johnny_boy wrote:
Mark, what process do you use to face mount on acrylic? Diasec, or one of those transparent film? Do you send it out to some lab or you do it yourself? If you sent out, what lab do you recommend?
Did a quick research and it looks like West Coast Imaging is doing acrylic face mount with dibond backing.
A bit pricey though for around $500 for 30"x45". Any cheaper solution? I might be willing to spend a couple thousand on a cold press roller, if this is something I can do it myself for cheaper.
A bit pricey though for around $500 for 30"x45". Any cheaper solution? I might be willing to spend a couple thousand on a cold press roller, if this is something I can do it myself for cheaper.
You'll find that FLEX is a very unforgiving material. Personally, I'd rather not have to deal with the perfection of the mounting process. Also, most places will mount much larger than the needed size, then trim down to the actual size. This helps with edge adhesion.
Ben Horne wrote:
If you so much as "clean" the print with a swiffer, you will scratch the acrylic that is permanently bonded to the photo. The result is an insanely fragile print.
I wonder about front mounting something like this to the print. I can see how the visual appearance would have a kind of appeal, but it also seems to me that a very expensive print should be something that can, if treated with care, survive re-mounting and so forth over its life.
I'm not an expert on these things, but is it even possible to delaminate print from a plexiglass sheet that has been laminated to the front of the print? Doesn't this have a very real potential to greatly diminish the value of the print in easily foreseen circumstances that might damage the plexi? If the plexiglas is damaged with more traditional methods of mounting, it isn't a big problem to remount the print with no or minimal effect on the print, thus maintaining its condition and value.
Ben Horne wrote:
IMO, lightjets still have the best print quality. It has to do with the tonality (gradients), as well as the way they render light tones. You will have dots of ink spaced far apart for light tones on an inkjet. These same tones are more seamless on a lightjet. Also, it sounds a heck of a lot nicer to tell your collectors that you are selling a print on traditional light sensitive paper produced on a million dollar machine run by an expert--- rather than an inkjet produced in your basement. :-)
That is a matter of personal preference and is subjective. Each printer has to make the choices that best express his/her ideas about what the print should look like, and there are those who believe that they get the best results from inkjet printers.
Not arguing for one over the other, but suggesting that there is room for a range of opinions on this issue.
Once bonded to the acrylic, it is permanent. There is no way to separate it without damaging the print. Prints on FujiFLEX are VERY delicate. They will scratch very easily, and are very difficult to mount. For example, a print on flex when framed traditionally with an archival hinge will be a big mistake. It will warp like crazy. The prints need to be mounted to a smooth, flat surface. This is where dibond comes into play. On my last batch of prints, I was trying to avoid face mounting to acrlyic for exactly the reasons you mentioned. However, it is VERY difficult to rear mount to dibond without a face mount to acrylic. The print will take on a bit of a texture, and there is a tendency to form these little pock marks. The lab I use had to reprint my stuff about 4 times to finally mount it perfectly to dibond.
In the future, I will face mount to acrylic as well --- but I will always have my prints behind an additional piece of museum glass/acrylic so the original print (now entombed under acrylic) will be protected from cleaning marks, etc.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Because there is plenty of image data in the 8 bit file for printing. You certainly would not want to shoot jpg and you definitely don't want to do any extensive work in post on 8-bit files, but once you finalize the image and create a printable file there is little or not advantage to greater bit depth.
By the way, labs that do tiff usually want 8-bit tiff files, too.
I kind of feel that if you want full control over the presentation of your photographers that you should look into doing your own printing. The method under discussion here is one "look," but it is not necessarily the look that everyone will want to go for.
Bingo. An 8bit TIFF has plenty of image data as long as you don't need corrections. Plus most lab software can't deal with 16bit files that I've ever used. (And i've ran numerous types of photo printers including Chromira, Polietronics, Fuji, Noritsu, etc.)
I agree with the OP, the prints in Lik's gallery look outstanding as displayed. As others have mentioned, it's FujiFlex which has incredible "depth" when you light it right. (It's also way more expensive to have printed.) I've worked with a similar product from Kodak but I didn't feel it had quite the same pop as the Fuji version.
Also as others have mentioned, most of the prints in his gallery (if not all of them) are face mounted to lucite which is an uncommon process but their are more labs starting to offer it now. Of course that is then float mounted for that incredible "floating print" look.
I was highly inspired by his gallery and how the images were displayed. However, I can't even fathom just the "cost" on some of those prints considering their size and the cost of the processes. Then again, sell one print at $3000+... shiesh!
A bit pricey though for around $500 for 30"x45". Any cheaper solution? I might be willing to spend a couple thousand on a cold press roller, if this is something I can do it myself for cheaper.
I've looked into it before, their are not many places doing face mount. And even fewer that I would TRUST to do it right, considering the cost.
I've heard West Coast Imaging is very good at this, but have only seen "regular" prints from them before on various materials.
I believe you "could" go with a Fuji Pearl print and do the same face mount but it may not be possible depending on what the lab requires. I do find that Fuji Pearl paper has a similar look as FujiFlex. Almost all of my "personal' work is done on Fuji Pearl and framed behind Tru-Vue Museum glass in order to allow the image to "pop" while being relatively protected.
Ben Horne wrote:
IMO, lightjets still have the best print quality. It has to do with the tonality (gradients), as well as the way they render light tones. You will have dots of ink spaced far apart for light tones on an inkjet. These same tones are more seamless on a lightjet. Also, it sounds a heck of a lot nicer to tell your collectors that you are selling a print on traditional light sensitive paper produced on a million dollar machine run by an expert--- rather than an inkjet produced in your basement. :-)
Totally disagree with your assesment of inkjet prints, Ben. I print all my own work on baryta papers and wouldn't want a high gloss print. They are just wrong for my work, but it works well for others, I'm sure.
I can recommend WCI for sure. They do great work. I've been using the Fuji Pearl though instead of the Flex as I liked the metallic effect better in my test print. Might switch back to check it out in the facemount as well.
As for Lik...it's ALL marketing. And many many photos go for MUCH more than 3k. There is plenty that the general public never gets to see and is sold directly to collectors.
I was going to get one face mounted by WCI. I sent them the file and got a proof as they recommended. Once I approved the proof they told me they put it in the cue and it would take FOUR weeks to get it done.
I couldn't live with that so cancelled the order and had it done by Digital One in San Diego. They did it in about one week. It came out good but I can't compare to WCI. Maybe they are better, maybe not.
Digital One is definitely less expensive than WCI. $36/sf includes the Fujiflex print and face mounting on your choice of 1/8" or 1/4" acrylic with Sintra backing. Edge polishing and a french cleat are additional cost options.
One thing I didn't like the way they did the french cleat; it was a little sloppy. Anyway I prefer to frame them in a wood frame with linen liner so don't buy them with either of those two options. I get them mounted to 1/8" acrylic then back them up with loose 8 ply board and stake them in. Framing them this way minimizes handling the acrylic as well.
pearlstreet wrote:
Totally disagree with your assesment of inkjet prints, Ben. I print all my own work on baryta papers and wouldn't want a high gloss print. They are just wrong for my work, but it works well for others, I'm sure.
Sharon
I share your perspective, though I acknowledge that points of view will vary.
HBOC wrote:
The image that sold for a million is not what you would think would sell for that much! I believe it is a reflection of fall colors in a lake. It was a Lik collector that bought it however.
He uses a Mamiya according to his gallery info, as well as other formats. In his show, he used a 7D with some L lens (got shattered).
The print in question is a one of one. The collector negotiated buying the whole limited edition series on a single print.
pearlstreet wrote:
Totally disagree with your assesment of inkjet prints, Ben. I print all my own work on baryta papers and wouldn't want a high gloss print. They are just wrong for my work, but it works well for others, I'm sure.
Sharon
Will have to disagree on this one as well Ben. All of my B&W work is done on Hahnemuhle Baryta rag inkjet paper and based on my previous wet darkroom experience going back to the 1970's, and very expensive experimentation in the present, this is the paper to use if you want to emulate the Kodak papers of that time, which I think were the best out there and still are.
I visited his gallery in Miami. Some of the prints were behind glass or Plexi (couldn’t tell), some were not. The glow on the prints comes from the lighting. There is nothing special about the papers used when it comes to glow - I'll elaborate.
On prints and lighting
Lighting is the key. There is sharp light and diffuse light. Any light bulb that has a frosted coating will diffuse light. On the other hand, any light bulb with a clear coating will not. And that's it. Diffused light makes prints look soft, hard light makes them look sharp. Halogen bulbs use clear glass and mirror reflectors, ergo sharper prints. The glow you see in a print is an illusion. It is all dependent on the ambient light. The less ambient light the more the print glows, given directed clear glass halogen lights on the print.
On printing papers
I've used most all the major ones, and in all lighting situations. Some prints look best on inkjet canvas and that is as diffused as it gets. It all depends on what the artist is trying to communicate.
Since back at the turn of this century I've been printing large astrophotography images. These images are detail rich so they look best in gloss media. I used mostly Fujiflex papers for those - back then quality inkjets did not even exist! After a LOT of prints and experimentation I've found that the latest Epson printers, and I'm talking about the top of the line ones, not the desktop ones, are right there with printers that use light sensitive papers. Both produce the same range of tones, etc. The only differences are that the inkjet printer papers have a slight texture undulation to them. In other words they are not perfectly smooth. But it is so close to the FujiFlex prints that the mounting media for the print makes a bigger difference – more below. And, there are no papers out there in the light sensitive printer arena that can match the classic B&W papers. For that you have to use an Inkjet, or a giant enlarger a la Clyde Butcher. The B&W inkjet prints done right, with the right papers are a sight to behold.
On Mounting Strata
Anything over 16x20 should be permanently mounted to the backing or the print curls from changes in humidity. I mentioned above that Inkjet papers have a slight texture when compared to FujiFlex gloss papers. In astro images the backgrounds are pure black. These backgrounds show any imperfection whatsoever in both paper smoothness and mounting media. Rewind to ten years ago, when I was using strictly Fuji gloss papers. We, the printer, framer and myself, went through many iterations trying to find the best mounting media. After all the experimentation we settled on Styrene for back mounting. Perfectly smooth, light and stable. Aluminum, by the way, is more sensitive to temperature fluctuations that Styrene.
I now fast forward to this year. I have a current exhibition of my large format images at a local gallery. The smallest print is 30x42. All prints had to be permanently back mounted. We decided to go back to the drawing board for these and revisit the latest technologies for permanent mounting. I like my prints conservatively mounted – dark frames, white mats and Plexiglas. I use Plexi for its light weight and safety.
We ordered many different materials and tested them on 8x10 prints and after a lot of vacuum bagging trial and error we finally settled on a Styrene-poly-Styrene sandwich - incredibly light and smooth. And it is a lot less expensive than DiBond. Some things never change . The material can be found here: http://www.foamboardsource.com/medium---heavy-duty-board--styrene-faced-foam-board.html
Best,
Jose
jsuro wrote:
Will have to disagree on this one as well Ben. All of my B&W work is done on Hahnemuhle Baryta rag inkjet paper and based on my previous wet darkroom experience going back to the 1970's, and very expensive experimentation in the present, this is the paper to use if you want to emulate the Kodak papers of that time, which I think were the best out there and still are.
Best,
Jose
Perhaps I should elaborate a bit. The context of my comments about lightjet is within the scope of this conversation --- producing large prints.
Just to be clear, I never said that everyone should use lightjet, or even that this is the only way I print. I have some prints on inkjet as well. I just like the tonality and gradients I get from lightjet upon close inspection. I too love the look of inkjet on the Bartya paper. I only print some of my work on Flex. the problem with flex is that some images end up looking rather sterile.
When you do very large prints, this will expose the weakness of any print medium. You'll find that it is VERY important to not only keep the print flat, but also to keep it super smooth. Even the smallest imperfection is magnified. This is one of the things that flex deals with very well.
A facemount becomes necessary to help keep large prints very flat --- especially when paired with a rear mount to dibond, as mentioned above.
I'm not sure how possible it is to face mount inkjet prints. From what I understand, face mounting is easiest with flex because you are essentially bonding plastic to plastic. When an injket is face mounted, I'm sure there is a chance that the ink will spread, or cause other strange issues.
I am unsure how one would best mount and display large inkjet prints. If anyone has knowledge on this, I would certainly appreciate it, since that is likely they method I will use when producing large B&W prints.
Oct 22, 2011 at 07:52 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ManfredSchu wrote:
Why are lightjet printer still used for professional landscape prints and not inkjet printers like the EPSON 9900? Inkjet printers are offering full controll over the printing process. Is there still a quality issue with luster papers?
Ben, I have my Harman Glossy Baryta prints mounted by Digital Silver Imaging in Boston. This is a very smooth paper and the prints they have done for me on museum grade mounting board have been perfect. I highly recommend them. They will also print silver gelatin prints from your digital files.
