5 levels of framing question

[Nigel Nobody]

ormand
what are the disadvantages of MDF, as backing. or otherwise

Steve,
There are many disadvantages and Robo has pointed out some of them. Acidic as all hell, absorbs moisture like a sponge, can go mouldy, is quite heavy, is not easy to cut.
There are products that are lighter, easier to cut, have very little lignin/acid, some have no lignin/acid content, are not as absorbent and much less likely to grow mould and are still very inexpensive, yet there is an entire topic in a another part of the forum devoted to methods of cutting MDF.
IMO the best answer is "don't cut it, cut something that doesn't have the same disdavantages, but I know that will fall on deaf or stubborn ears.

There will also be the usual cries of "I've been using it for years and nothing bad has happened" and we all know that not all negative changes can be seen with the naked eye.

I know some people will propose that MDF is so much cheaper than foamboard, artcare foamboard or corflute, and that may have some validity in commercial framing, but certainly not in custom/bespoke framing. The very small extra cost can be passed on to the customer along with the extra benefits.

It beats me that some framers have moved with the times and bought machinery such as vee nailers, which cost so much more than a mitre box and a hand saw, to do the job faster and to a much higher standard, yet persist with using a product that has so many disadvantages. I just do not get it!

[Max Roberts]

You're right Ormond. We moved away from MDF years ago. I could buy it for peanuts by the pallet and my framer had no problems with it according to him, so I thought, but I noticed that the constant handling and debris from the board was absolutely destroying his hands. I made the decision then that we'd finish with MDF and the modern backing products are so good nowadays that we've never looked back. I also am very aware of the conservation angle and these new products are so much better...and my framer's hands are fine now. Goodness knows what rubbish they put in that product.

[Nigel Nobody]

Max,
Formaldehyde is one of the components and it can be quite harmful. A guy I know, who was in the kitchen cupboard industry had to leave the industry, because the effects of the formaldehyde almost killed him. Obviously he was much more intolerant to it than most people, so he suffered more than most people.

Perhaps your guy had a greater intolerance to it too?

[Max Roberts]

Yes. He probably was more intolerant to formaldehyde. It's evil stuff. My father like me, was a photographer and he also got what they termed in the old days "industrial dermatitis" which is another term for sticking your hands in the chemicals too often without using adequate protection. Unfortunately it's very difficult to frame when wearing gloves!

[John]

I would like to remind Nigel Nobody that this is a forum for picture framers. Anyone who frames or has some interest in picture framing is welcome. Please be aware that there is a very good reason why it is not called the Conservation Framers Forum or suchlike.

The strangely emotive issue of MDF has arisen here many times, and the reasons why some folk use it while others do not has been discussed at length. It is a bit offensive to suggest that people are not abandoning this material because they in some way deficient. Perhaps it is not they who have “deaf or stubborn ears”.

The forum should be welcoming to everybody whether they frame with MDF or use tapestry tape, or frame in a lead lined vacuum chamber inside a clean room. Being offensive or judgemental about folk that you think are not framing at your level is really not acceptable.

[mikeysaling]

i was gonna reply to one of these posts but decided to keep the peace - well summed up

[Nigel Nobody]

John,
My post was never intended to be "unwelcoming" to anyone! I've read my posts several times and I am sure I have not said or implied that.

Conservation has absolutely nothing to do with it. There is no mention of conservation in my posts.

I do not frame everything that comes into my business to full conservation standard and I have stated that many times. I choose not to use MDF which has many disadvantages. Instead I use products that do not have those disadvantages.

Anyone who chooses to use a product that is detrimental is free to do so. I do not understand the logic behind that decision, when there are so many disadvantages and there are products available that do not have those disadvantages. I wish someone would explain that to me so I could understand it.

If I am wrong about the disadvantages of MDF, please do refute them. Anyone else please do the same!

[Roboframer]

I haven’t ever heard a claim that ordinary Conservation (chemically reduced woodpulp) mountboards are as good as Cotton Museum boards.

With your CV and with the FATG's 5 levels being claimed as 'internationally recognised' and with the links and info provided here, does that worry you?

I appreciate that the Microchamber technology is claimed to be superior, but I’m not aware that Nielsen have submitted it for independent testing so, to use a rather overused quote, “they would say that, wouldn’t they?”

They may have not submitted it for independent testing but independently tested (and tried) it has been - it's been around long enough and the technology has been around for even longer, it's just that no-one had used it in mount board before. It was already tested and it works.

[John]

You have misread my warning to you, Nigel Nobody. I don't know whether if you have done so deliberately in order to be argumentative, or that you are actually incapable of understanding what I said.

But please understand this - I am NOT inviting you to debate your behaviour, rather, I am informing you that it is unacceptable.

[stcstc]

so has the technology not been tested in context as mountboard?

i guess its really hard to be very factual as its all hidden in secrecy from the one and only manufacturer

[Roboframer]

I provided a quote from a conservator on that mount board - you can Google his name. Here you go!

One reason he is a member of a framing forum is because he has an interest in preserving his nation's heritage - no secrecy and there is much more info out there from other sources than the manufacturer, who have to be careful about what they say anyway - but the gist is said with confidence.

[JohnMcafee]

Just so that everyone knows, and contrary to the views of some folk who might suggest otherwise, I am a firm believer in the use of conservation materials in jobs that warrant their use.

Our business is well known for its conservation framing to the highest standard and customers have sought us out, travelling from far and wide, to avail of our services.

Regarding the guild’s levels, we apply whichever is appropriate to the job at hand. And while they should be reviewed from time to time to keep up with development in materials, I vote that none should be abandoned.

[Mary Evans]

Roboframer wrote:

Mary Evans wrote:I haven’t ever heard a claim that ordinary Conservation (chemically reduced woodpulp) mountboards are as good as Cotton Museum boards.

With your CV and with the FATG's 5 levels being claimed as 'internationally recognised' and with the links and info provided here, does that worry you?

To answer Roboframers questions:
No, it doesn’t worry me because I am still not convinced that Conservation mountboards (which I understand retain traces of lignin) are as good as Cotton Museum boards – if they were, I don't think every manufacturer would produce the two qualities.

Whether or not the Artcare boards are superior is another question. As I said before, until the Nielsen patent runs out or they choose to share the technology, it is very unlikely that everyone in the trade will agree.

[Roboframer]

Lignin free means lignin free and I'm prepared to take Hugh Phibb's word - along with many others'.

I also believe artcare boards are superior and again from impartial references like the one I posted. Not everything needs that sort of active protection but I think it's nice to have.

[Roboframer]

But the question was does it worry you that you have never heard that claim before, it's been around a long time and it worries me that the guild have not picked up on such a serious claim and either refuted or confirmed it. Google 'Lignin free wood alpha cellulose' you'll find many papers and boards that are 100% lignin free with many making the claim under the guild's logo.

I believe they probably have heard about it and the reason they won't hear a word of it is the same reason they state that the glass for museum level framing must have a 'high level' of UV protection i.e. so as not to upset any suppliers/manufacturers who provide glass with a % of UV protection lower than any figure they might specify.

The guild is not impartial and these five levels of framing, apart from intending to aid us, which I don't dispute, are also intended to not steer us towards or away from any supplier/manufacturer that supports them.

[Jared Davis CPF, GCF]

so has the technology not been tested in context as mountboard? I guess its really hard to be very factual as its all hidden in secrecy from the one and only manufacturer

Do these two previously published articles help answer this question?

http://www.jared-davis.com/articles/get ... nology.pdf
http://www.jared-davis.com/articles/zeo ... rticle.pdf

Cheers,

Jared Davis

I'M NOT AN MDF USER, AND I'M STILL PROUD

[Roboframer]

So, now can we see some references from the nay-sayers saying that it does not work or that alpha cellulose from cotton is better than alpha cellulose from wood?

[Jared Davis CPF, GCF]

...... or that alpha cellulose from cotton is better than alpha cellulose from wood?

OK - here's another article of interest you may like about alpha cellulose - derived from both cotton and wood pulp...

http://www.jared-davis.com/articles/alp ... _boris.pdf

What is interesting to learn from reading this, is that by no means is "cotton" derived alpha cellulose anything close to "pure" - as many "purists" like to believe - because there are many impurities that still need to be chemically filtered and removed from cotton pulp, as does wood pulp.

Not to mention that cotton alpha cellulose matboard is still "pumped with calcium carbonate", just same as wood pulp derived alpha celloluse - which hardly makes the product "pure cotton" - so the whole "pure" tagline used by "cotton purists" is a bit deceptive.

Cheers,

Jared

I'M NOT AN MDF USER, AND I'M STILL PROUD

[JohnMcafee]

I suppose it is a step up from “My rep told me, so it must be true”. However, while in these matters I never like to judge too hastily, the sceptic in me wants to run a mile when I see phrases like “The LOC fellowship is being funded by Nielsen Bainbridge...”, and “Nielsen Bainbridge has been a supporter of the library for years…”

And though there is no reason to doubt the findings of the U.S. Library of congress (with the support of Nielsen), totally independent research results would carry more weight

[Jared Davis CPF, GCF]

Fair enough...

FWIW - You can actually learn quite a lot more about zeolite microchamber technology from this website too - http://www.conservationresources.com

Cheers,

Jared Davis

I'M NOT AN MDF USER, AND I'M STILL PROUD