mounting very large photograph

K & H

Grumbler in Training
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Posts
12
Location
colorado
Hi!
I have to mount an expensive Sossi photograph 46" X 56" and am planning on doing a static mount, spacers and 1/4" plexi on top. Is this the absolute best way? If I was allowed, would I have it adhered to sima board? Also, as it is going to be very heavy and although I have a substantial frame, could I get by with 1/8" on top?...And my spacers will be on the photo? Thanks for any help.
shrug.gif
Kris
 
I don't know what a Sossi photograph is, but unless it is made with the Ilfochrome/Cibachrome process, the static mount will not work. That works only for photos on plastic sheets.

I also don't know what sima board is, nor do I know what you mean by "1/8" on top". Are you speaking of spacer depth? If so, the answer is no. For a photo of those dimensions not permanently mounted, expansion/contraction deflection would exceed 1/8". I'd suggest 1/4" minimum, and 1/2" would be my choice -- or use a 1/4" spacer with a mat to hold down the perimeter.

For mounting most collectible photographs I suggest hinges along the top edge only, with a few loose, anti-flap straps on the lower half of each side.
 
Jim, thanks for the quick reply.
I was talking about the 1/8" plexi instead of 1/4" plexi on top. It is glossy on fiber paper so I guess I won't static mount! So obviously it won't be laying very flat, huh? I thought sima board (which is what the gallery it came from suggested) was a plastic? Thanks Kris
 
Perhaps the gallery was referring to Sintra, which is PVC sheeting commonly used for sign making.

I would use 3/16" or 1/4" acrylic for framing so large, and always UV-filtering type.
 
Thanks Jim!
That is what it is... Sintra.
OP-3 of course.

and please..a few more questions... since the gallery and artist said they usually have it mounted on a piece of sintra, I imagine it is okay for me to do it. Obviously that is NOT archival. I feel responsible for framing this only archivally but can the artist tell me to do it that way and I am not liable? This comes up ALOT for me and I always go the safe route, probably losing jobs in the process.

And for other smaller pieces, how do you feel about the artcare restore drymount board? I read in PFM some issues back in Chris P. said she would use it on fine art. Could I suggest this to the artist and feel comfortable that it will not devalue the art?

Thanks again, Kris
 
Before a reply, I would clarify that I would farm this out the the appropriate person to mount on sintra (or aluminum ?)
Kris
 
Ok don't mount on Sintra...it is not good stuff, it has texture and I have seen it show up on the front of images. Why not get a sheet of 48x96 mat boards attach that two coroplast-with flutes running in opposite directions to make it more sturdy. Then you could v-hinge the art to an archival board? If is is a fiber based photo at that size I would use 1/2 inch spacers, if it is not too flat maybe an inch deep spacers. An Jim is right3/16 or 1/4 inch plexi, you will need the stability.

I do have a little disagreement with Jim, if you have a RC resin coated photograph it can be static mounted. These are not Ilfachromes/Cibachromes, but they do work. This is how I did my last show, I will say chromes do work better. The RC photos do have a plastic-type base to the back of the papers.
Patrick Leeland
 
First, I would not permanently mount a collectible photograph. Aside from the fact that it would be non-reversible with ordinary methods, a permanent mount would also be invasive. That is, if anything goes wrong in the process, the photo could be ruined.

Sintra is smooth, flat plastic and somewhat cheaper than acrylic. However, I would spend the extra money for a sheet of 3/16" or 1/4" clear acrylic, because it is harder, smoother, and I believe chemically "cleaner" than sheet PVC.

For the mount I would use starch paste and Japanese paper hinges along the top edge, and Beva paste to attach the hinges to the acrylic. Or, if the hinges can be wrapped over the top edge of the acrylic mount board (sanded edge, of course) they could be attached to the acrylic's backside with 3M #889 double-sided tape.

Don't forget the generous glass spacers.

If you are unfamiliar or uneasy about the mounting process, how about contracting that out to the artist's gallery? That way you would be free of any responsibility for the mounting.

ArtCare is a good product by all indications. I haven't heard of any problems with it, so long as it is used as directed.
 
Patrick's post came up while I was making my reply. He's quite right; Coroplast-reinforced alphacellulose mount board would work nicely and starch paste will stick to it. That would be lighter-weight than an acrylic sheet, but the assembly would be thicker; I would use at least 8 mm thick Coroplast.

In my experience a static mount will work whenever there is sufficient static charge to create the bond, But I always reinforce it with hinges anyway. Static charge comes and goes with ambient changes, so its strength varies from day to day.

A plastic-to-plastic mount (Ilfochrome to acrylic, for example) represents the best situation for static cling, so it is reliable in most ambients, even when static charge weakens by dissipation.

Static is sometimes present in paper, too, so a paper-to-plastic mount would work when static charge is high. But when static charge dissipates, would the static cling of paper-to-plastic be adequate to withstand gravity or handling? I'm not willing to risk it alone as sole support, but I would use static cling to help keep an RC photograph flat against the mount board.
 
Always reinforce, that is best of course.

Jim your quote at the bottom is great...so what's wrong with a yugo?
Patrick Leeland
 
Okay.. really only one more question and I will quit bugging you...
The gallery and artist are in New York. And while not worried about mounting the Nori paste/mulberry paper route, I am worried about the look I will achieve on a piece so big. I've done it before on pieces this size, but these people want it to lay real flat?! I am going the hinge route and if they don't like it, then I will send it to the artists lab to do what they want with it. Also, of course, they have several houses and for all I know this will be sent around the country. I hate the call that the hinges tore (I know, better than a call that the art tore!) and that they think I should pay a framing shop to re-hinge it. I know the guy at Frametek? (at the booth in Las Vegas) told me he is pretty generous with his hinges- loose on the sides, AND also loose on bottom. Is that acceptable to you?
Thanks again for your valuable input...yougoIgo.
Kris
 
Nothing's wrong with a Yugo, Patrick. When no-frills transportation is best for the purpose, then it may be the best choice.

Most consumers want the frills and protective features in more expensive cars; we recognize their value and willingly pay for them.

The point is that the consumers who say to us "show me your cheapest frame" do not go to a car dealer and say, "show me your cheapest car."

Why is that?
 
Originally posted by kris:
I feel responsible for framing this only archivally but can the artist tell me to do it that way and I am not liable?
The artist can decide to do whatever they wish to and with the art....even smear it in elephant dung. If the artist is aware of the archival shortcomings of a particular proceedure and make the decision to proceed, they are assuming the risk.
 
Originally posted by kris:
...the guy at Frametek? (at the booth in Las Vegas) told me he is pretty generous with his hinges- loose on the sides, AND also loose on bottom. Is that acceptable to you?
Kris
Greg Fremstad is very knowledgeable and innovative, and it shows in his products. I agree that loose side and bottom hinges serve the important purpose of limiting the art's travel, especially sideways when the frame is turned on end during handling. Sideways travel tests the tear-away strength of hinges better than any other motion, I think.

LOOSE is the operative word here, because the side & bottom hinges must accommodate normal expansion & contraction cycles without stressing the art paper.
 
Originally posted by wpfay:
...The artist can decide to do whatever they wish to and with the art...If the artist is aware of the archival shortcomings of a particular proceedure and make the decision to proceed, they are assuming the risk.
Whether or not he is "aware of the archival shortcomings", if the artist makes the mount as well as the decision, then yes, he assumes the risk. The artist is the one who can most readily repair or replace the artwork if it fails, so his risk may be relatively small.

But if WE professional framers follow the artist's recommendation and it fails, would the artist come forward to take responsibility? I think we might end up holding the proverbial bag, so I'd rather trust the judgement of someone more preservation-knowledgeable than the artist.
 
Originally posted by Jim Miller:
I think we might end up holding the proverbial bag, so I'd rather trust the judgement of someone more preservation-knowledgeable than the artist. [/QB]
Couldn't agree with you more (in a perfect world), but the final call, for better or ill, is the artist's. In between the advice and consent is the lawyer, adding cost, but no value.
 
I have sent a very valuable oversized photograph back to the artist's lab to be mounted onto(whatever they wanted). I told them what I thought, but everyone wanted it that way (gallery there,artist,new owner,gallery here etc.) It was in writing and when it was returned to me I made the local gallery come to my shop and inspect it as I unwrapped it and to note any problems. I don't know how I could be more careful. But it was a $15,000.00+ piece!
I try to do this with any art that is sent directly to me from the artist or a gallery and I will tell you it has saved me. One case sent directly to me from the artist's lab my employee opened and found dents already present on the edges almost killed me..(see kris begging the lab to print another promising that we did NOT do this!)
I would hope that I, as a knowledgeable framer, can convince my clients that I know what is best for the particular piece of art not the artist and if that isn't good enough then maybe someone else should frame it for them.
In this original case, the piece is probably $6,000.00 and the frame job $1,200.00. The risk of not using a preservation method far outweighs the reward for this all too busy framer who is already tearing her hair out trying to get all of her workorders done on time and who is so so happy she finally got a Wizard this year to make it all a little easier!
Kris
 
Kris

I am dying to know who this photographer is. Google did not show any photographers in this catagory.

$15,000 for a single print..........
 
His name is Ross and it was of a mountain shot several miles away with some crazy camera that they said was catching the attention of collectors as well as scientists who were interested in his procedure and how he got so much detail. That is what they told me it cost?! What do I know? Kris
 
Back
Top