Mounting large-scale prints to backing board

[nickbatz]

Hi, I've been having my original art prints dry mounted to acid-free foam backing board, but I'm in search of a way to do it myself. That would involve mounting and cutting the board with a reverse bevel. (I make my own floater frames and that's not an issue.)

The prints are large, say 44" x 60", made on heavy-duty fine art paper (Canson Arches 88, which is cotton and 310 GSM),
and the dry mounting has to be perfect and permanent - i.e. as "archival" as possible.

This isn't high-volume, i.e. I'm an individual artist and not a commercial operation with time pressures.

I just bought some Neschen Gudy 870 adhesive to experiment with.

Questions:

1. Is there a better solution than Gudy 870?

2. Would one of those $200 cold laminating rollers work? If not, what would be the best way to "burnish" the prints?

3. What would you use to cut the pictures once mounted? I have a large Rotatrim paper cutter, but it maxes out at about 5/32".

Many thanks.

Bonus questions: what kind of dibond do people use for backing board, should I decide to try that, and where do you find it? I haven't found a source in Los Angeles.

[JFeig]

Nickbatz, The use of dry mounting or Gundy 870 in the same breath as "conservation framing" is an oxymoron statement in todays preservation environment standards.

You have not indicated if a mat is being installed over the art to keep it away from the glazing of your choice. 310 gsm art paper is fairly stiff and should be hinged to a backing board before being placed into a frame.

Regarding cutting, I always used a long heavy duty straight edge that I could use spring clamps to hold it in place on a flat table's surface. The cutting was done with a standard utility knife with a fresh blade. The best sequence is to cut the backing board before mounting the art in most cases to avoid damaging the art.

Regarding ACM, a standard "mill finish" is all you need(I.E. no coating on the aluminum surface. It can be cut with a circular saw and a straight edge as a guide an a good fine tooth saw blade.

[Steve Goodall]

if they are your work then it is perfectly okay to do whatever you want with it. You could argue that if that is the way your work is produced then an unmounted piece isn't true to your style as an artist and so has less value.

[Tudor Rose]

100% what Steve said.

However, if a customer buys a piece of art on paper from an artist and the artist doesn’t have them bonded down, then to do so absolutely would devalue it. So the framer can advise that and the customer can make their choice.

But an artist choosing to sell their work that way? Whole different thing and perfectly acceptable. Understanding that distinction helps framers advise their customers accordingly.

[Steve Goodall]

Succinctly put Jo

[JKX]

Regarding machinery and materials, this forum is UK based . “The Framers Grumble” forum is the best place to ask as it’s U.S. based.

https://www.thegrumble.com/



…

[nickbatz]

Thanks for the replies.

Steve Goodall, exactly - or half exactly. These pictures want to be framed the way they are for aesthetic reasons, not because I'm a churlish artist.

Now, it's true that I am a churlish artist, but that's a separate issue.

Anyway, I disagree that not having them bonded down (not that I know what that means ) devalues them. You can make an argument that I should put them behind glass - and if someone paying me insisted, I would - but that would devalue them by not being the right look. The medium is "printed pigment ink on fine art paper," and I chose those exact words because what I'm doing is an evolution of painting.

The way the framing shop I go to dry mounts them is totally solid, and I have the pictures hanging to prove it. They won't come off the backing (contrary to what that prickly bunch on the Framer's Grumble say ), and the foam can't warp because I glue it to thin plywood using Lineco PVA - i.e. there's a lot of surface area. You could also make an argument that I should be using Dibond instead of the foam, and I want to try it - hence my questions. (I actually wasn't aware that this forum is UK based, nor for that matter that Framer's Grumble is American.)

These are not photographs, so the object isn't to preserve the prints stamp collection-style the way you would, say, and Ansel Adams print - so no hinging. And matting is far too conservative for these crazy pictures!

This is how they're mounted (rear view, obviously):

[nickbatz]

[nickbatz]

I forget whether I mentioned that I make my own frames - it's only the dry mounting I've been having done, and... going back to the beginning, I'd like to find a way to do it myself. Part of the reason is the expense, but also the shop I use is 30 minutes away and it takes them a week, so it's a lot of time.

(I've learned the hard way that once you find someone who does good work, it's worth the extra driving time.)

[Tudor Rose]

Bonded down is what they will be once they’ve been dry mounted. It just means stuck down.

Steve and I are agreeing with you that as the artist you are perfectly entitled to have them dry mounted and sell them like that. How you choose to display and sell your artwork is your choice. Aesthetic reasons or otherwise.

What we’re also saying is that a lot of framers get confused about this and don’t always appreciate the difference between the person creating the art asking for dry mounting service, and a customer who has bought the art asking for the same dry mounting service.

An artist choosing to do it to sell it on like that is OK.

BUT, a customer who buys art on paper from an artist who doesn’t have them dry mounted, would then devalue the work if they took it to a framer to dry mount it later. That’s the conversation the framer needs to have with them, to explain that difference and allow them to make an informed choice.

A framer can still dry mount it in those cases, even trim it, do whatever the customer wants them to do - but they need to get explicit consent to do it and ensure the customer understands that the value of their artwork will be affected.

To be able to do this yourself - Steve may be able to point you in the right direction for equipment etc over in the US. Or as others have suggested, The Grumble may be an easier resource.

[nickbatz]

Got it. Thanks Tudor.

[prospero]

I agree with Steve. You won't 'devalue' the work by drymounting it as that would then be the 'original' state.

I would say that mounting it to foamcore is maybe not the best idea as far a durability is concerned.
Foamcore is flimsy and vulnerable to damage. Drop it on a corner = ruined. Poke it = ruined.
A harder board would be preferable and at that size it could be fixed to a cradle made from square timber
with cross bars. This would keep it relatively light but much more stable.

[Steve Goodall]

I used to drymount water colour paper and artist's canvas to MDF on a regular basis - for a local artists group.

Now before someone has a heart attack - I used to use acid free mount film as the bonding layer.

As well as acting as an adhesive, the film acted as a barrier layer between the board and paper/canvas - blocking the transfer of acids. Additionally - it was reversible by an experienced expert (that would be me) - if required.

"Canvas Panels" used to be commercially available from Windsor & Newton - which is basically the same idea - canvas on board, rather than stretchers.

My "Water Colour Panels" were a similar idea & stopped water colour papers from cockling whilst they were being painted. When completed they were ready for framing.

[Tudor Rose]

There are plenty of artists who paint onto MDF panels because of how smooth they are. They do gesso layers to prime them first. As with so many things in this industry, horses for courses.

[JKX]

We had a very good artist who, for smaller oils, would bond butter muslin to MDF and prime it. I explained a few disadvantages of MDF and suggested sone alternatives - he sort of agreed, but then I started talking about glazing oils and he told me if I was going to be silly he’d go somewhere else!

The same guy - very old school - painted alongside Juliet Pannet if you’ve ever heard of her, lived in our village, painted Queen Elizabeth II a few times - after being talked in to AR99 on a watercolour, returned it in disgust “it’s not invisible - it’s GREEN”!

Talking about any lights it may catch of course and I never said it was invisible either. So, back to the NR stuff he went and I didn’t even try the conservation reflection control on!

Moral of story - it’s yours - you can’t be wrong!

[nickbatz]

I agree with Steve. You won't 'devalue' the work by drymounting it as that would then be the 'original' state.

I would say that mounting it to foamcore is maybe not the best idea as far a durability is concerned.
Foamcore is flimsy and vulnerable to damage. Drop it on a corner = ruined. Poke it = ruined.
A harder board would be preferable and at that size it could be fixed to a cradle made from square timber
with cross bars. This would keep it relatively light but much more stable.

At the risk of protesting too much: it's not at all flimsy the way I have it mounted, and the corners are protected from drops by the frame - not that I'd want to drop any art on a corner or any other part. I guess you could poke holes in it, but you'd have to be really angry - for one because the paper itself is very heavy and durable (sort of like wallpaper). *

And there's absolutely no reason to use a cradle, square timber, or cross bars. It's totally stable, as I keep insisting! The thin plywood supports the frame's corner joints and adds necessary stiffness to the foam.

Having said that, the reason I'm interested in experimenting with Dibond (aluminum composite board) is that it would eliminate all these discussions - which by the way are eliminated as soon as someone sees one in person.

However, the practical choices of stiffer boards that won't outgas seem to be limited. ACM seems like the best candidate.

* The foam is vulnerable before I frame it, though, especially with the reverse bevel cuts. I'm always very careful with it when I drive my pictures home!

[nickbatz]

There are plenty of artists who paint onto MDF panels because of how smooth they are. They do gesso layers to prime them first. As with so many things in this industry, horses for courses.

That was one of the possibilities I looked into - gesso on MDF as a backing board. But I was advised that the gesso doesn't prevent outgassing.

And as you say, horses for courses. There are artists who paint in chalk on the pavement, or who sculpt in ice or sand.

Moral of story - it’s yours - you can’t be wrong!

At the same time, I'd prefer that my pictures last.

[Richard Photofusion]

I mount a lot of inkjet pictures onto two substrates for framing. Upto A0, tends to go onto KapaMount 5mm. Larger pieces onto 3mm DiBond.

I'm still using a slightly aged HotPress JM44 laminator, and for Kapamount (buy it by the case in 1000x1400mm), I flood coat the boards with Drytac self would adhesive . Prints are max 980x1330, as I've never had a case delivered that didn't have a slight ding on the corners.
I give atleast 4mm bleed, and then cut the print and substrate down (90º) on a Keencut Javelin. Arches88 needs a very sharp blade to prevent chipping of the paper coating, so this is a mounted paper that I don't offer full bleed, unless the client is prepared to pay a very heavy premium.

On Dibond, I'll cut the sustrate to size, using a Keencut SteelTak, and print with 2-5mm bleed. Matt papers, I use Drytac self would adhesive; for papers like Canson Prestive Baryta2, I'll use optically clear mount film. Apply print, then with face up, I'll use a razor blade (.009"), and cut from below, using just the tip of the blade. New tip for each edge. For smaller prints on DiBond, or 2mm aluminium, I sometimes flip the print over, onto tissue, on a cutting mat, and use a 10A scalpel to cut the overhang. Fresh blade for each cut. I don't do this for prints larger than around 20x30", as the risk of bruising the print increases exponentially witht the size.

You could do this with a manual laminator, but I wouldn't. I've got smaller carts to help support substrates in front of the laminator, and 2x 8x4' benches behind it, 1/2" lower than the outfeed from the laminator.

DiBond, and 2mm aluminium are also easily dinged before being protected by a frame. As the size increases, so does the mass, and the force that gets applied.In this respect, KapaMount is actually less prone to damage (though I cut 90º - 45º I would not offer as an option, as I don't frame the work; packaging for transport would be a nightmare!)

I don't offer mounting for work that I have not printed. If you've got a print / mounting pipe line that you are happy with, I'd consider sticking with them - the first 10-100 hours on the laminator are when you start learning from your mistakes.

I had a good trainer, but you have to put in the hours to discover the Rumsfeldian unknowns.

[prospero]

At the risk of protesting too much: it's not at all flimsy the way I have it mounted, and the corners are protected from drops by the frame - not that I'd want to drop any art on a corner or any other part. I guess you could poke holes in it, but you'd have to be really angry - for one because the paper itself is very heavy and durable (sort of like wallpaper). *

Nobody wants to drop art but it happens.

You don't have to be angry - all it needs is an unfavourable gust of wind.

[Richard Photofusion]

I guess front on damage could be reduced, whilst mostly retaining appearance, with a healthy dose of Tru Vue Optium Museum Acrylic...

Budget meet open window.