Problem with Puckering of Larger Prints in Framed Format

Using archival methods (hinged mats and and image to foam core (Edited)) I find my larger prints get sucked up against the (UV / non-glare) acrylic glazing I use. Prints where I notice this issue are 12X18, 16X24, and 20X30. Maybe my mat opening is too large? I am using a 1/4 inch overlap of the bottom mat over the print. In general, I use a double mat, foam core backing, acrylite UV/non-glare glaze, and metal frame components). Any advice? Thanks in advance for your input.

Hey Eva, other then dry mounting or using PMA tape (positionable mounting addhessive) you will run into prints that will ripple. It always bothered me seeing rippled prints under glass, so I always use one of the two methods mentioned.

I have never had this problem with a wide variety of larger sized prints. Part of it may be your local humidity; part of it may be your paper choices; part of it may be your hinging technique. I hope you're not mounting the print to your overmat, as this is definitely a common but wrong technique. Prints get mounted to the backing board, regardless of the mounting technique used.

http://www.danielsmith.com/content--id-104

Thanks Mike and Michael. I am mounting them to the backing board (foam core) using 3 to 4 pieces of archival tape 1" wide that touches the back of the print. I attach these pieces of tape with another archival tape to form a "T". Papers I use include Endura Metallic, Endura matte, and Epson ultra premium glossy.

I am in the northeast so humidity might play a role.

Thanks again.

The culprit could be static electricity. It strikes me that acrylic could build up a charge relative to the print, thus pulling the print and the acrylic together. Since the print is more flexible than the acrylic, it gives. You could test this by framing two prints in the same method with the same materials, but put one under glass and one under acrylic. Then wait to see what happens. If only the print under acrylic puckers, then you have your answer.

This is interesting. I'm in the very humid Florida and have not had the problem using the same technique as you Eva for prints up to 17x22. Larger than that I have done for me. The only difference I can see is that I only use two hinges and I place them both rather near the center.

The key I think is for the print to be able to expand and contract under the mat. If the hinges are near the edges that anchors the print and it can still buckle between them. Using them close to the center and only a couple inches apart still gives the print stability but minimizes the amount "locked" between them.

I also hinge the mat at the top to the backing foamcore because the one and only time I had buckling was when I firmly glued down the mat to the backing, Some adhesive bled over onto the photo and stuck it firmly and it wrinkled. However, even in this case it never touched the acrylic. I'd say use thicker mats but if you're double matting and still seeing it then that would not seem to be the answer. I'll keep an eye on this thread because of my humid area and maybe I've just been lucky so far! JR

Hey Eva, I have had similar issues with prints staying flat. The only way I have resolved this is by having the print dry mounted to the mount board. I also do not connect the over mat to the mount board it simply lays on top. I dry mount everything over 8x10, it cost extra but I believe it must be done.

I've found working with acrylic to be very tricky. This sounds like a static problem to me. Are you cleaning the acrylic with an anti static spray after you peel off its protective paper? I now use glass 100% of the time, but the few times i've used acrylic, I had major issues with static because I didn't clean it first. If you were to permanently mount your print to the backing using an adhesive you could get away with not cleaning the acrylic, but using hinge technique and allowing the print to float or hang freely I'm pretty sure you always have to clean the plexi because of the crazy static buildup. Hope this helps.

I really apreciate hearing all your perspectives on this issue.

Tyson - I did use an acrylic cleaner after removing the protective paper. I use a product called "Brilliance" sold by FrameDestinations. I also use the micro cleaning cloths they recommend. Maybe I need to do more than one cleaning. I don't like glass for its fragility but I will take a harder look at stuff I have behind glass vs. acrylic but I have broken several pieces of glass with handling and transport.

Brad - except for the hinge of the bottom mat to the foam core, the top mat is free but I do see a design of experiments emerging in my mind with all this great input..

Thanks John. I do hinge near the edges (1 -2 inches) and 1 or 2 points equi-distant in the center. I may try just some center points to see if this improves the situation. I have thought of thicker mats or a third mat but of course that adds cost.

David - Thanks. With all the comments so far, static electricity may be the culprit. As mentioned above, I don't like glass for its fragility but I will take a harder look at stuff I have behind glass vs. acrylic but I have broken several pieces of glass with hadling and transport...... hey if static is the problem, then I may need to change my ways.

Again thanks everyone! I feel a design of experiments coming on (I am a scientist ya know, so what better way to get to the bottom of this!).

Eva, let us know what your results are as you conduct this experiment. I've had some issues with buckling but I think they were related to improper mounting technique. The humidity in the north east during summer is a killer and I think you'll run into trouble with such a small border under the window mat. I've noticed that my prints with larger borders (1.5-2 inches) warp less than the ones with .5 inch borders.

Eva,

In my neck of the woods, the humid and ever changing environment of the mountains of East TN/Western NC, dry mounting is a necessity for large prints (16x20 or larger) if you don't won't them to ripple or buckle. I rebelled at first, wanting to use a more archival method, but finally concluded I'd rather be able to enjoy the print now than save it for posterity.

Lori

Eva,

Just wanted to echo Kurt's last comment. Back in the day of Ciba/iLLfachrome, Type R prints directly from slides, we always got "full frame" prints and had to lose some of the image with over matting. Of course I never wanted t cut in to the image, so sometimes there would be as little as 1/8th of the print under the mat. Today, it's quite easy to send our files out with excess white space around the prints. In fact, I'm using some of that white space now as pseudo mat and have gone back to a single mat instead of a double mat. Anyway, having a larger surface area will tend to flatten the print out better. The ripples will be reduced, but of course because of thinks like static and all that, it won't go away unless the prints are flush mounted as others have mentioned.

Lon

Thanks Kurt. After seeing my prints buckle after following archival mountinging technigues I started surveying others web sites to see what others do to overcome this buckling. I notced Lon O. leaves extra boarders to compensate (thanks for that info Lon)..... and that all makes sense now. Thanks Kurt.

Thanks Lori - I used to use 3M spray mount photo adhesive for mounting prints for 30+ years ( and in most cases they still look good except for some peeling at the edges) I have been doing photography as a hobby for a while (actually doing prints I made in my darkroom - B&W, Cibachrome.....). Now that I am older and have gone digital, I am feeling more serious about my hobby, I feel the need to do things in a better way. .......But as you say, it may not be possible on the east coast as Mike M. and Kurt B. point out too. Thanks for your input which is much appreciated.

Hi Lon - I have surveyed peoples websites for print info and of course noticed your wisdom a few weeks or so ago (too late for my Maine showing). I think that is a wise move and will try to incorporate that philosophy in my next prints. ..... so another cell in my DOE! Thanks Lon. I always appriciate your wisdom and input!

Eva,

I seriously doubt that your problem is related to the acrylic glazing and static electricity unless the print is made on a very thin paper. I've had the same problem with properly mounted prints behind glass. Although I love the image quality and texture of Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, that paper has the potential to develop a waviness during printing as it swells with heavier ink, and for some reason I've noticed this remaining in the print even after drying even in our extremely low humidity Colorado environment. I leave generous borders of 1/2 to 1 inch around the print and this does help in mounting, but does not eliminate the issue. The prints where this occurs will lay this way flat on a table even after drying and light pressing between velum in my flat file. The only way to eliminate this on this particular paper is with PMA (pressure mount adhesive) or dry mount bonding to a rigid substrate such as gatorboard. But not all papers show these issues. I've never seen them in dry Hahnemuhle Photo Rag or Epson Velvet Fine Art papers.

That said, humidity and temperature changes will swell and contract the paper substrate of your prints over time and that is why we try to corner mount or t-hinge/v-hinge mount with the minimum number of points. It gives the print some room to swell and contract independent of the backing and overmat.

PMA or dry mount adhesives are generally not considered to be archival mounting practices, however they are shown to benefit the longevity of prints when the mounts are properly done and when done on an appropriate substrate. The benefit here is that they seal the backside of the print, preventing the movement of air and therefore reducing oxidation of the print substrate from the back side.

If flat large prints are a must for you, PMA mounting or dry mounting are the best option.