cheep talk
Grumbler
Eeekkkk! I framed a show for a photographer 8 months ago and all of the images are rippling in the frames. I am mystified. How do I fix this and keep it from happening in the future?
Help mounting photos
- Thread starter cheep talk
- Start date
You are giving insufficient information to make an knowledgeable comment for resolving your problem.
FrameMakers
PFG, Picture Framing God
Need more information.
Where the drymounted to start off with?
Hinged?
Corners?
Matted?
Where the drymounted to start off with?
Hinged?
Corners?
Matted?
cheep talk
Grumbler
well, that would be helpful wouldn't it?
hinged and matted.
hinged and matted.
Something else you'll want to share is what the photos were printed on. Were they on resin coated papers or the cotton rag? There's a big difference between what the answer might be for something like cibachrome than for ink jet prints.
If they were printed on paper, one thing you might consider is that it's not something you did. If the photographer left them in a baking hot car for even twenty minutes, or took them to an outdoor show on a hot day, they could have rippled just from the heat. I once had an artist bring me a little stack of ten matted print. It was hot when she handed them to me and I asked if she'd kept them in her car. Her answer, "Just for the morning..." Every single print had ripples all across it. Not good to do on day when the temperature in your car exceeds one hundred.
If they were printed on paper, one thing you might consider is that it's not something you did. If the photographer left them in a baking hot car for even twenty minutes, or took them to an outdoor show on a hot day, they could have rippled just from the heat. I once had an artist bring me a little stack of ten matted print. It was hot when she handed them to me and I asked if she'd kept them in her car. Her answer, "Just for the morning..." Every single print had ripples all across it. Not good to do on day when the temperature in your car exceeds one hundred.
HannaFate
SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Changes in humidity can cause temporary rippling. If the photos have been in a damp environment, putting them someplace dry for a while may flatten them back out.
Jerry Ervin
PFG, Picture Framing God
Dry Mount them
aside from heat.... if you did not give the prints enough space to expand and or contract, too many hinges or anything else out of the framers control.... they will also ripple
cheep talk
Grumbler
they are printed on FujiColor Professional Lab paper.
they have most likely spend some time in a hot car - i'm in new orleans.
they were in good condition when i got them and good when i sent them away framed.
they have most likely spend some time in a hot car - i'm in new orleans.
they were in good condition when i got them and good when i sent them away framed.
cheep talk
Grumbler
i can't dry mount them as they are signed and numbered.
Jerry Ervin
PFG, Picture Framing God
you also had a couple every severe storms in your area and possibly power outages.
cheep talk
Grumbler
how much space is enough to expand and contract?
they are 12x18 prints with 2" mat.
they are 12x18 prints with 2" mat.
cheep talk
Grumbler
indeed we had storms and power outtages (and plenty of drinks).
how would you suggest drying them out?
how would you suggest drying them out?
Accent Images-fotosource
Grumbler
There was a recent thread on mounting. I forgot where I read it last week. It suggested using corners and or hinging. Avoid using methods that restrict expansion and contraction, such as framing tape to the mat. The object needs to move slightly to compensate for changes in humidity and temperature.
Rob Markoff
PFG, Picture Framing God
Ansel Adams mounted all of his photographs. And they were signed too........
SportShots
CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Yes, Ansel dry mounted and then signed under the photo on the mat it was mounted to, in pencil.
Completely different from this problem. Ansels were fibre paper B&W prints. These are most likely Fuji Crystal Archive color prints.
Hinge mounting with corners to help hold works well but anything short of dry mounting will ripple with temperature and humidity changes. No way around that.
Frame with space to move a bit for expansion and contraction but know they will never lie completely flat for more than a short time after framing. Even the way they hang on the wall effects this. Leaning out a bit from the top will bow the prints after awhile. Temperature and humidity changes will also. Where they are constrained at the sides and top by matboard holding firm they will wrinkle, buckle and bubble a bit as they can't expand and lie flat.
Check with George Eastman House in Rochester, NY and see if they have any suggestions for you. They have one of the top photo conservator programs around and if anyone can solve this one, they can. Most likely they will tell you to live with it while doing a few small things to minimize the problem. Without dry mounting you won't eliminate it.
Completely different from this problem. Ansels were fibre paper B&W prints. These are most likely Fuji Crystal Archive color prints.
Hinge mounting with corners to help hold works well but anything short of dry mounting will ripple with temperature and humidity changes. No way around that.
Frame with space to move a bit for expansion and contraction but know they will never lie completely flat for more than a short time after framing. Even the way they hang on the wall effects this. Leaning out a bit from the top will bow the prints after awhile. Temperature and humidity changes will also. Where they are constrained at the sides and top by matboard holding firm they will wrinkle, buckle and bubble a bit as they can't expand and lie flat.
Check with George Eastman House in Rochester, NY and see if they have any suggestions for you. They have one of the top photo conservator programs around and if anyone can solve this one, they can. Most likely they will tell you to live with it while doing a few small things to minimize the problem. Without dry mounting you won't eliminate it.
Rob Markoff
PFG, Picture Framing God
No one has explained to me why the pieces cannot be mounted. In this case, the framing was being done for a photographer, who could authorize the mounting.
This is my 37th year as a picture framer. Many in the industry who know me would feel that I am pretty well educated and experienced. I frame many very expensive and very large photographs and frame for museums, galleries and collectors (and for photographers who sell to collectors.) Many of the pieces are not on fiber based paper and are in color, and they are signed as well. I mount many, many photographs.
If the desire is for the image to be perfectly flat, what other recourse does one have?
Frankly, I think we mentally "over-preserve" often to our own detriment. What is wrong with mounting? The fact that they are signed and numbered does nothing to support the argument that they should not be mounted.
Not to get off topic, but I had a call from a framer that was reluctant to put any staples into the tacking margin (when stretching) a signed and numbered giclee that was printed on canvas because it was signed and numbered and the staples would "devalue" the piece?
Are any of you aware of the ongoing "generally acceptable practice" discussions regarding mounting of giclees printed on canvas instead of stretching them as an acceptable/recommended standard framing practice?
Please explain how the mounting of a photograph would be improper, especially considering that it will prevent rippling (which may permanently damage a photo or allow it to come into contact with the glazing, thereby causing even greater damage).
Mounting may also allow for safer handling and in many cases, a more pleasing aesthetic for viewing.
There are many mounting methods and substrates that will probably last as long (or longer) that the image that is printed, especially given some of the ink-jet printing that is done today.
I am not suggesting grabbing a can of spray glue and using chipboard or even a fome-board as a substrate.
But there are low temperature buffered tissues, and cold roller adhesives that would be perfectly suitable, as would aluminum, acrylic, expanded PVC, 8 ply rag and possibly gator that would also be suitable substrates for photographic mounting.
And, there are glazing tissues to preserve the gloss and finish when mounting.
So, please tell me why mounting is an incorrect option?
This is my 37th year as a picture framer. Many in the industry who know me would feel that I am pretty well educated and experienced. I frame many very expensive and very large photographs and frame for museums, galleries and collectors (and for photographers who sell to collectors.) Many of the pieces are not on fiber based paper and are in color, and they are signed as well. I mount many, many photographs.
If the desire is for the image to be perfectly flat, what other recourse does one have?
Frankly, I think we mentally "over-preserve" often to our own detriment. What is wrong with mounting? The fact that they are signed and numbered does nothing to support the argument that they should not be mounted.
Not to get off topic, but I had a call from a framer that was reluctant to put any staples into the tacking margin (when stretching) a signed and numbered giclee that was printed on canvas because it was signed and numbered and the staples would "devalue" the piece?
Are any of you aware of the ongoing "generally acceptable practice" discussions regarding mounting of giclees printed on canvas instead of stretching them as an acceptable/recommended standard framing practice?
Please explain how the mounting of a photograph would be improper, especially considering that it will prevent rippling (which may permanently damage a photo or allow it to come into contact with the glazing, thereby causing even greater damage).
Mounting may also allow for safer handling and in many cases, a more pleasing aesthetic for viewing.
There are many mounting methods and substrates that will probably last as long (or longer) that the image that is printed, especially given some of the ink-jet printing that is done today.
I am not suggesting grabbing a can of spray glue and using chipboard or even a fome-board as a substrate.
But there are low temperature buffered tissues, and cold roller adhesives that would be perfectly suitable, as would aluminum, acrylic, expanded PVC, 8 ply rag and possibly gator that would also be suitable substrates for photographic mounting.
And, there are glazing tissues to preserve the gloss and finish when mounting.
So, please tell me why mounting is an incorrect option?
Dry mounting of photographs is acceptable, so long as the artist approves and recommends that.
The main drawback to mounting later is that the images may no longer be available. So, if there is an error or problem in the dry mounting process, the framer could be unable to replace the image.
In this case expansion and contraction are not issues of mat width, but tightness of the assembled layers. The fitting of the frame must be loose enough that all materials can expand and contract without restriction of their perimeters.
If a mat were not used, then glass spacers would be advised, and the tolerance of the frame dimensions would be of some concern, for the same reason -- the perimeter must be allowed to expand & contract unrestricted.
Rob Markoff
PFG, Picture Framing God
Jim-
Thank you for your well reasoned reply. Remember, this thread started with a framer saying that they had done a job for a photographer and the pieces were returned.
The main point I was trying to make fits in with my newly revised class, Proven Pathways to Profits (being offered at the PPFA Convention)- We have to make a living. Zero is a bigger number than a negative number. It is better not to do a job than to do one and lose money.
What is our objective to being in business? I would argue that for many of us, it is to make a living.
What was the photographer's objective in professionally framing the images, and why did he bring them back? I would argue so that he could sell them in a show, and again, to make a living (or some money.) I would also argue that the general buying public would prefer that their art be flat and not rippled
The best way to do both is to provide a framing solution that will allow the framer to be profitable (jobs that come back are less profitable than those that don't) and satisfy the photographer's needs to present his work in the best possible situation that would allow for transportation/exhibition in a variable environment (shows, client's home, storage between shows, etc.).
What do we know from experience about unmounted/matted photos that are cornered or hinged? That they will potentially ripple, may "pillow" and touch the glass if the mat is not thick enough(or is a spacer is placed directly on top of them), will sag under their own weight if cornered and not hinged at the top, if hinged at the top, may exhibit ripple at the top of the mat opening.
A photographer needs some level of accountability for the production method of his work. If no mounting is desired, theoretically, the image should be center printed on an oversized piece of paper so that the hinging/cornering has a significant overlap of the mat and that the known effects of overmatting an unmounted photo are mitigated.
It is also the framer's responsibility to explain the potential drawbacks to displaying photos that are not printed this way yet still matted, that if they are overmatted, there is a deep enough mat to offset the ripple, that the pieces are adequately backed with the proper substrate (fome board in a frame without additional filler boards, preferably of something like coroplast invites trouble) especially in an environment where the humidity fluxuates and, even with these precautions, that the piece may still ripple.
Nothing is done without risk. I would contend that the potential damage to an umounted photo improperly matted and hinged is greater than the potential damage when mounting - if the correct tools and materials are used.
And, if one does not have the tools and knowledge in the first place, should the job be undertaken at all?
Other than the potential damage that could occur from incorrect mounting, I still have not heard a compelling arguement why these photos should/could not have been mounted.
Thank you for your well reasoned reply. Remember, this thread started with a framer saying that they had done a job for a photographer and the pieces were returned.
The main point I was trying to make fits in with my newly revised class, Proven Pathways to Profits (being offered at the PPFA Convention)- We have to make a living. Zero is a bigger number than a negative number. It is better not to do a job than to do one and lose money.
What is our objective to being in business? I would argue that for many of us, it is to make a living.
What was the photographer's objective in professionally framing the images, and why did he bring them back? I would argue so that he could sell them in a show, and again, to make a living (or some money.) I would also argue that the general buying public would prefer that their art be flat and not rippled
The best way to do both is to provide a framing solution that will allow the framer to be profitable (jobs that come back are less profitable than those that don't) and satisfy the photographer's needs to present his work in the best possible situation that would allow for transportation/exhibition in a variable environment (shows, client's home, storage between shows, etc.).
What do we know from experience about unmounted/matted photos that are cornered or hinged? That they will potentially ripple, may "pillow" and touch the glass if the mat is not thick enough(or is a spacer is placed directly on top of them), will sag under their own weight if cornered and not hinged at the top, if hinged at the top, may exhibit ripple at the top of the mat opening.
A photographer needs some level of accountability for the production method of his work. If no mounting is desired, theoretically, the image should be center printed on an oversized piece of paper so that the hinging/cornering has a significant overlap of the mat and that the known effects of overmatting an unmounted photo are mitigated.
It is also the framer's responsibility to explain the potential drawbacks to displaying photos that are not printed this way yet still matted, that if they are overmatted, there is a deep enough mat to offset the ripple, that the pieces are adequately backed with the proper substrate (fome board in a frame without additional filler boards, preferably of something like coroplast invites trouble) especially in an environment where the humidity fluxuates and, even with these precautions, that the piece may still ripple.
Nothing is done without risk. I would contend that the potential damage to an umounted photo improperly matted and hinged is greater than the potential damage when mounting - if the correct tools and materials are used.
And, if one does not have the tools and knowledge in the first place, should the job be undertaken at all?
Other than the potential damage that could occur from incorrect mounting, I still have not heard a compelling arguement why these photos should/could not have been mounted.
If we are framing for the photographer and the worst happens, then getting a replacement image may be no big deal, and that seems to be the case in question here.
Dry mounting, even though it may become familiar and routine, is still a complex process, and once in a while we make a mistake. More seldom, something unexplained could happen.
Other than the risk of damage, I don't know of a "compelling argument" against dry mounting.
The problem I described would be more likely if the images were no longer available and re-mounted later. In that case, caution would be advised, especially if the images had been damaged from improper previous mounting. The potential for damage or destruction is a powerful disincentive for those of us who have suffered with our mistakes in the past.
Instead of using corner pockets at all, with or without hinges, I would prefer to use edge supports made of paper or clear film. That mounting method is fast, cheap, secures all edges, and allows expansion/contraction.
After several years of edge-mounting collectible photos, I have yet to see a problem come back later. However, non-invasive mounting requires careful fitting. The insulation provided by back-filler and a tight dustcover slows environmental changes.
Slightly-loose fitting points avoid restricting movement of the paper's edges under the mat. Too-tight fitting points are a popular mistake, and that may be the most common cause of cockling or ripples on photos and other papers not dry mounted.
Dry mounting, done right, eliminates the detrimental effects of too-tight fitting or an unsealed frame-back.
As usual we have choices, and there are ups and downs with each choice. Rob, you prefer the certainty of dry mounting, and "compelling arguments" against that mounting strategy are lacking.
Personally, for items of value I prefer minimally-invasive mounting, with careful fitting to avoid the problems some framers consider unavoidable.
cheep talk
Grumbler
Gee Yall, didn't mean to incite a riot.
You have given me many options as well as invaluable feedback for my client. I particularly like the option of having the images printed with beaucoup border. I will discuss this with him and see if that mightn't be an option going foreword.
Thanks again for all your help.
You have given me many options as well as invaluable feedback for my client. I particularly like the option of having the images printed with beaucoup border. I will discuss this with him and see if that mightn't be an option going foreword.
Thanks again for all your help.