I noticed he uses a different technique for mounting and framing than I have considered before. Although I wasn't able to see the show in person, I really like the presentation of these images.
Has anyone else used this approach for their images? It looks like a nice alternative to traditional glass methods. Are there any big disadvantages? The only one I could think of is possibly less protection of the print itself when moving it around, etc...
I have been getting many laminates done lately. The advantages are 1) they look great from any angle, 2) the laminate is UV protected and 3) you can wipe em down with windex. If you dont mind having the "modern look" of a laminate they are a great way to go and a much more affordable way to mount 40-50" wide prints. If you make it up to Aurora stop by and I'll show you mine. I am not using them though for my fine art B/W prints or matte paper based color prints.
RichieV
Posted by Brent Murphy on April 5, 2007 at 11:54 AM
I have used the "floating" version of this, not the box, on a number of prints, and it looks great. I would definitely recommend it. I know Erik sells a whole lot of prints, and has mentioned here in the past that this method sells far better than traditionally framed prints.
I had a 30x40 printed, mounted on 1-inch black gatorboard, and laminated at the SlidePrinter. I mounted it on top of a flat-fronted 20x24 frame that's about 1.5" thick (made for canvas paintings, found it at Hobby Lobby). It floats off the wall a little bit, and ended up looking like a fairly professional job, in spite of my strictly amateur status.
Hi Derek, I use them almost exclusively. In fact later today I am going to pick up 20+ wood mounts from a new place just off of SantaFe in Denver. I think Rich explained the benefits very well. If you are up in RMNP, stop by my gallery which I will be opening next week. I'll post info on how to find me next Thursday.
Glad you like how my prints look! In addition to what others have said, I'd add that the laminate's amazing no-glare characteristic comes with a slight drawback - the laminate's matte finish does reduce contrast a little bit and can make the images appear slightly flat if they are not well lit. But this is a non-issue with proper lighting. In fact the prints really seem to glow when well lit!
It sounds like this is the mounting of choice for many folks here. I definately want to give it a try. It offers several advantages that I like.
1. You can get a larger image in the same area - no need to add for border and frame
2. Potential overall cost savings
3. No need for high end museum type glass
I am also wondering about best paper and printing(ink) to use for this kind of lamination process. It sounds like outfits such as SlidePrinter may handle the whole thing. But are there others that are recommended as well?
Jack - Those framed images look awesome. Thanks for the heads up on the importance of lighting.
Erik - Now I have an even better reason to get up to RMNP soon! I definitely look forward to seeing your new gallery. Please fill us in on the details so we can drop by.
Derek, I've used this ColorPlak mounting now for several years and have been very happy.
My main attraction has been cost and no glaring reflections - especially on large prints.
But, depending on decor, they don't fit everyone's needs.
I've always done these mounts with Fuji Crystal Archive prints - satin finish.
The place I use in Superior charges 50% extra for inkjet prints.
I believe this is for any inkjet - glossy or matte.
I use PictureThis in Superior. They offer many lamination choices and mount directly to MDF board. I have been using Epson Premium Luster paper and have been happy with all of my mounted prints.
Posted by Brent Murphy on April 5, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I also use PictureThis. I've been really happy with them.
I believe the reason they charge extra for inkjets is because they put some kind of spray on them first. Maybe so the heat doesn't affect the ink? Not sure. They gave me a tour, and were in the process of mounting an inkjet at the time, so they explained it then. But I've only had Crystal Archive prints mounted there.
Also, I believe they recommended using glossy paper instead of matte, since their lamination actually provides a final matte finish. Not sure how much of a difference it makes.
Posted by Scott Fricke on April 5, 2007 at 10:08 PM
I use Picture This as well, they explained they had to do an extra coating with inkjet prints because unlike a traditional print the ink just sits on top of the paper and their final coating would affect the ink without the extra step. I've done a 36x24 and a 60x18 print and have been real happy with the results. The 60" print was an ink jet and the other one was one that they printed and then mounted.
Hmm, then another question. Did they mention how their process affects longevity of the laminated prints? The spray plus heat lamination could affect things such as color, fading, chemical interaction between spray and ink. Just wondering if they have had their process tested for light fading by a 3rd party to verify they aren't affecting the artwork adversely.
I'd sure hate to use archival processes (newer Epson, Ultra Chrome inks, good paper, etc...) only to find that the spray and heat used in the process reduces the life of the print from 100+ years to 20 or even less. What is the oldest print anyone has using this process? Any noticable changes in it?
Reed Photo is about to introduce the Color Pak mounting at a substantially lower price than Picture This. Reed used to use them for much of their mounting, but due to substantial quality issues, they moved the business in-house.
Just FYI for everyone out there--this is from Bob, the owner at Reed.
Craig, I have not encountered ANY archival testing of this process. Plus there is probably significant variation in the process/equipment used.
As Jack pointed out, the lamination film does affect the appearance of a print - but the alternative is putting up with the reflections from glass or paying for the higher grade glass.
My oldest ColorPlak mount is almost 4 years old. I'd say it is as good as new.
It has been in an office environment, under strong UV lights most of that time.
The print was on Fuji Crystal Archive - NOT archival pigment inks.
I certainly can't detect any changes, but that is a very short time.
If someone requires archival guarantees, then I'd recommend using known archival materials and mounting. I don't believe heat mounted laminations fall into that category.
Dave - It's good to see you back in the game! Does this mean you're shooting again too?
Erik - What's the name of this "new place just off Santa Fe"? Or are you holding out for a chocolate malt too? (The official currency of RMNP, nee CNP)
Re: Picture This - Although they charge 50% more for inkjet prints, that premium is applied after the price has been reduced 50% because you have a tax license - so you're still netting a 25% discount off a price that is already lower than matting and framing.
Although I have no doubt that Reed will do an amazing job with this type of mounting, I am skeptical of Bob's claim that it will be lower (much less "substantially" lower) than Picture This or anyone else. It's been my experience that while Reed puts out the absolute highest quality work, they also charge commensurately high fees for that work.
I'd be darn thrilled to be proven wrong about the cost this time, though.
Bill, thanks for your insight on this. It's good to know that at least the process hasn't affected something that is 4 years old. I tend to agree with you regarding the archival guarantees, but I also find it hard to believe that someone paying upwards of $400 for a fine art print doesn't want archival properties; so would this automatically exclude this process?
For instance, how would you mat a pano print that is 30x90in? Do mats even get that big or do you just frame without a mat? I was thinking of using this process for really large or odd sizes where framing becomes a problem, but I'm not sure I want to sacrifice archival properties to get there.
Reed Photo offers what they market as "Gallery Mount" and has cheaper prices than PictureThis. Have any of you used them and attest to their quality? Are there any other places besides PictureThis and Reed Photo that do the laminate wood mounting you recommend?
Discussion
20 repliesI was just admiring Jack's images at the Ouray Skol Gallery from his website.
http://www.widerange.org/gallery.php?gallery=skol
I noticed he uses a different technique for mounting and framing than I have considered before. Although I wasn't able to see the show in person, I really like the presentation of these images.
Has anyone else used this approach for their images? It looks like a nice alternative to traditional glass methods. Are there any big disadvantages? The only one I could think of is possibly less protection of the print itself when moving it around, etc...
I have been getting many laminates done lately. The advantages are 1) they look great from any angle, 2) the laminate is UV protected and 3) you can wipe em down with windex. If you dont mind having the "modern look" of a laminate they are a great way to go and a much more affordable way to mount 40-50" wide prints. If you make it up to Aurora stop by and I'll show you mine. I am not using them though for my fine art B/W prints or matte paper based color prints.
RichieV
Glad you like how my prints look! In addition to what others have said, I'd add that the laminate's amazing no-glare characteristic comes with a slight drawback - the laminate's matte finish does reduce contrast a little bit and can make the images appear slightly flat if they are not well lit. But this is a non-issue with proper lighting. In fact the prints really seem to glow when well lit!
~Jack
Also, since heat is involved in this process has anyone had issues with certain types of prints (inkject, chromira, lightjet or maybe paper type)?
Craig
It sounds like this is the mounting of choice for many folks here. I definately want to give it a try. It offers several advantages that I like.
1. You can get a larger image in the same area - no need to add for border and frame
2. Potential overall cost savings
3. No need for high end museum type glass
I am also wondering about best paper and printing(ink) to use for this kind of lamination process. It sounds like outfits such as SlidePrinter may handle the whole thing. But are there others that are recommended as well?
Jack - Those framed images look awesome. Thanks for the heads up on the importance of lighting.
Erik - Now I have an even better reason to get up to RMNP soon! I definitely look forward to seeing your new gallery. Please fill us in on the details so we can drop by.
My main attraction has been cost and no glaring reflections - especially on large prints.
But, depending on decor, they don't fit everyone's needs.
I've always done these mounts with Fuji Crystal Archive prints - satin finish.
The place I use in Superior charges 50% extra for inkjet prints.
I believe this is for any inkjet - glossy or matte.
Rich
I believe the reason they charge extra for inkjets is because they put some kind of spray on them first. Maybe so the heat doesn't affect the ink? Not sure. They gave me a tour, and were in the process of mounting an inkjet at the time, so they explained it then. But I've only had Crystal Archive prints mounted there.
Also, I believe they recommended using glossy paper instead of matte, since their lamination actually provides a final matte finish. Not sure how much of a difference it makes.
I'd sure hate to use archival processes (newer Epson, Ultra Chrome inks, good paper, etc...) only to find that the spray and heat used in the process reduces the life of the print from 100+ years to 20 or even less. What is the oldest print anyone has using this process? Any noticable changes in it?
Just wondering, Craig
Just FYI for everyone out there--this is from Bob, the owner at Reed.
-D
Thanks for this info. Do you happen to know the approximate time frame in which Reed Photo plans to offer this (e.g. this summer)?
Thanks,
As Jack pointed out, the lamination film does affect the appearance of a print - but the alternative is putting up with the reflections from glass or paying for the higher grade glass.
My oldest ColorPlak mount is almost 4 years old. I'd say it is as good as new.
It has been in an office environment, under strong UV lights most of that time.
The print was on Fuji Crystal Archive - NOT archival pigment inks.
I certainly can't detect any changes, but that is a very short time.
If someone requires archival guarantees, then I'd recommend using known archival materials and mounting. I don't believe heat mounted laminations fall into that category.
Erik - What's the name of this "new place just off Santa Fe"? Or are you holding out for a chocolate malt too? (The official currency of RMNP, nee CNP)
Re: Picture This - Although they charge 50% more for inkjet prints, that premium is applied after the price has been reduced 50% because you have a tax license - so you're still netting a 25% discount off a price that is already lower than matting and framing.
Although I have no doubt that Reed will do an amazing job with this type of mounting, I am skeptical of Bob's claim that it will be lower (much less "substantially" lower) than Picture This or anyone else. It's been my experience that while Reed puts out the absolute highest quality work, they also charge commensurately high fees for that work.
I'd be darn thrilled to be proven wrong about the cost this time, though.
For instance, how would you mat a pano print that is 30x90in? Do mats even get that big or do you just frame without a mat? I was thinking of using this process for really large or odd sizes where framing becomes a problem, but I'm not sure I want to sacrifice archival properties to get there.
Craig
Reed Photo offers what they market as "Gallery Mount" and has cheaper prices than PictureThis. Have any of you used them and attest to their quality? Are there any other places besides PictureThis and Reed Photo that do the laminate wood mounting you recommend?