Digital BW, The Print

At 07:57 PM 12/14/03 +0000, you wrote:
>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@frontiernet.net>
>Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:16:55 -0000
>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m
>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
>
>
>Steve,
>
>I just have to ask - have you ever seen a photograph in a gallery or 
>museum framed and matted but not glazed?  I can't believe anyone would pay 
>so much for a simple thing like a framed picture.  You need to get someone 
>to show you how to cut window mats with simple tools - there are some 
>sneaky tricks to it but it isn't THAT hard. Very nice ready-mades frames 
>are available everywher in the developed world - mostly made in the less 
>developed world :-)  The coated glass is outstanding stuff but costly. If 
>you could cut the price of your framing in half maybe that's a way to go.

>I think if you really like to enjoy prints you should put them in nice 
>archival boxes and leave them on the coffee table like a book.

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us