

In terms of cost, Acrylic is more expensive for similar visual and protective qualities as glass.
I usually only recommend Acrylic for large items, things being shipped, and for art being placed somewhere where it will likely get knocked off of the wall (kid's room).

Best of luck,
Brian

 

[SirMicho]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the reply. I understand the frame will overlap the piece, that’s alright - by full-bleed I meant more just without matting.

I am willing to sacrifice preservation to a degree for a solution that requires no mat, especially because this particular print already has a built in border around it, I just think matting will then be overkill… I have read some people saying that acrylic is okay to make contact with prints, but if there’s a signature that was not printed i.e. Graphite, then it’s best to try and create a gap - but I can’t find a straight answer on that matter either.

It’s a little blurry but I believe I attached the print in this reply for reference. As far as my knowledge goes my only options are to either allow the piece to touch the glazing, or apply spacers directly on the art… I don’t know which one is more ethical. I also found some other Google results of a similar nature to this question which suggested potentially cutting and placing matting behind only the border of the frame so it will still essentially be hidden and may still be enough to keep the print away from the glazing even in the centre, if that makes sense?

Thanks,

 

[JFeig]

As a person who has been in the industry for over 35 years, I agree with Brian

"I would recommend having your art floated on a mat with about 1" of mat showing on all sided, then using spacers to raise the glass.
This will keep the glass off of the art, show all of the art, and have a minimum of matting."

It is, sort of, the worse of 2 evils regarding your needs vs your perception of what you want. A "float mount" will allow for spacers that do not hinder the expansion and contraction of the art.

My personnel preference would be for a mat (mount), larger than the paper, to cover a portion of the full sheet of the print. Yes this can be done with a 1" top mat.

A second comment is not to compress the "frame package" (mat - art- undermount - backing board) to the glazing so tight with nails or other fasteners so as to not allow for the effects of expansion and contraction.

 

[Greg Fremstad]

The trick with keeping the art from buckling with either spacers or under the rabbet is absolutely no pressure on the backing. You must allow the print to expand and contract with complete freedom. If you're using a point driver, ATG a piece of business card (or something of equivalent thickness) to the bottom to insure some free space. Also, don't angle the point driver down and compress the backing. Rattleing beats buckling.

The problem with glazing up against the art is that changes in humidity will affect the edges of the art long before it manages to get to the center of the art. To prevent this tape seal the entire art-glass-and backing package to prevent introduction of either dry or humid air. Let alone smoke, critters, or dust.

See the article on the FrameTek web pages at FrameTek.com titled stopping the dust pump. Lots of other good tip on there as well.

 

[alacrity8]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the reply. I understand the frame will overlap the piece, that’s alright - by full-bleed I meant more just without matting.

I am willing to sacrifice preservation to a degree for a solution that requires no mat, especially because this particular print already has a built in border around it, I just think matting will then be overkill… I have read some people saying that acrylic is okay to make contact with prints, but if there’s a signature that was not printed i.e. Graphite, then it’s best to try and create a gap - but I can’t find a straight answer on that matter either.

It’s a little blurry but I believe I attached the print in this reply for reference. As far as my knowledge goes my only options are to either allow the piece to touch the glazing, or apply spacers directly on the art… I don’t know which one is more ethical. I also found some other Google results of a similar nature to this question which suggested potentially cutting and placing matting behind only the border of the frame so it will still essentially be hidden and may still be enough to keep the print away from the glazing even in the centre, if that makes sense?

Thanks,

Trying to add exactly enough enough extra space around the art to add spacers without applying pressure to the art is an impossible task.
You may be able to get it to work on day one, but the art and backing will change sizes over time, and at different rates.

It the look you are looking for is more important than preservation, then I's say to just place the art against the glass or acrylic.
It will cause less problems than trying to jury rig a spacer.

Best of luck,.
Brian

 

[Ylva]

You can float mount it on a backboard. Leave enough space around the art so the spacers rest on the mount board, not the mat.

I am not sure if you are a framer, and if not, this would be a discussion to have with your framer. There are ways to achieve the look you want and use conservation techniques.

I don't always like the look of a mat either. 9 out of 10 it is perfect with a mat, if you choose the right one of course. That 10th time, I float mount with spacers

 

[OllieB]

You can float mount it on a backboard. Leave enough space around the art so the spacers rest on the mount board, not the mat.

I am not sure if you are a framer, and if not, this would be a discussion to have with your framer. There are ways to achieve the look you want and use conservation techniques.

I don't always like the look of a mat either. 9 out of 10 it is perfect with a mat, if you choose the right one of course. That 10th time, I float mount with spacers

I’m doing a few posters at the moment, they are replaceable posters but I still like the idea of reversible techniques, the last one I did I cut the backing board window 10mm shorter than the outside of the poster and t hinged the top, I then used bridges around the perimeter, then fit the outside of the mount board back to the centre panel which gives one inch boarder. Then glass spacers e,t,c I like this way of doing it because it makes it look like it could be a valuable poster because it’s not permanently mounted. It was time consuming and I’m not sure how well the bridges allow the poster to expand and contract. So I’m desperately looking for a really clever solution but without fixing all the edges:corners so that it lays flat. And doesn’t ripple. The idea of sending them off to get them mounted on Matt board is appealing but does boost the price, and not possible to do for a vintage poster that I’ve got to frame. There must be a way to tape all the corners down that applies a neutral pressure that allows it to move, but keep it flat. Would you have any suggestions? Here is a link to a vid that I followed. It was the lion pictures video by Roy Rowlands that I followed. I think the key part was to have a mm or 2 gap between the bevel to allow free movement of the bridges. How much vertical expansion would those bridges allow I wonder. And elasticated tape of some kind would be good.

 

[JFeig]

Hello Ollie, I am new to the term "bridges" in your comment. It is not a common term in the picture frame industry to my knowledge on either side of the pond. Can you explain what you mean with the term "bridge(es)"? Can you also I.D. which video you are referring too?

 

[Ylva]

I am not familiar with the term bridges either and am not exactly sure how you mounted this?

 

[OllieB]

Hi, take a look at the video to see what I did. I followed it pretty much the same. The bridges are bits of tape that apparently allow for some movement. And the anchors are only at the top.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JFeig]

Thanks Ollie, "bridge(bridging) hinges"... I would use the term "loose fitted(fitting) hinges". Roy is a good mentor for how to do thing properly.

 

[OllieB]

Thanks Ollie, "bridge(bridging) hinges"... I would use the term "loose fitted(fitting) hinges". Roy is a good mentor for how to do thing properly.

Ah thanks for clarifying that, it’s a new method to me so forgive me for sounding like a total newbie. It’s the best method I’ve seen any way. Not sure if there is any thing better?

 

[JFeig]

Nothing better!

 

[OllieB]

Nothing better!

If done well! That’s good to hear.

 

[Prospero]

You can, but it does mean having a rabbet that is quite wide (1"ish) or insert a slip that visually belongs
to the frame. I'm doing one atm as it happens.

I use this method on large posters. The trick is to 'jack up' the slip by running a strip of linen tape along the
outer edge of the slip so it does not crimp the edges of the print. The print is then hinged to a board in the conventional
way with maybe a few 'loose' hinges on the sides/bottom to stop it flopping about. Linen tape is just the right thickness.

Easier to explain with a drawing....