Bob Michaels
nobody special
Jamie: I personally think that prints without the proper size mat look tacky or amateurish. But that is just my perspective. You need to only please yourself.
If you really want prints that big for your own reasons and cost becomes a factor, then consider having your prints laminated onto archival foamcore and simply hang them with no mat, no glass, and no frame, just sitckytac to hold them onto the wall. To my eyes, that is more acceptable that a frame entirely filled by the photo. But again, that is just me.
If you really want prints that big for your own reasons and cost becomes a factor, then consider having your prints laminated onto archival foamcore and simply hang them with no mat, no glass, and no frame, just sitckytac to hold them onto the wall. To my eyes, that is more acceptable that a frame entirely filled by the photo. But again, that is just me.
Jamie123
Veteran
Well, I don't know if the argument that it's amateurish could be reasonably maintained as a lot of high end contemporary art photography is presented that way. As an example, here are a few pictures by Jeff Wall that have no mat (the first half are light boxes but the rest are prints). Or check out this video of an exhibition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M93rQMuA5g
Anyways, I see it all the time in galleries and museums. It's definitely a matter of taste, though.
For what it's worth I think it heavily depends on the image. From the prints I made some will be framed with a mat, some without, and some will be framed with a white border but no mat. IMO the right framing (mat/no mat, material of the frame, color of the frame) and the right size are crucial to how the picture will be perceived.
daveleo
what?
If these are for your own apartment (not a gallery or exhibit), I think what Bob Michaels suggested is a very good idea to get you where you want to go. Have the prints (I think the term is) "cold pressed" onto foamboard (3/6 or 1/4 ? thick) and use sticky stuff / velcro things to attach them to your wall.
I did that and the "posters" lasted years.
IMO also, framing without a matt, over-constrains the picture for me. I actually prefer matting but not framing !!
I did that and the "posters" lasted years.
IMO also, framing without a matt, over-constrains the picture for me. I actually prefer matting but not framing !!
RichC
Well-known
Mount materials for prints to be laminated on to for supportbcome in various types. The most common in order of price are:
● card
● foamboard
● MDF
● dibond (basically high-quality MDF)
● aluminium.
As you go up in price, so the backing material becomes more rigid, longer lasting and archival.
Card, as I mentioned, doesn't have a completely smooth surface and so you'll get bumps and imperfections showing when light catches the print at the wrong angle; card is also floppy and can warp and buckle.
Foamboard is smooth and rigid, but isn't that strong (not a problem once framed!), isn't archival and will degrade - the plastic and foam break down over the years (like most plastics). Not sure of the lifespan - I'd guess up to a decade.
MDF is very rigid and won't break down, but isn't archival - the acid in the wood will slowly attack the paper in the print - although this will take several years. Good for a decade plus?
Dibond has all the benefits of MDF (except price!) and is archival so it won't rot your print.
Aluminium is really tough, lightweight, thin and archival - but expensive.
So, that's your choices. From what you say, I'd go for foamboard. Getting large prints on your wall is not something you do often - so my advice would be to pay someone to bond the prints onto the boards for you.
And ignore Ansel and his comment that a print touching the glass is OK - it isn't! Make sure there's an air gap between the print and the glass, using spacers (called "fillets") around the frame edge, hidden by the frame overhang - or no glass at all.
bob338
Well-known
Not sure why Ansel is so hung up on declaring that a print touching glass is okay.
It's not.
I have been a framer for 25 years(this month!) and I would never suggest this to anyone as being okay. Just the slightest amount of moisture can adhere the print to the glass and it will be damaged. Glossy prints will show Newton rings wherever the print contacts the glass, and they almost always adhere to the glass.
You can get away with flush mounting(framing a drymounted print against glass) a MATTE print, but never a semi or high gloss print.
As far as drymounting goes, none of the methods are truly archival. There are several spray and tissue adhesives that claim to be archival, but I've used them all and have never felt comfortable enough with any of them to use on a valuable print. Hinging with Filmoplast P90 or gummed linen tape is best. Self adhesive linen tape is crap, get the kind you have to moisten.
If you do drymount them and want to flush fit them, there is a spacer made by Arlo Products that sticks to the glass, under the lip of the frame that is very easy to use. I like using the 1/4" spacer with black frames when a mat is too much for a piece.
Good luck.
It's not.
I have been a framer for 25 years(this month!) and I would never suggest this to anyone as being okay. Just the slightest amount of moisture can adhere the print to the glass and it will be damaged. Glossy prints will show Newton rings wherever the print contacts the glass, and they almost always adhere to the glass.
You can get away with flush mounting(framing a drymounted print against glass) a MATTE print, but never a semi or high gloss print.
As far as drymounting goes, none of the methods are truly archival. There are several spray and tissue adhesives that claim to be archival, but I've used them all and have never felt comfortable enough with any of them to use on a valuable print. Hinging with Filmoplast P90 or gummed linen tape is best. Self adhesive linen tape is crap, get the kind you have to moisten.
If you do drymount them and want to flush fit them, there is a spacer made by Arlo Products that sticks to the glass, under the lip of the frame that is very easy to use. I like using the 1/4" spacer with black frames when a mat is too much for a piece.
Good luck.
Sparrow
Veteran
... what a palaver for cheap c-type prints, I have gelatin silver prints in those frameless glass frames that were cool in the 80s that have been against the glass for 25 years, and c-types in cheap ikea frames against the glass for 8 or 9 without any problem ... no sticking to the glass, no mould and no newton-rings
RichC
Well-known
But with just a little more effort (and money), the framed prints would look better and last longer. That said, just putting the prints into basic frames like you've done may be good enough - I've got prints on my wall like that, but I do consider them somewhat "throwaway", like cheap framed posters.
If I wanted to do a better framing job on a strict budget, I'd buy some card with the smoothest surface I could find, and stick the print to it with archival spray mount (e.g. Krylon), and frame the print so it's not touching the glass. This wouldn't cost much, nor take too long, and I'd expect the print to last well over a decade if it's a well placed (e.g. not in direct sunlight in a damp kitchen!).
On the other hand, if you're going to the trouble of framing high-quality prints that mean something to you, why not do the best framing job possible, if you have the money?
These were the last prints I had framed. The frames are about 1 m (3 ft) wide, and - unusually for me - have window mounts (but also Dibond backing for rigidity). The frames are bespoke with anti-reflective glass. These were for an important exhibition, so I commissioned one of the best framers I know (Thomas Rainsford) - they cost an eye-watering £300 ($500) each (not including £80 ($130) for the C-type print that I supplied). A lot of money, but these will last for many decades and continue to look superb - and hopefully raise my profile when seen in galleries.
daveleo
what?
The moisture issue depends largely on the temperature cycles in the room and the wall the prints are on.
Even with a fairly stable ambient humidity, temperature cycles (again, the wall T is important) cause condensation - evaporation - condensation.... cycles inside the frame.
I lost a beautiful unmatted print that was mounted on a brick wall to a cold hallway. The actual room air was always cozy but the hall (and wall) T cycled. After one year, I actually though that a ceiling water leak had dripped down into the picture - no, it was internal condensation due to temperature cycles.
It is not a given that this will happen, but, hey .... it's your picture, it's your decision.
Even with a fairly stable ambient humidity, temperature cycles (again, the wall T is important) cause condensation - evaporation - condensation.... cycles inside the frame.
I lost a beautiful unmatted print that was mounted on a brick wall to a cold hallway. The actual room air was always cozy but the hall (and wall) T cycled. After one year, I actually though that a ceiling water leak had dripped down into the picture - no, it was internal condensation due to temperature cycles.
It is not a given that this will happen, but, hey .... it's your picture, it's your decision.
Sparrow
Veteran
But with just a little more effort (and money), the framed prints would look better and last longer. That said, just putting the prints into basic frames like you've done may be good enough - I've got prints on my wall like that, but I do consider them somewhat "throwaway", like cheap framed posters.
If I wanted to do a better framing job on a strict budget, I'd buy some card with the smoothest surface I could find, and stick the print to it with archival spray mount (e.g. Krylon), and frame the print so it's not touching the glass. This wouldn't cost much, nor take too long, and I'd expect the print to last well over a decade if it's a well placed (e.g. not in direct sunlight in a damp kitchen!).
On the other hand, if you're going to the trouble of framing high-quality prints that mean something to you, why not do the best framing job possible, if you have the money?
These were the last prints I had framed. The frames are about 1 m (3 ft) wide, and - unusually for me - have window mounts (but also Dibond backing for rigidity). The frames are bespoke with anti-reflective glass. These were for an important exhibition, so I commissioned one of the best framers I know (Thomas Rainsford) - they cost an eye-watering £300 ($500) each (not including £80 ($130) for the C-type print that I supplied). A lot of money, but these will last for many decades and continue to look superb - and hopefully raise my profile when seen in galleries.
Oh I agree if it's something really special I pay for double matt internal frame and semi-permiable backing paper ... but I don't think that's what the OP asked about was it ... he asked if c-prints would be OK against the glass (yes) and if he would get newton rings (no)
Had he asked about archival framing for a prestigious exhibition I'd have probably answered differently ... in fact I did put a mat on that print of yours as one never knows
