Mounting Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper

<p>Hello everyone,</p>

<p>I would like to get any opinions on how to best mount Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper. I have made a number of prints up to 13"x19" on this fantastic paper, using an Epson R2400. </p>

<p>In a cursory attempt to get these photos up at an exhibition quickly, I simply taped these photos to the back of the mats I was using before framing (typically along the edges). I realize this is NOT anywhere near ideal.</p>

<p>Now, I notice when sunlight hits some of these prints, that there are areas 'sinking' and/or 'bulging'. Basically, it doesn't look flat, even tho the paper itself is very thick & the flattest paper I've ever seen (came as sheets).</p>

<p>I surmise this is due to the prints not getting enough freedom to expand/contract? So, I'm wondering which is the better option for me:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Mount the print to a mounting board</li>

<li>Attempt the 'T-hinge' and clear archival corner mounts method (<a href="http://www.framedestination.com/picture_frame_mounting.html">http://www.framedestination.com/picture_frame_mounting.html</a>)</li>

</ol>

<p>Which one will give me a flatter image for the 13"x19"? I'm not too particular about 'archival quality'... I just want this to hold up for a few years. If the print eventually goes bad, it's no big deal, as I can print it again. Although, I'd rather not :)</p>

<p>Any advice would be much appreciated. Many thanks in advance!<br>

Rishi</p>

How long were the prints allowed to dry before being framed?

 

You mention trying to get them up at an exhibition quickly, in which case the whole problem may be that they were

mounted and framed too quickly. While still drying, the paper may exhibit waves. Drying can take a few days depending on

the image and the ink load, and that time only increases when it's framed and the glycols can't readily flash off.

<p>Thanks Colin.</p>

<p>For most of the prints, I waited 2-3 days. One of them I waited only a few hours & it exhibited the worst 'waves', etc. So I will definitely keep this in mind.</p>

<p>However, regardless, you or others must have an opinion on which option (1. or 2.) is better, in your experience? Also, either of those options I mentioned above must be better than just taping the print to the mat on all edges, correct? As I understand, in my hasty 'mounting', I'm not giving the prints any leeway to expand or contract, which could be creating the waves?</p>

<p>Thanks for the help,<br>

Rishi</p>

<p>You need to account for out-gassing for all Epson materials (the inks themselves dry nearly instantly). Place a sheet of butcher paper on top for a good 24 hours (you can often see the effects of the out gassing on this paper). Then you’re good to go. EFP is very, very, very fragile and easily scratched!</p>

<p>Rishi,<br>

I mount using archival mounting corners with an over mat. I print 10.6 x 16 for most prints as that allows me to use a 16x20 Nielsen frame which is a stock size. I have sufficient border around the print to keep it perfectly flat. Andrew is correct about the outgassing and 2 days is sufficient for complete "curing" of the print.<br>

A couple of other things about this paper. It has a lot of optical brightening agent (which gives it the striking appearance) so you should not use UV-protective plexi for framing as that defeats the purpose of the OBA. The other problem (and a big one in my mind) is that the OBA deteriorates pretty quickly and you lose the whiteness of the paper. If you have lots of colors and little white that shouldn't be a problem but I will not print B&W on this paper for that very reason.</p>

<p><strong>Andrew:</strong> Thank you, I will try the butcher paper. I take it that's breathable so the print can still dry? Also how, in the end, would you actually mount the print? T-hinge taping to the back of the mat? Plastic corners (a pain, since you need a border around your image typically)? Even on a couple of the 13"x19" prints I allowed to dry for a couple days, I see some buckling. I feel that the back board of the frame is not pushing up against the print entirely since it's so large (18x24) yet is only pushed up against the mat by those flimsy fold-down metal clips that are typical of most frames (these are Aaron Brothers frames).</p>

<p>Also, I hear you on the fragility... SO easily scratched!</p>

<p><strong>Alan:</strong> So your prints typically look flat with no buckling simply b/c of gravity & the freedom to expand/contract as needed?</p>

<p>Also, I have mixed feelings about the OBA. Luckily, not a big deal for me since my prints are colorful landscapes without many whites (except for waterfalls). I mounted a lot of them behind museum glass for UV protection, but some behind non-glare etched acrylic withOUT UV protection, since they are in shady portions & aren't getting direct sunlight. In your experience, is it OK to leave prints behind UV transparent acrylic as long as they are mounted indoors in places without direct sunlight? Or will they still deteriorate over a period of months/years?</p>

<p>Many thanks to all again!<br>

Rishi</p>

<p>I have observed no buckling at all. I mount the photo on archival foamboard using Mylar photo corners and then over mat with cotton rag archival board. The combination of the plexi, mat, and foamboard gives enough stability to the picture. I use the clips that come with the Nielsen frame kit to lock things in place. I use regular acrylic for all my framing and keep things out of direct sunlight. I think the optical properties of regular acrylic are fine for this purpose and that UV protected acrylic is just a waste of money. As I noted in the first post if you have papers with OBAs, you don't want to use the UV acrylic as it defeats the purpose of the fluorescent agent. I've only been printing for 18 months with the Epson inkset and have not seen any fading. </p>

<p>Tape only from top, let them hang freely. If you tape them more than that (eg sides/bottom/corners) they will distort. That's always been true of most papers, not just Exhibition Fiber.<br>

I just dug some week-old (well-dried) EFP rejects from the waste basket, easily scratched them with my fingernail and by intentionally dragging the corners of other wastebasket prints across them. Tried the same on an Ilford Gold Fiber Silk reject and got a lot less damage. On the other hand, the EFP hadn't been damaged just by being tossed in the waste basket.</p>

<p>EFP is incredibly cheap right now (Atlex.com). Maybe this is the reason. I like this paper as well as the Ilford otherwise.</p>

<p>Every print I care about goes in a high quality side lock acetate sleeve (as good as glass)...I'm not worried about my own handling, but someone else might damage if they're careless when they remove the print form the sleeve.</p>

<p>I kind of don't understand the point of OBAs if they're designed to work by that very thing that will destroy them, eventually. </p>

<p>That being said, I did some reading & found some interesting info (that should probably be posted on a new thread, but, whatever). It'd seem that even standard Acrylite acrylic blocks out ~96% UVA (320-400nm), as well as below wavelengths shorter than UVA presumably. OP-3 UV protection acrylic blocks out some 99% UVA, whereas traditional soda-lime glass is much more transparent than either of these options to UVA. So Alan you & I are already filtering out a good deal of UV by using the acrylic... Here's a great test comparing the UV transmittance of standard Acrylite acrylic (the non-glare version of which I used for many of my prints) to OP-3 & glass:<br>

<img src="http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/images/2008_0208_S3-10(rw).jpg" alt="" width="706" height="472" /><br>

<em>Taken from: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/news.18.html</em></p>

<p>As I understand it, OBAs typically absorb in the 360-380nm range, then re-emit above 400nm. It seems that the standard acrylic offers some UV transmittance, some image brightening, & must provide a good deal of UV protection if it allows only ~4% UV transmittance (according to the article linked above). Maybe it's a good balance for papers using OBAs? I'd like to perform this same test with Museum glass, though I presume that it'll show results similar to the OP-3 acrylic.</p>

<p>I'm a little surprised that the standard acrylic is showing only ~4% UVA transmittance in the tests above, since the following PDF shows rather high transmittance curves for standard acrylic at >350nm:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.regal-plastics.com/TechDocs/1682+ACRYLITE+OP3+tech+Data.pdf">http://www.regal-plastics.com/TechDocs/1682+ACRYLITE+OP3+tech+Data.pdf</a></p>

<p>Maybe the Acrylite acrylic just has more UVA blocking characteristics than whatever was used to generate the transmission spectrum in the above reference. I've certainly read before that, in general, acrylic is less transparent to UVA than glass.</p>

<p>Finally, here's a great paper on OBAs & aging, with deltaE values for aging of papers containing OBAs vs. not:<br>

<a href="http://www.wmich.edu/pci/faculty/Publication/fleming/NIP-22.pdf">http://www.wmich.edu/pci/faculty/Publication/fleming/NIP-22.pdf</a></p>

<p>The results seem to indicate that one'd be better off using OBA-free paper (big surprise!).</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

<p>There are several problems with OBAs. One is, they are somewhat fugitive over time. The other is their effect upon the viewer based on the illuminant (Fluorescent lights with their spiky spectrum can cause what appears to be a color shift in the paper white). Yet another problem is building output profiles for papers with OBAs and if the instrument has a cut filter or not (and how the filter and Spectrophotometer illuminant differs from the illuminant under which the print is viewed). In a perfect world, we’d have no OBAs to deal with. See:<br>

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200702_rodneycm.pdf</p>

<p>Rishi,<br>

Thanks for the OBA and aging reference. I was not aware of that one. Normal Acrylic does afford protection from some shorter wavelength UV light but as is noted in the technical data sheet, the OP3 acrylic essentially blocks out everything under 400 nm. You can look at spectral responses of a number of papers on Laszlo Pusztai's site: http://www.pusztaiphoto.com/articles/printing/spectrums/webchart.aspx The OBA papers show a lot of light absorption below 400nm, presumably from the OBA that's being used. If this light is blocked then the OBA cannot fluoresce. I'm unsure what exact chemical agent is being used in these papers as to how stable they are (back in my lab days I did a fair amount of protein tagging use fluorescent dyes of various structures and emission properties). The Hahnemuhle Photo Rag is supposed to contain OBAs but they apparently have very little impact on the either the spectrum or performance of the paper.</p>

<p>It's a very intriguing topic and one that has been discussed here as well: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26812&hl=Laszlo</p>