Both DuPont and 3M offers adhesive films for the purpose, and companies like Roehm offer museum-grade UV resistant and AR-coated plexiglass acrylics.
The main problem with mounting is the clean-room requirements. Acrylics (and also the adhesive film) generate extreme amounts of static electricity when worked, so any dust present within a mile WILL end up bonded between the photographic paper surface and the plexi...
It does look very good when done properly. What is your idea of "expensive"?
Peter, I usually get mine done at Laumont Digital in midtown Manhattan (they are very good, and convenient for me - I live just a couple of blocks from them) but there are plenty of other places around here that do it, and they offer both plain acrylic and AR coated acrylic such as TruVue Optium Museum (the coated stuff, not the textured stuff sometimes called 'non glare'). Laumont are also excellent for printing. Would somewhere in NYC be OK for you? I used to use GL Laminating in Brooklyn a few years ago. Their prices were good, as was their service. GL didn't do the printing.
Thanks Suede & Helen for the replies. I just wasn't sure if this was a proprietary process or if maybe there were other companies that did the same thing for less.
Helen - I took a look at Laumont Digital. Thanks for the suggestion.
I notice that Bumblejax doesn't mention AR coated acrylic, only the 'non-glare' textured stuff, which doesn't usually reduce the proportion of reflected light, it only diffuses the reflection (and it adds texture to the image when close up, and generally reduces contrast and sharpness).
If you have control over the lighting setup, "simple" non-glare often works very well. It lowers the contrast by a tiny bit, but the gains by bonding the print surface to the front transparency is way bigger.
But if you have eye-level sunlight (windows in anything but north face) you can get different impressions during the passing of the day. Then I'd recommend AR coating for the best result.
The main thing about using a bonding layer is that the surface of the print is fairly reflective even in parts with high D values, so you get random scatter (and lots of it!) in the small air layer between the print and the back face of the coverglass (cover acrylic?). This smooths out detail and lowers overall contrast quite significantly.
But bonded prints have a tendency to show outer layer reflections much more strikingly, the difference between areas where you have a specular reflection of light and the areas where you don't is much more disturbing when the good area has so much more contrast...
The eye adapts to surrounding contrast. If contrast is very good in one part of the image, the other parts of the image will be seen as VERY not good. If the contrast is quite low even in the part with no reflection, the difference will be smaller, and you'll actually see more of the image. A case of "worse is better" in some situations.
But seeing a contact-mount print correctly lit is (can be) a striking experience though. It's well worth it in many cases.
I use to work for a company that do this process all the time. Its the same process as Peter lik. If you are interested I can produce this, send me an email with the size and quantity so can get you a price. [email protected]
RawPixelMedia wrote:
I use to work for a company that do this process all the time. Its the same process as Peter lik. If you are interested I can produce this, send me an email with the size and quantity so can get you a price. [email protected]
Good suggestions everyone - thanks.
Speaking of Lik, I haven't seen his work first hand, but I get the impression some of his stuff is backlit - like DuraTrans panels. Anyone working with that kind of process?
None is backlit...all facemounted fuji flex. And gallery lighting. Can also try westcoastimagaing. They do a great job. But try and stay local...for lots of reasons.
Digital One in San Diego does it for $45/sf including print on Fjuiflex SuperGloss. Plus $5 per foot for edge polishing. 1/8" or 1/4" acrylic. $100 min.
