Digital BW, The Print

Interesting article thanks for sharing it.. Your right everyone will have their own opinion.. What I can tell you is that within museum conservators you will find varied opinions.. I went thru this with Gator board and similar materials some years ago.. I will try a few searches to see what I can come up with relative to aluminum. What I learned with gator board was that a proper barrier was necessary between the image and the board.. So in the tests that Queens University did it is certainly a valid test but tests typically raise more questions or what if's?? The first that comes to mind is the bonding tissue used.. Is it a valid archival barrier and bonding agent. Regarding the fact that the Premium Luster failed quicker or had more negative effects then a cotton material doesn't surprise me at all. 
This is a pretty good group and you have a pretty good topic here.. hopefully a few can offer some insights.. 

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ben@... 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:52 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Best way to mount prints


    
  Hi,




  I recently found this 'scientifical' document about the long-term effects of mounting digital ink jet prints to Aluminum and Dibond supports.


  I wonder if the traditional setup print+passepartout behind glass is better or not.


  I talked with several people about it, but everyone seems to have his/her opinion.


  Can I find somewhere good research results about this?


  This is the doc I talked about in the beginning: http://www.queensu.ca/art/artconservation/research/projectsMAC/TessaThomas.pdf


  Thank you,


  Ben A.
  Belgium

  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6773 - Release Date: 10/22/13

On 10/23/2013 05:52 PM, ben@... wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I recently found this 'scientifical' document about the long-term
> effects of mounting digital ink jet prints to Aluminum and Dibond supports.
>
> I wonder if the traditional setup print+passepartout behind glass is
> better or not.
>
> I talked with several people about it, but everyone seems to have
> his/her opinion.
>
> Can I find somewhere good research results about this?
>
> This is the doc I talked about in the beginning:
> http://www.queensu.ca/art/artconservation/research/projectsMAC/TessaThomas.pdf
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ben A.
> Belgium


Ben,

It is a very short summary, nothing more than the usual research 
"poster". I tried to find the real article but couldn't.  My main 
concern is the vacuum oven. That is a very rough method which heats the 
media but also dries it to unnatural levels. I have seen it used for 
roofing materials etc. I suspect that the RC polyethylene layers loose 
their flexibility fast and components of the Gudy mounting material 
create "solvent" bubbles in between the RC and the aluminium surfaces of 
both mounting board types. Both will not happen with a pure paper base 
print. If humidity would be varied instead the pure paper print may have 
more issues than the RC when mounted on aluminium. Not to mention the 
protection against abrasion.  I am not in one camp and so far have only 
used Photorag prints mounted on aluminium and DiBond.

Yesterday I did send a PR print to the lamination shop for mounting on 
aluminium, repeat job, a profile on the back of an aluminium mounted PR 
print was not glued properly and the print fell on the floor after 6 
years. No complaints about the print quality, a Z3100 product, or the 
mounting method.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots.

The reason that you will get different answers about mounting is because different people and organizations have different needs in terms of display and conservation. No mounting technique is perfect for all people under all conditions. For example, just hinge mounting a print so that it is not permanently mounted to anything is preferable for many museums for many types of prints. However, this leaves the print more susceptible to developing some curl especially if the print will be displayed in a location with significant changes in humidity. A fine art collector might appreciate the wave in the print but your average consumer will think it is a poor mounting job not a museum archival mounting job.

If you are going to mount it to a substrate you need to consider three things:

1. will the process (temp, pressure, adhesive) damage the print

2. will it be permanent

3. will the substrate you are mounting it to damage it over time

For example some dry mounting is common for photographs however, if you use too high a temp in the press it may damage an inkjet print. Archival t-hinging sometimes uses water activate adhesive but this is wrong to use on the original dye based inkjet prints. You can use a spray adhesive and manually apply it however it is difficult to get the adhesive fully activated and to completely remove the air from underneath the print so the print may bubble and start to peel after a few years. A roller press with pressure sensitive adhesive instead of heat activate adhesive can be better for an inkjet print that is temperature sensitive. If temperature is less of an issue then a dry mount press may be used with heat activate adhesive. In the case of a roller or a dry mount press, use of a film or tissue adhesive gives you a better chance of 100% application of the adhesive, 100% distribution of the adhesive, and 100% removal of air therefore creating much more permanent mount.

The nice thing about not mounting the image is that over time as the frame or display package items get contaminated by things like paint in the wall and airborne contaminants you can eventually exchange everything with fresh components. This is what a museum that wants things to last forever will do.

Once you have the image mounted there is the issue of protecting it. Glass and acrylic are both ideal in that they provide great protection and are completely inert so they do not harm the print over time (as long as they are not allowed to touch the print). They may also have a UV-filter that provides additional protection.

The drawback to glazing such as glass or acrylic is that they will tint the light, reduce the light, and possibly introduce reflections that all can reduce the vibrancy of the image a little. Cheap glass will cause a lot of green tint. Museum glass will have nearly no green tint and very little reflections but will still have a very slight warming effect due to the UV filter. Nothing is perfect.

If you leave the glazing off you are exposing the print to more UV radiation, other light radiation, airborne contaminants and greasy fingerprints, but until that stuff ruins the print, the print will look fabulous.

If you use a spray coating or laminate you get some protection back but you also introduce chemicals on the print. Over time the coating may interact with the print or the coating or laminate itself may yellow over time. In either case you are stuck with end result.

In the end you have to ask how long do you need it to last and can it be replaced. Some people just need a few days, other a few years, others a few lifetimes.

Cheers,

Mark

President

www.framedestination.com