Digital BW, The Print

I've now sprayed the Epson Premium papers - Luster, Gloss, Semi-matt, &
Semi-gloss - with PremierArt Print Shield.  

 

The bottom line is that Semi-gloss and Semi-matte are the winners, being so
close it's almost a draw in my view.  Which one is available in the needed
size will probably by the deciding factor.

 

The spray reduces the bronzing on all of the papers, with the Luster ending
up with the most.  On the others, I think most will never be aware of the
residual that those looking for it will find.

 

The Luster has more of a beaded surface that causes the reflections to
spread too much.  It's harder to eliminate irritating reflections.

 

The Glossy stays too glossy for me.  Also the spray doesn't go on perfectly
evenly, but only on the glossy was I able to see the unevenness.

 

The Semi-matte has a slightly finer-grained surface than the Semi-gloss.
Both are good compromises between a gloss and matte print.  

 

When the Semi-gloss test strip was laid on the near-black sky of one of my
dry-mounted silver prints, the surface texture and reflection spread on the
dark end of the test strip was almost identical to the air-dried
fiber-print.  I don't want to say they are a match, but it's very close.
The Semi-matte looked smoother than the fiber print.  

 

The dmax of the semi-matte was the lowest of the bunch at 2.12, but I had
just loaded the Photo K, and it looks like the head may not have been firing
on all jets.  I'll re-do this test.  A dmax of 2.4 for the Semi-gloss is
impressive.  However, in the past some of these super-high dmaxs have come
down to the 2.2 range over night.

 

As a practical matter, I can't tell much if any difference in the depth of
the blacks among these test strips.  They are all excellent.  Held up
against an EEM under glass, there is a marked difference in depth of black
between the EEM and these test strips.

 

If the Semi-gloss were available in the sizes I'm interested in, I would
probably favor it slightly over the Semi-matte, but if the Semi-matte is all
that is available in the sizes I want, then that'll do.

 

In light of the past sad history of RC print longevity, the Wilhelm tests of
these papers are significant.  I think papers with no such testing will be
at a distinct disadvantage.

 

Interesting possibilities here.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  



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

Hi Paul,

Do you think that the Premier Art Print Shield offers enough protection to a print to 
display it without glass?  If so, how many coats of the stuff do you think are 
necessary?  

I recently completed a custom book project where I had prints on PhotoRag sprayed 
with the Print Shield and found that it was actually difficult to tell an unsprayed print 
from a sprayed print, even with 3 coats.  The sprayed print seems like it won't scuff 
quite as easily as an unsprayed print and does have some protection from moisture, 
but still seems like a fairly vulnerable surface.  I think this would be true for Luster 
also, which is very vulnerable to scuffing.  I would really like to sell these prints with 
Print Shield spray and no glass but worry about their vulnerability to physical 
damage.  Unfortunately a tougher laminate protection gives too much of a plastic 
look for my taste.  What are your thoughts/experience on this.  Thanks,

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com

> I've now sprayed the Epson Premium papers - Luster, Gloss, Semi-matt, &
> Semi-gloss - with PremierArt Print Shield.  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>

I am puzzled by the degree of concern over surface protection.  Personally I
hate the thought of having to hide prints behind glass (let alone the cost
of doing so).  If Print Shield or Print Guard can protect the image from
water and, more importantly, light I am happy.  I would not place an oil on
canvas painting behind glass.  Yes one has to be careful of physical damage
but isn¹t the normal care that is applied to a piece of art enough, ie don¹t
touch and transport with care?  (And don¹t hang them in the kitchen next to
the stove.)  Am I missing something here?

Steve

From: "Tom Andrews" <tandrews@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 18:39:37 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte & PremierArt
Print Shield

Hi Paul,

Do you think that the Premier Art Print Shield offers enough protection to a
print to 
display it without glass?  If so, how many coats of the stuff do you think
are 
necessary?  

I recently completed a custom book project where I had prints on PhotoRag
sprayed 
with the Print Shield and found that it was actually difficult to tell an
unsprayed print 
from a sprayed print, even with 3 coats.  The sprayed print seems like it
won't scuff 
quite as easily as an unsprayed print and does have some protection from
moisture, 
but still seems like a fairly vulnerable surface.  I think this would be
true for Luster 
also, which is very vulnerable to scuffing.  I would really like to sell
these prints with 
Print Shield spray and no glass but worry about their vulnerability to
physical 
damage.  Unfortunately a tougher laminate protection gives too much of a
plastic 
look for my taste.  What are your thoughts/experience on this.  Thanks,

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com


> I've now sprayed the Epson Premium papers - Luster, Gloss, Semi-matt, &
> Semi-gloss - with PremierArt Print Shield.
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>






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

Tom,

>Do you think that the Premier Art Print Shield offers enough protection 
>to a print to display it without glass?  

It's all relative, of course.  I have been smudging with fingers and wiping
off, and taking a wet paper towel to the surface.  The sprayed prints do
fine with this type of abuse.

I think a hard mounting substrate would also help.  On the other hand,
acid-free foam core is readily available, and there are, apparently, dry
mounting tissues that can word at the low temperatures it requires.  So, I
will probably start with that.

>If so, how many coats of the stuff do you think are necessary? 

I was doing 5 passes for my tests.  In a real print where the adjacent
passes overlap, I'd guess 3 are going to do the trick.  Of course, the more
the better for protection, but my experience is that the dynamic range
starts to contract and unwanted yellow might appear.
 
>I recently completed a custom book project where I had prints on 
>PhotoRag sprayed with the Print Shield and found that it was 
>actually difficult to tell an unsprayed print 
>from a sprayed print, even with 3 coats. 

This is more so on matte than glossy/barrier papers. The glossy papers have
the bronzing and uneven reflectance from the pigments that is part of what
the spray is for -- it largely eliminates the issue.  With the semi-matte
and semi-gloss, the spray also changes the character of the paper surface
appearance.

> The sprayed print seems like it won't scuff 
>quite as easily as an unsprayed print and does have some protection 
>from moisture, but still seems like a fairly vulnerable surface.

I agree.  I recommend spraying for matte papers also if they are not going
to be under glass.  But, don't try to clean them with a wet paper towel!

> I would really like to sell these prints with 
>Print Shield spray and no glass but worry about their 
>vulnerability to physical damage.  

Yep, I agree.

At my level, I find buyers are just not asking about many questions at all.
EEM, cotton, ... it's all the same to them.  They are strictly buying the
image.  So, if the image has a higher dynamic range and visual impact, will
it be more appealing?  Or, whether they ask or not, does the traditional
matting and glazing convey a sense that this is a traditional, archival B&W?

>Unfortunately a tougher laminate protection gives too much of a plastic 
>look for my taste.  What are your thoughts/experience on this.  

I agree.  I've never seen a laminate that I liked.  The semi-gloss with a
spray is a very nice surface -- very close to the (dare I say) air-dried
fiber print.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks Paul,

I guess I will just have to mount, spray, and sell a bunch of prints and see if I get 
any returns.  These surfaces are so delicate, even, I suspect, with the Print Shield 
spray.  It doesn't take much of an accidental bump from the edge of another print, 
piece of mat board, slight touch of a fingernail, etc, to leave an unacceptable mar.  
So even figuring out how to wrap and transport a finished print for sale is a 
challenge.  Thanks for the input. 

Tom  

> Tom,
> 
> >Do you think that the Premier Art Print Shield offers enough protection 
> >to a print to display it without glass?  
> 
> It's all relative, of course.  I have been smudging with fingers and wiping
> off, and taking a wet paper towel to the surface.  The sprayed prints do
> fine with this type of abuse. <<
>  
> > The sprayed print seems like it won't scuff 
> >quite as easily as an unsprayed print and does have some protection 
> >from moisture, but still seems like a fairly vulnerable surface.
> 
> I agree.  I recommend spraying for matte papers also if they are not going
> to be under glass.  But, don't try to clean them with a wet paper towel! <<
> 
> > I would really like to sell these prints with 
> >Print Shield spray and no glass but worry about their 
> >vulnerability to physical damage.  
> 
> Yep, I agree.
> 
> At my level, I find buyers are just not asking about many questions at all.
> EEM, cotton, ... it's all the same to them.  They are strictly buying the
> image.  So, if the image has a higher dynamic range and visual impact, will
> it be more appealing?  Or, whether they ask or not, does the traditional
> matting and glazing convey a sense that this is a traditional, archival B&W?<<
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

<snip>
Tom,
>Do you think that the Premier Art Print Shield offers
enough protection 
>to a print to display it without glass?  

Am I missing something?  If we mount our prints
without glass or acrylic to protect the print and
matte, what happens to the matte?  Won't exposure to
the enviroment soon wreak havoc on the Matte? 
Joe D

Joe

I thought the whole point of purchasing Archival quality matting products
was because this won¹t happen.  The glass is good for preventing dust and
spills but does not provide an airtight environment...

Steve

From: Joe Davajon <davajon@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:45:34 -0800 (PST)
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte &
PremierArt Print Shield

<snip>
Tom,
>Do you think that the Premier Art Print Shield offers
enough protection 
>to a print to display it without glass?

Am I missing something?  If we mount our prints
without glass or acrylic to protect the print and
matte, what happens to the matte?  Won't exposure to
the enviroment soon wreak havoc on the Matte?
Joe D




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

Hi Joe,

No mat.  I am talking about putting the mounted print directly in the frame without 
glass or mat; or displaying the print mounted to a sturdy board such as gatorfoam or 
dibond and having no frame at all.  The image would go all the way to the edge of 
the board it is mounted on.  I know this will work well with a laminated print, but I 
want to do it with a light spray coat such as Premier Art Print Shield - an iffy 
proposition. 

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com

> 
> Am I missing something?  If we mount our prints
> without glass or acrylic to protect the print and
> matte, what happens to the matte?  Won't exposure to
> the enviroment soon wreak havoc on the Matte? 
> Joe D

If you are matting prints with museum board, you have to seal the frame,
with glass (preferably acrylic) and an acid-free backing board.  Otherwise
the matt board is a delicacy for insects.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 4:57 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte
&PremierArt Print Shield


Joe

I thought the whole point of purchasing Archival quality matting products
was because this won\ufffdt happen.  The glass is good for preventing dust and
spills but does not provide an airtight environment...

Steve


From: Joe Davajon <davajon@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:45:34 -0800 (PST)
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte &
PremierArt Print Shield

<snip>
Tom,
>Do you think that the Premier Art Print Shield offers
enough protection
>to a print to display it without glass?

Am I missing something?  If we mount our prints
without glass or acrylic to protect the print and
matte, what happens to the matte?  Won't exposure to
the enviroment soon wreak havoc on the Matte?
Joe D




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



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Ken

Hmmmm.... What sort of insects are we talking about here?  I just took a
look at the prints I had framed recently.  As I understand from my
discussions with them, they have placed a sheet of museum board (the same
used to create the matt on the front) behind the print (or rather hinged the
print to this), a sheet of backing board behind that, stapled it all into
the frame and then taped the seams to make it look all nice and tidy.
However, there are slight gaps in the tape in the corners, in some cases
2-3mm wide ­ certainly wide enough for some sort of insects. If they can
have a field day on the front they can do the same from the back.  Maybe
this is just sloppy work by my framer but they are supposedly very
reputable.  I find it hard to believe that any insect interested in feasting
on archival cotton won¹t also enjoy sprayed HPR or Epson Semi-gloss.  To
date I have collected the mats from my framer and sprayed these too with
Lyson Print Guard before returning them to the framer so that he can
complete the job.  Is this enough to ward off these pesty insects you speak
of?

Cheers

Steve

From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:36:38 -0600
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte
&PremierArt Print Shield

If you are matting prints with museum board, you have to seal the frame,
with glass (preferably acrylic) and an acid-free backing board.  Otherwise
the matt board is a delicacy for insects.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com





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

>>Hmmmm.... What sort of insects are we talking about here?  I just took a
look at the prints I had framed recently.  As I understand from my
discussions with them, they have placed a sheet of museum board (the same
used to create the matt on the front) behind the print (or rather hinged the
print to this), a sheet of backing board behind that, stapled it all into
the frame and then taped the seams to make it look all nice and tidy.
However, there are slight gaps in the tape in the corners, in some cases
2-3mm wide \ufffd certainly wide enough for some sort of insects. If they can
have a field day on the front they can do the same from the back.  Maybe
this is just sloppy work by my framer but they are supposedly very
reputable.

	Here is what I do (or my framer does now that I've found a good one): 100%
rag museum board backing and over-matt (e.g., Westminster museum board,
there are others), placed in Nielsen gallery frame with acrylic, acid-free
foam board backing with spring clips to apply pressure -- a really tiny bug
might get in there, I doubt it (but they don't eat much).

>>I find it hard to believe that any insect interested in feasting
on archival cotton won\ufffdt also enjoy sprayed HPR or Epson Semi-gloss.  To
date I have collected the mats from my framer and sprayed these too with
Lyson Print Guard before returning them to the framer so that he can
complete the job.  Is this enough to ward off these pesty insects you speak
of?

	Well, I'll bet at least they'll have a high old time gorging themselves.

Seriously speaking...the museum board is somewhat fragile.  I have never had
any damage to a print framed as above.  I leave hinged matted prints
(unframed) in portfolio boxes (Light Impressions).  Once I did leave some
matted prints leaning against a wall, on carpet.  The part touching the
carpet was destroyed in short order  (makes you think about walking
barefoot -- I hope it was just chemicals in the carpet and not varmints.  I
also carelessly left a few matted prints in a brown architect's "portfolio",
and they didn't last a year.  The part about the bugs (probably applicable
to other hazards) was related to me by John Sexton, Ansel's last assistant
and a really fine photographer.  Hope this helps.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

Thanks Ken.  I will continue to read the posts on this issue and alternative
display options.  I really hate to put these things behind glass, mainly for
aesthetic reasons but also because of cost ­ my currently framed images
(around 37cm x 26.5cm with a 2 inch matt) cost me just under £70 each to
frame ( I am not using the pre-made spring clip variety but rather
made-to-measure) and I am told that good glass will almost double the cost
of that.  If I get a 4000 and move to 16x20 then the cost will rise
significantly.

Cheers

Steve

From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 18:57:08 -0600
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss,
Semi-matte&PremierArt Print Shield

>>Hmmmm.... What sort of insects are we talking about here?  I just took a
look at the prints I had framed recently.  As I understand from my
discussions with them, they have placed a sheet of museum board (the same
used to create the matt on the front) behind the print (or rather hinged the
print to this), a sheet of backing board behind that, stapled it all into
the frame and then taped the seams to make it look all nice and tidy.
However, there are slight gaps in the tape in the corners, in some cases
2-3mm wide ­ certainly wide enough for some sort of insects. If they can
have a field day on the front they can do the same from the back.  Maybe
this is just sloppy work by my framer but they are supposedly very
reputable.

      Here is what I do (or my framer does now that I've found a good one):
100%
rag museum board backing and over-matt (e.g., Westminster museum board,
there are others), placed in Nielsen gallery frame with acrylic, acid-free
foam board backing with spring clips to apply pressure -- a really tiny bug
might get in there, I doubt it (but they don't eat much).

>>I find it hard to believe that any insect interested in feasting
on archival cotton won¹t also enjoy sprayed HPR or Epson Semi-gloss.  To
date I have collected the mats from my framer and sprayed these too with
Lyson Print Guard before returning them to the framer so that he can
complete the job.  Is this enough to ward off these pesty insects you speak
of?

      Well, I'll bet at least they'll have a high old time gorging
themselves.

Seriously speaking...the museum board is somewhat fragile.  I have never had
any damage to a print framed as above.  I leave hinged matted prints
(unframed) in portfolio boxes (Light Impressions).  Once I did leave some
matted prints leaning against a wall, on carpet.  The part touching the
carpet was destroyed in short order  (makes you think about walking
barefoot -- I hope it was just chemicals in the carpet and not varmints.  I
also carelessly left a few matted prints in a brown architect's "portfolio",
and they didn't last a year.  The part about the bugs (probably applicable
to other hazards) was related to me by John Sexton, Ansel's last assistant
and a really fine photographer.  Hope this helps.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 
 ADVERTISEMENT
 <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c8ej3h8/M=267637.4116719.5338353.1261774/D=egrou
pweb/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1071449827/A=1853618/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/De
fault?mqso=60178338&partid=4116719>

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

<snip>
I thought the whole point of purchasing Archival
quality matting products
was because this won1t happen.  The glass is good for
preventing dust and
spills but does not provide an airtight environment...

Steve


Steve, 
Do you think prints can be displayed without the mats
deteriorating in a short time? I checked with a friend
of mine who has been framing for over thirty years and
has clients like Gallo Wine.  He says that in a museum
which very carefully controls humidity and
temperature, a mounted print without glazing of any
kind could last 30-50 years.  But, in an average home
because the environment is not carefully controlled,
you will experience damage in as little as two years
because of the humity and temperature variations, and
the dust we've all seen in the air at a slide show. 
For greatest logevity, he says, you should glaze and
before putting the whole thing together the acrylic or
glass should be siliconed and also the back of the
frame should have a acid free barrier paper which is
also siliconed.  That, he says, will not make the
frame absolutely airtight but it will prevent dust and
other contaminants from attacking any part of your art
work.  This sounds very reasonable to me.  What do you
think?  This framer does beautiful framing!  
Thanks for your imput.
Joe D

<snip> Tom Andrews wrote:

No mat.  I am talking about putting the mounted print
directly in the frame without 
glass or mat; or displaying the print mounted to a
sturdy board such as gatorfoam or 
dibond and having no frame at all.  The image would go
all the way to the edge of 
the board it is mounted on.  I know this will work
well with a laminated print, but I 
want to do it with a light spray coat such as Premier
Art Print Shield - an iffy 
proposition. 

Tom Andrews

I see.  That looks like it would be one way to show
prints without glazing and not have them suffer
damage.  Nice idea.  Thanks for your imput Tom.  I'll
give that more than a little thought.
Joe D
http://www.wildlandart.com

Tom Andrews writes:

"I am talking about ... displaying the print mounted to a sturdy board such 
as gatorfoam
or dibond and having no frame at all.  The image would go all the way to the 
edge of
the board it is mounted on.  I know this will work well with a laminated 
print, but I
want to do it with a light spray coat such as Premier Art Print Shield - an 
iffy
proposition."

Exactly my goal as well.   I'm thinking Sintra instead of Gatorboard.   How 
best to mount the print to the substrate?   I've actually thought about getting 
away from mounting flat by adhesives, and hinge the print to the substrate 
instead.   That would allow the paper to have some life -- I prefer the natural 
curl of the paper to a dead-flat mounted image, although I am probably in the 
minority on this.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> As a practical matter, I can't tell much if any difference in the
> depth of the blacks among these test strips.  They are all 
> excellent.  Held up against an EEM under glass, there is a marked
> difference in depth of black between the EEM and these test strips.

Paul,

Have you tried the PremierArt Print Shield on Ultrasmooth (PremierArt 
Hot Press) yet?  I'm wondering how the blacks compare between this 
paper and semi-matte.  

Dan

I am sorry but I don¹t see how this is particularly different from framing
with a two inch archival matt in the front ­ unless as Ken suggests there is
something particularly alluring about archival matt paper to insects in
which case I would suggest that there is something very wrong with its
product development....Perhaps there is an entymologist out there who can
help.  There is no doubt that glass increases protection.  However I don¹t
think that is the question here but rather is using a matt and frame
combination any worse than pinning the sprayed print to the wall ­ ie does
using a matt worsen the longevity of a sprayed print or simply not keep up
with the print.  I am very happen to achieve anything close to Wilhelm
ratings for PremierArt sprayed prints.  Does anyone know the rating of
archival matt board (on its own) - I could not find info on Nielsen &
Bainbridge¹s site.  What if the matt is also sprayed with PrintShield? (I
currently spray the front matt but not the sheet that sits between the back
of the print and the backing board.)

<snip> Tom Andrews wrote:

No mat.  I am talking about putting the mounted print
directly in the frame without
glass or mat

From: Joe Davajon <davajon@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:48:32 -0800 (PST)
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte &
PremierArt Print Shield

<snip> Tom Andrews wrote:

No mat.  I am talking about putting the mounted print
directly in the frame without
glass or mat; or displaying the print mounted to a
sturdy board such as gatorfoam or
dibond and having no frame at all.  The image would go
all the way to the edge of
the board it is mounted on.  I know this will work
well with a laminated print, but I
want to do it with a light spray coat such as Premier
Art Print Shield - an iffy
proposition. 

Tom Andrews

I see.  That looks like it would be one way to show
prints without glazing and not have them suffer
damage.  Nice idea.  Thanks for your imput Tom.  I'll
give that more than a little thought.
Joe D
http://www.wildlandart.com







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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <
stevekale@b...> wrote:
Does anyone know the rating of
> archival matt board (on its own) - I could not find info on Nielsen
&
> Bainbridge1s site. 
 
AFAIK, the  "archivalness" of matt board is not lifetime-rated by
monitoring some continuously changing variable  (such as done in
tests for 
image fading or color-shifting). Matt board quality is a matter of
the material's 
tendency to damage (or rather to 
_not _ damage) the print beneath it, which is implied by ther board's 
composition and pH.  Hence, the "archival" rating tends to be sort of
a "go, no 
go" situation, determined by the board's having (initially) a neutral
pH and a 
fiber type that has stability against decomposition and pH change
(non-lignin, 
rag composition being good). I supppose that  the so-called
"buffered" matt
boards have some limited capacity to neutralize acid components from 
decomposition or air-borne contamination, and so the 
matt's capacity to do that could diminish over some period of
time--depending on the environment, etc. 
Beyond that, I would expect that the practical lifetime of good,
museum-quality matte will be limited by damage done to it--like
abrasions, 
gouges, yellowing, fingerprints, etc. 
All of these will tend to be accelerated when there's no glazing
used. The use of a protective spray on the matte is an interesting
idea, but I 
have doubts that it can be effective when applied to such a porous 
(absorptive) material.
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


>What if the matt is also sprayed with PrintShield? (I
> currently spray the front matt but not the sheet that sits between
the back
> of the print and the backing board.)
>

At 05:36 PM 12/13/03 -0600, you wrote:
>If you are matting prints with museum board, you have to seal the frame,
>with glass (preferably acrylic) and an acid-free backing board.  Otherwise
>the matt board is a delicacy for insects.
>
>Regards,
>
>   --Ken Carney
>     www.kencarney.comI




Guys,
>Haven't had a problem with mat-eating insects ever. Acrylic is good if the 
>pictures must be shipped and moved a lot but for household decoration and 
>display glass is much better.  For one thing it attracts less dust and is 
>cleanable. I have never seen pictures on paper for display of any type 
>framed and NOT glazed. Comparing works on paper to paintings - well, there 
>just is no logical comparison. It is customary to keep salon prints in 
>boxed portfolios for more intimate appreciation. My preference is to do that.

AZ


Build a Lookaround!

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

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]

On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 02:57  PM, Steve Kale wrote:

snip...
   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.

I've thought about using a float frame (see example in link below) to 
hold a print that has been dry (or cold) mounted to a thick gatorfoam 
board.  There should be no contact between frame and print with this 
design.  The frame is intended to hold paintings on canvas stretcher 
frames, but should work for this as well.

Metal Canvas Floater Frame
http://www.americanframe.com/catalog/CF.html?l=

Does the gatorfoam sit on the 1/8 ledge or the lower wider one?

> From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:18:20 -0500
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte &
> PremierArt Print Shield
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 02:57  PM, Steve Kale wrote:
> 
> snip...
>  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.
> 
> I've thought about using a float frame (see example in link below) to
> hold a print that has been dry (or cold) mounted to a thick gatorfoam
> board.  There should be no contact between frame and print with this
> design.  The frame is intended to hold paintings on canvas stretcher
> frames, but should work for this as well.
> 
> Metal Canvas Floater Frame
> http://www.americanframe.com/catalog/CF.html?l=
> 
> 
>

I think it is designed to sit on the lower part of the frame.

On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 03:50  PM, Steve Kale wrote:

> Does the gatorfoam sit on the 1/8 ledge or the lower wider one?
>
>> From: Carl Schofield <scho@mac.com>
>> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:18:20 -0500
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte &
>> PremierArt Print Shield
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 02:57  PM, Steve Kale wrote:
>>
>> snip...
>>  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.
>>
>> I've thought about using a float frame (see example in link below) to
>> hold a print that has been dry (or cold) mounted to a thick gatorfoam
>> board.  There should be no contact between frame and print with this
>> design.  The frame is intended to hold paintings on canvas stretcher
>> frames, but should work for this as well.
>>
>> Metal Canvas Floater Frame
>> http://www.americanframe.com/catalog/CF.html?l=

Alan,
>
>I just have to ask - have you ever seen a photograph in a gallery or
>museum framed and matted but not glazed?

This is irrelevant. It is a look that I like (and do others who have seen
them) and hope to be able to achieve ­ I am not bound by precedent. The
question is whether it can be done without (severely) reducing the life
expectancy of the print or incurring decay of the frame materials.  I am
surprised to learn that matting boards are not as archival as I would expect
(and worse yet potentially a delicacy for insects).  However, to answer your
question, I have certainly seen many exhibitions where the images were not
behind glass (I would say this is most common) and also framed without glass
­ I don¹t recall whether they were matted or not.


>I can't believe anyone would pay
>so much for a simple thing like a framed picture.

Are you suggesting the value of a print lies in the glass?

>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 :-)

I agree that learning to cut mats should be on my (very long) to do list.
Well ahead of that though is finding a supply of prefab frames that meet my
tastes ­ those that I have seen to date have, in my opinion, looked cheap
but I have yet to search high and low.

>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.

It would be nice.  I am glad that I don¹t like prints behind glass ­
otherwise it would already be twice as expensive as it is.

>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.

Thanks but I like them on the wall also.



:-)

(BTW, I caution you not to apply the exchange rate to the numbers I have
detailed.  Were you to move to the UK you would quickly learn that to do so
to all prices only leads to constant despair....)



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

Do the techniques being discussed for mounting RC prints on materials such
as gatorfoam apply also to non RC prints such as those on HPR?

> From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:51:16 -0500
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte &
> PremierArt Print Shield
> 
> I think it is designed to sit on the lower part of the frame.
>

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

Very large prints are often exhibited mounted to aluminum sheet, without
other framing- the print is seen to "float" off the wall.

Regards,


Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
450 Harrison Ave. Suite 221
Boston, MA 02118
(617) 868-7642


on 12/14/03 7:06 PM, Steve Kale wrote:

> Alan,
>> 
>> I just have to ask - have you ever seen a photograph in a gallery or
>> museum framed and matted but not glazed?
> 
> This is irrelevant. It is a look that I like (and do others who have seen
> them) and hope to be able to achieve ­ I am not bound by precedent. The
> question is whether it can be done without (severely) reducing the life
> expectancy of the print or incurring decay of the frame materials.  I am
> surprised to learn that matting boards are not as archival as I would expect
> (and worse yet potentially a delicacy for insects).  However, to answer your
> question, I have certainly seen many exhibitions where the images were not
> behind glass (I would say this is most common) and also framed without glass
> ­ I don¹t recall whether they were matted or not.

>Have you tried the PremierArt Print Shield on Ultrasmooth (PremierArt 
>Hot Press) yet?  ...

I've recommended spraying matte papers for protection when they are not
going to be behind glazing.  However, these types of spray do not raise the
dmax the way the thicker polyurethane coatings we were experimenting with
some months ago.  At about 3 coats the look is just as if no spray is on the
print.  Then the dynamic range tends to start to decrease from both ends --
whites get duller and the blacks less dense.  At least that has been my
experience with a number of other aerosol sprays, including Lyson Print
Guard, and I don't think PremierArt is much different.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I guess it would be possible, but I would prefer to hinge mount papers  
like HPR on good mat board, over mat, and frame traditionally.

On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 07:17  PM, Steve Kale wrote:

> Do the techniques being discussed for mounting RC prints on materials  
> such
> as gatorfoam apply also to non RC prints such as those on HPR?
>
>> From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
>> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:51:16 -0500
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte &
>> PremierArt Print Shield
>>
>> I think it is designed to sit on the lower part of the frame.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &  
> Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to  
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from  
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and  
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group  
> Owner and Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in the  
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰  
> AND „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE  
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE  
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT  
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES),  
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,  
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF  
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD  
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER  
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I am glad that you suggest I don¹t need to worry about the matt.  This
conversation has gone a full circle.  It began with a discussion of the
power of print sprays to potentially alleviate two things: (1) bronzing and
(2) the need for glazing (which has lengthened into an exploration of the
viability of various dry mounting techniques).  I indicated a desire not to
use glazing but to retain (for small prints less than A3+ or even larger)
the frame and matt combination (I agree with your taste in frame and matt
but note that it is entirely image, display location and taste specific).
This was met with concern that exposing the matt to the elements would lead
to its rapid decay or worse the attraction of insects ie that a sprayed
print with a matt is a worse technical (not aesthetic) situation than a
sprayed print alone...in each case without glass.  If the matt is a zero
element in the equation then great.  The problem collapses to a discussion
of whether a print spray will allow prints to be displayed without glass.
(Others have recently indicated a desire to explore sprayed print and frame
but without matt and again without glass.)  Perhaps you will raise these
same points with those discussing dry mounting without glass.  In effect all
you are saying is that spraying does not alleviate the need for glazing but
you are also, I fear, mixing taste into the equation.  For very large
prints, I would prefer a method of exhibition that does not include a frame
or matt (eg mounting on an aluminium sheet and set off the wall by say 2-3
inches).  Large photographs can, I believe, have a presence that does not
require the extra element of attention gathering that a frame can provide.
For example, I love the large images by Andreas Gursky that are displayed at
the Tate Modern ­ without glazing.  As for pinning, I am sure you have seen
many examples of photos _pinned_ to a backing within a deep frame, allowing
the print itself to settle freely and even turn at the edges.  Whether or
not there is a sheet of glazing in front simply turns on issue two above
(and taste!).  

The bottom line is that I believe there are many people who would prefer to
not have to place their work behind glass, ie the taste/demand side is
there.  The question is whether there exists a satisfactory technical/supply
side solution to meet this demand.

Try something different ­ you might like it

:-)

From: Alan Zinn <AZinn@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:37:38 -0800
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte &
PremierArt Print Shield

At 12:06 AM 12/15/03 +0000, you wrote:


>Alan,
> >
> >I just have to ask - have you ever seen a photograph in a gallery or
> >museum framed and matted but not glazed?
>
>This is irrelevant. It is a look that I like (and do others who have seen
>them) and hope to be able to achieve ­ I am not bound by precedent. The
>question is whether it can be done without (severely) reducing the life
>expectancy of the print or incurring decay of the frame materials.  I am
>surprised to learn that matting boards are not as archival as I would expect
>(and worse yet potentially a delicacy for insects).  However, to answer your
>question, I have certainly seen many exhibitions where the images were not
>behind glass (I would say this is most common) and also framed without glass
>­ I don¹t recall whether they were matted or not.


Steve,

At the risk of quibbling - leaving the print open to the elements is the
surest way to loose it. Casual, student galleries my have pictures pinned
to the wall, but really... .  In the first place conservancy (which is the
main issue with so-called archive-ability) is a process that includes
restore-ability.  Imagine ordinary window panes - they need cleaning even
if they are never touched. The same residue that gets on glass also gets on
paper. Egads!  Worrying about the matt makes no sense either - it is easily
replaced every twenty or thirty years.  Make display copies for your
un-glazed work and keep conserved copies.

Unless the frame is intended to complement a decorating theme - a perfectly
fine choice and subject to all sorts of tastes,  it is desirable to mount
salon prints with a generous, plain white overmat and a simple, thin
cross-section frame so as not to detract from the picture.

AZ

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




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12ccmce2k/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egrou
pweb/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1071585248/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cg
i-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

The BO print exchange is full with 10 sign-ups and 2 alternates.
Those who requested to be included either on this list or by direct
email from me should have gotten an email directly from me as to how
we will work this exchange.  If you requested to be included and did
not get an email from me please email me or say so here and I'll do my
best to get in touch.

Thanks to all who have committed to participate.

-- 
Best regards,
 Richard                            mailto:richard@...

Steve,

I agree with you; I much prefer to mount my A3+ prints flush on board with
no fancy margins, frames, glass, etc. Let the image speak for itself; if it
is good enough, it doesn't need enhancing with fancy colored boards or
frames. Most of my photographic friends disagree, however! Makes for
entertaining discussions. Picasso et al., didn't frame their pictures did
they? It was the retailers or buyers that did that to 'enhance' their value
by selling frames as well!!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>



The bottom line is that I believe there are many people who would prefer to
not have to place their work behind glass, ie the taste/demand side is
there.  The question is whether there exists a satisfactory technical/supply
side solution to meet this demand.

Try something different \ufffd you might like it

At 12:06 AM 12/15/03 +0000, you wrote:


>Alan,
> >
> >I just have to ask - have you ever seen a photograph in a gallery or
> >museum framed and matted but not glazed?
>
>This is irrelevant. It is a look that I like (and do others who have seen
>them) and hope to be able to achieve ­ I am not bound by precedent. The
>question is whether it can be done without (severely) reducing the life
>expectancy of the print or incurring decay of the frame materials.  I am
>surprised to learn that matting boards are not as archival as I would expect
>(and worse yet potentially a delicacy for insects).  However, to answer your
>question, I have certainly seen many exhibitions where the images were not
>behind glass (I would say this is most common) and also framed without glass
>­ I don¹t recall whether they were matted or not.


Steve,

At the risk of quibbling - leaving the print open to the elements is the 
surest way to loose it. Casual, student galleries my have pictures pinned 
to the wall, but really... .  In the first place conservancy (which is the 
main issue with so-called archive-ability) is a process that includes 
restore-ability.  Imagine ordinary window panes - they need cleaning even 
if they are never touched. The same residue that gets on glass also gets on 
paper. Egads!  Worrying about the matt makes no sense either - it is easily 
replaced every twenty or thirty years.  Make display copies for your 
un-glazed work and keep conserved copies.

Unless the frame is intended to complement a decorating theme - a perfectly 
fine choice and subject to all sorts of tastes,  it is desirable to mount 
salon prints with a generous, plain white overmat and a simple, thin 
cross-section frame so as not to detract from the picture.

AZ

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

We are all different.  I have found images at that size to benefit from a
frame (I have both).   But images at a size of say 4xA3+ would have no need
for framing.  Each to their personal preference.

Without (hopefully) dragging this out much longer, I just checked with my
framer and the matts they are using are Arqadia 401 solid core (1500 micron)
which have been rated at Conservation Level 2.  More specifically, the
accelerated aging test produced an unaged ph of 9.4, 7.5 at 100 years and
7.5 at 200 years.  They had not heard of these being eaten by insects.
Nocks and bangs aside (do people really bang into their hung prints that
much or pack them without care when moving?) it would seem accumulation of
airborne dirt is the only issue.  The prints can easily be dusted if they
have been sprayed.  As to more intense (and less periodic) cleaning I do not
know.  How often do you clean your Picassos?

I also went through the Nielsen range of pre-made frames and did not find
anything close to my taste.  If anyone has other suggestions for pre-made
(wood) frames available in the UK I would be glad to hear them.
Specifically, I tend to like a very square edged and flat surfaced frames of
at least 4cm in width, preferably in a wenge colour or black but with
visible grain.  I have been using Arqadia 104420008.

;-)

From: "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:26:12 -0000
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Premier Semi-gloss, Semi-matte
&PremierArt Print Shield

Steve,

I agree with you; I much prefer to mount my A3+ prints flush on board with
no fancy margins, frames, glass, etc. Let the image speak for itself; if it
is good enough, it doesn't need enhancing with fancy colored boards or
frames. Most of my photographic friends disagree, however! Makes for
entertaining discussions. Picasso et al., didn't frame their pictures did
they? It was the retailers or buyers that did that to 'enhance' their value
by selling frames as well!!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@btinternet.com>



The bottom line is that I believe there are many people who would prefer to
not have to place their work behind glass, ie the taste/demand side is
there.  The question is whether there exists a satisfactory technical/supply
side solution to meet this demand.

Try something different ­ you might like it


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cvi94nc/M=266807.4061684.5480892.3957873/D=egrou
pweb/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1071591990/A=1900378/R=1/*http://click.atdmt.com/AV
E/go/yhxxxbre02200362ave/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/&time=1071505590437030>

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

At 6:33 pm +0000 12/15/03, Steve Kale wrote:

>I just checked with my framer and the matts they are using are 
>Arqadia 401 solid core ... They had not heard of these being eaten 
>by insects.


I don't think I would spend a lot of time worrying that my prints and 
their mats were going to be eaten by bugs, but I do have a cautionary 
tale:

In the Southwestern United States we have a household pest that is 
commonly called a 'weevil.' I don't know what its true name is, and 
it certainly doesn't appear to be of any conceivable relation to the 
family of Curculionoidea beetles to which the name 'weevil' properly 
refers.

Regardless, they love to infest flour and the most common sources of 
them appear to be dog, cat or bird food which has been brought into 
the house and left for a few days without freezing. The adults are 
brown, flying, moth-like creatures about a quarter of an inch long 
(about 6 or 7 mm), while the larval stage is a small light-colored 
worm several millimeters in length. I suspect that they, or their 
close relatives, occur world-wide.

Once they have started to multiply they will quickly infest anything 
edible that isn't secured in air-tight containers, sometimes 
burrowing through plastic bags to get to anything from rice to pasta 
to flour to, occasionally, cardboard. The only way to get rid of them 
(other than bait traps and fumigation) is to destroy everything you 
can find that is (or might be) infested, seal everything else in your 
pantry and kill any of the adults you see.

Now to the cautionary tale, after that long-winded introduction:

Many years ago I had a collection of European (primarily German) 
coasters from various bars which I kept in a drawer in my apartment's 
kitchen. I had an infestation of 'weevils' and, while cleaning up the 
aftermath, came across the coasters. They had been tunneled through 
by larval 'weevils' so thoroughly that they looked like those 17th 
and 18th century drawings of the depredations of 'book worms' and 
'ship worms.' Opening up a stack of the coasters was like looking at 
some psychotic ant farm.

So, why do I mention bar coasters in a discussion about archival mats 
and bugs? Simply this: I have no idea what the coasters were made 
from, but they felt remarkably like mat board.

Mat chewing insects isn't something that I am going to spend a lot of 
time worrying about but, based on my experience, it isn't something I 
would discount as an urban legend.

I think that protecting prints from sunlight and florescents is a 
much greater archival concern. Framing with glass can be a big help, 
but is certainly not a panacea; even with so-called UV filtering 
glass.

There are also a lot of air-borne contaminates (including the 'air' 
--> oxygen is a _major_ reducing agent...) that are far more 
destructive than simple dust contamination. Nonetheless, aside from 
UV (and, possibly, heat) degradation, I think that the greatest 
archival concern should be the pH and buffering of the paper and its 
backing (including the mat): It's low pH that accelerates the effects 
of gaseous degradation more than any other factor (IMHO).

I would be _greatly_ interested to know if anyone has any controlled, 
scientific and statistically analyzed, data on whether paper pH, 
regardless of other paper composition factors, has an effect on UV 
damage-susceptibility of silver halide, conventionally-printed color 
dye, or inkjet-printed photographs.


-=-Dennis