Digital BW, The Print

I agree with you ­ it is damn expensive!  (Like almost everything here!)

I need to spend some time finding pre-made frames that suit my tastes ­ the
moulding is the bulk of the cost at around £41 per print.  I don¹t mind
getting the matts cut for the time being as they are the cheap end of
things.  One day I will purchase a cutter (the only ones that I have seen
are straight edges without a square and I wonder how on earth people get
perfect 90 degree corners with them) and no doubt after a few disasters
start cutting the matts myself.  I will enquire again as to how they are all
held together.  I took a closer look and can see that there is the matt on
the front, then the image, then a sheet of matting board the same as the
front but obviously uncut, and then a sheet of quite hard brown board.
Around the sheet of hard board are a series of metal pins which sit flush
with the board and enter the frame (as though they were slid along the sheet
of board into the frame edge).  These pins appear to be holding everything
firmly in place and pressured to the front of the frame.  Brown paper tape
has then been used to simply seal the bulk of the back edge and make things
look tidy (they do this to pre-made frames also).  The only concern the
framer had with regard to there not being glass in the front was as to
whether there would be enough pressure on the matt at its front interior
edge (ie right next to the photo) for there not to be a gap visible
(normally the glass would pressure the matt to the photo here) but this has
not been an issue ­ the matts sit neatly against the photo (at least for
now).  According to the instructions on the job sheet, the photo is aligned
to the back sheet of matt board with acid free hinges.  The invoice is
itemized as follows:  moulding £41, framing option £15 (which I understand
to be the matting materials) and stretching £12.

When I initially discussed the cost of various glass options the better ones
(read UV protection and INVISIBLE) were extremely expensive ­ doubling the
cost of the framing.  What is the quality of the glass on pre-made Neilsen
frames?  If I bought pre-made frames I would still likely want to remove the
glass as I like the (hard to describe) greater 3 dimensional quality that a
matt print has without anything in front of it.  When I look at these photos
I feel like I can pass through the frame and into their space ­ sounds silly
I know but I am trying to describe something very ethereal.

So if the considered opinion is that the matt boards won¹t go the distance
(even if sprayed) then I am very interested in other non-glass options.  I
am following the mounting discussion with interest but would ask whether
this is solely applicable to RC prints.  If I have to abandon the front matt
and use a non-matt-board layer behind the print in the frame then so be it.
I must admit, though, I am rather astonished to find that matting materials
are not as hardy as a sprayed print (and worse yet that they might be a
delicacy for insects).

As for transport of framed prints, my framer gives them to me with a sheet
of stiff card over the face of the frame (well away from the print) which
provides a suitable barrier to an acceptable level of clumsiness.  Once they
are on the wall, touch and you die applies ­ although you will find that a
print sprayed with 3 good coats of Lyson Print Guard (even an HPR one) can
withstand quite a lot of finger brushing, feather dusting or focused care
with a very fine artist brush.

The other point I would make is that I have come into this space without any
pre-conceived notions of what is proper.  The notion that things have to be
a certain way because they always have been done that way bears no weight
with me.  In many instances I suspect that things were done a particular way
because certain limitations meant they had to be done that way.  These
limitations may no longer apply.  For example, if photos were traditionally
placed behind UV protective glass because the paper and ink (if applicable)
were very susceptible to UV decay and today these papers and inks have
improved significantly (or can benefit from spraying) then the traditional
need for glazing disappears.

So for my purposes I ask the following questions:  will my printer/paper/ink
combination produce a print which is capable of lasting an acceptable period
of time in normal viewing conditions? Yes? ok so far so good.  How do I
stick it on the wall in a manner that doesn¹t detract (read: reduce detail,
luminosity, sense of depth etc) from the image  I see exiting my printer or
perhaps even highlight the image better (eg a frame) without these
additional materials dramatically reducing the answer to the first question.
I guess I now understand that archival matting board won¹t damage the print
(definition of archival in a matting sense) but may not last anywhere as
long as the print ­ correct?  (You guys got me very worried that the matting
board would actually damage the image if not sealed with glass.)  Now what
of simply using a frame and print without a matt ­ I would worry that the
framing material would damage the print where they come into direct contact.

Cheers

Steve


From: "Phil Rose" <pjrose@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:16:55 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte & PremierArt
Print Shield

<snip>


BTW, Steve, I hope you won't take offense at my saying that the
framing costs 
you mentioned seem rather high (although I'm sure your framers do a
nice 
job). However many (like myself) find it
to be a simple matter to produce print framing _with_ glazing using
excellent
quality matting and mounting (employing aluminium channel frames )
for just 
a _small_ fraction of what you're  paying for mounting with
_unglazed_ 
framing.  It requires a modest-size workspace (kitchen table?) and
acquiring some skill (pretty easy) using an inexpensive matt-cutter,
etc. Do I 
understand correctly that your framers are actually  stapling the
print mount to the print frame? Why, I wonder? That, and the use of
edge-
taping seem questionable, IMO, especially considering that the face
of the 
print is essentially unprotected (i.e., no glazing is being used).
Of course,
if a custom-cut wood frame is what you demand, then you must pay the
piper, 
I guess.

Phil





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]