Question Passe Partout, matless mount with spacers?

Create a Post
A

AEBenson

Grumbler in Training
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Posts
4
Hi, first time poster here.

I've done a significant amout of searching on Google and on these forums, but have yet to find a good answer.

I'm framing 12 x 18 photographs using a slightly modified version of the traditional passe-partout method (backing board, glass, tape). I've printed the photos on 16 x 22 300 GSM paper to allow for a 2 inch white border around each photo (the glass is also 16x22). What I'd like to do is use Econospace frame spacers to keep the glass off the print, but I'm concerned with keeping the photograph from buckling. Without the spacers this isn't a problem. I don't want to permanently fix the photo to the backing board. Are there other acceptable methods of anchoring the print? I figured using hinges on 2 sides wouldn't allow the photo to expand/contract. Any suggestions?

Thanks!

AEB
 
2" white border paper around the photo image? What's the point of that? There's really no acceptable way to do what you are suggesting & besides it looks awful. You could dry mount to artcare restore I suppose but it would still look bad. Use a mat.
 
Terry Hart cpf said:
2" white border paper around the photo image? What's the point of that? There's really no acceptable way to do what you are suggesting & besides it looks awful. You could dry mount to artcare restore I suppose but it would still look bad. Use a mat.
Click to expand...

Is it how I would frame a photo for the long term? No, but actually, it won't look terrible. Thanks for your concern.

I'm trying to avoid any dry mount or similar solution. I don't envision this being the permanent framing of these prints, but in the event that they do hang for some period of time I didn't want a) the glass to be in contact with the print, and b) having the print buckle. At a minimum these prints will be hanging for about 5 weeks. After that I can re-frame them. A mat would be ideal, at this point it's not an option. If there's no good solution to be had, I'll forgo the frame spacers. For the 5 weeks they'll be hanging, I don't expect any problems.
 
No, you can't expect them to remain flat & plopping spacers on top of the paper edges will only make it worse & probably leave a mark to boot.
 
Should be

I think you will be fine with the 2 hinges, 5 weeks is a short enough time. A little buckle in art never hurt anyone. It is what It is. ya know?

Welcome to the Grumble, by the way. :)
 
Since you can always reprint them; yes, go ahead and sandwich them between glass and foamboard. They should be fine for a while without getting stuck to the glass. Unless you are showing them in a very humid environment.

Welcome to the Grumble.

Why would you have 2" white exposed (which is just the photo paper, right?) It does not look very professional, but maybe you don't need that anyway?
 
If you are doing a two-inch white border around the photos, why not do a two-inch white mat, and make that the border? That will prevent the buckling, since the spacers won't rest directly on the photo. It will raise your costs somewhat, however.
 
Paul, you are missing the point.... a mat would also be getting into that
ugly stuff called "framing".

Just slam it together and show it. Its what you want to do anyway.

or, you could do the class job that I saw at the showing I went to last
Saturday night...... "T" pin the photo to the wall.

Personally, IMHO, if you don't respect your work enough to protect
it with proper framing... why would you expect anyone to give you
good money for it?
 
Check out this article on the FrameTek web pages on hinging. If you hinge the way museums have taught us, the photo will likely buckle between the hinges. Also, absolutly NO pressure on the backing as this will hinder the free expansion and contraction of the print and the art will buckle between pressure points.

http://www.frametek.com/HTML/Articles/Hinging.html
 
Thanks for all the input. I agree that a mat would be better, but for this situation the matless look is more than adequate.

All things considered, I think I passed the first-post test with a minimal amount of hazing. Thanks for letting me off easy.
 
Why not just display the prints with a foam board backer inside a plastic sleeve (don't know what you would call it) like clear bags. These can be purchased in the size need at minimual expense and then the purchaser can decide how or whether they want to have it matted and properly framed.
 
Natureguy said:
Why not just display the prints with a foam board backer inside a plastic sleeve (don't know what you would call it) like clear bags. These can be purchased in the size need at minimual expense and then the purchaser can decide how or whether they want to have it matted and properly framed.
Click to expand...

I think I'm already cutting some corners off doing a proper framing of these prints. While the show they'll be hanging in definitely has a retail feel to it, and some compromises are acceptable, this would probably go to far.

I've mocked up a smaller print without the spacers and it's going to work out just fine. The prints have adequate time to dry, and my work area is air-conditioned so I probably won't be trapping much moisture inside.
 
AEBenson said:
I've mocked up a smaller print without the spacers and it's going to work out just fine. The prints have adequate time to dry, and my work area is air-conditioned so I probably won't be trapping much moisture inside.
Click to expand...

First, welcome to The Grumble.

Trapping moisture in the original assembly would not be much of a problem, as it could evaporate out more quickly than one might realize. The greater harm could come later, as uncontrolled ambient humidity could migrate into the display package and, if combined with a rapid change of temperature to achieve "dew point" inside the glass, moisture could condense inside.

You are right to be concerned about pressing glass against your prints. Glass is a poor thermal insulator, which could condense harmful moisture inside the display package, according to relative humidity and the rate of temperature change.

If the perimeter is tightly closed by taping, the tendency of the unmounted paper to buckle/wrinkle/cockle/not stay flat is only one of the potential problems. The moisture might tend to stay inside and cause mildew, and the image might stick to the glass, and the direct contact of glazing could cause abrasion of the image.

Using a spacer would seem to make sense, but even in proper framing, paper retained by the pressure of the spacer at its edges would not be able to expand/contract normally. In any case, if you can avoid restricting the paper's expansion/contraction and buffer the rate of ambient changes, it might stay flat.

I have two suggestions:

1. Cheap alternative: Use acrylic instead of glass, and continue pressing the art with the same kind of assembly you have been using. Since acrylic is a much better thermal insulator than glass, it would not tend to condense moisture so easily. Abrasion and possible sticking could still be issues, though.

2. Better alternative: Make the glass and backing board about 1/4" larger than the art paper, so that the spacer does not press the paper's edges and it could expand/contract freely. Also, hinge the top edge of the art paper's verso to the backing board. Japanese paper and starch paste would be best for this purpose, or you could use gummed linen tape. Avoid pressure sensitive adhesive on the art paper. Also, I suggest using FrameSpace spacer, because it clips to the edges of the glazing and does not bring pressure sensitive adhesive into the package. Using UV-filtering acrylic would reduce weight and potential breakage, too.

The second suggestion would be my personal choice. If you make the glass/spacer/backer package just large enough to clear the paper's edges, the appearance would be very similar. This package would still not provide as much environmental protection as proper framing, but almost.
 
AEBenson said:
All things considered, I think I passed the first-post test with a minimal amount of hazing. Thanks for letting me off easy.
Click to expand...

I'd like to welcome you to the forum, AEBenson

Contrary to the name of the forum, and a couple abrupt/cold/stifling messages that you initially received (which I apologize for - we're working to improve this problem), we really are a caring community. Grumblers are always willing to share their experience and help each other out. We're all on the same 'team'.

We're glad to have you as one of our newest members!
Mike
Moderator Team
 
Now, was that nice? I stand by my suggestion. Of course Jim M gave the right answer but in my shop that would take longer (to do properly) read, cost more. No mat, it looks like a poster. Use a mat, do it right, make it look nice. Make it look professional. Save money. Sorry if I'm not so eloquent. By the way it would be "nice" if AEB would fill in a bit of profile a bit. Other than that, welcome.
 
Just wondering - Why don't you want to mount the prints onto a board? It would make life much simpler.

Also, using the passe partout method is going to make removing the prints and later re-using the glass a bit of a pain. That stuff sticks like the proverbial. :p

On the whole, faced with the same situation I would mount the prints. Get a simple, plain frame. Stick some blind spacers made from strips of matboard covered with double-stick tape on one side fixed to the edge of the glass. Put bendy tabs in the frame to facilitate easy swapping.
 
I am not sure what the OP is doing with these photos.... some kind of "power point" learning display, or trying to sell the photos as art items?

If selling is the final goal, nothing but nothing is more important than a mat!
A frame can be very plain and you can get away with it, but a mat-less photo will never look nice no matter how much white paper you leave around it.
Mats are easy to do and the effort is less than all the crazy combinations of hinges and spacers!
I don't understand this question I guess.

PS... a 2" mat isn't enough.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top