1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. WELCOME Grumblers
    Backup is now done at 3PM EDT. You may find the server down for up to two minutes at that time.

Archival mounting of a canvas on board

Discussion in 'The Grumble' started by Robert Montgomery, Nov 13, 2009.

  1. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Does that include Lascaux 360? I read in another thread that a grumbler glued two sheets of Coroplast together with Lascaux 360.

    My own testing would take way more time and money and failure than what I'm doing now, which is researching by consulting you experts, filtering through the advice and then conducting my own tests. This way, I can save a lot of time, money, failure and experimentation by avoiding the mistakes that you experts have already made. (However, I have been looking at other Web sites and going to my neigbourhood art supply store during this process to look at some of the materials being discussed here, and to ask questions of the staff.)

    There's no gatorfoam at the neighbourhood art supply store. Why should I spend time, money and effort trying to find it and maybe have to order some to be delivered from out of town, only to find out later (because I didn't research it thoroughly to begin with) that it's not the best way to go? Researching in this forum first is supposed to streamline this research and development process for me.

    Why do you say that I am making things way too complicated? As always happens when one asks for advice, one gets a variety of choices and much conflicting advice, which makes it hard to decide what's the right thing to do. As an example, in this message and elsewhere in this thread, you're contradicting the advice of Wilhelm Imaging by your criticism of varnishing canvas giclees. (Your advice is the opposite of WIR's advice, and opposite to the advice from another grumbler about using gatorboard.)

    As always happens when one asks for advice, people have different and think that their advice is the best advice and that I should ignore conflicting advice.

    You additionally have to keep in mind that what works for one grumbler might not work for another. (One man's drink is another man's poison.)

    Also, I'm using an unorthodox approach to picture framing/mounting, so that implies that I'm attemping something which requires extra effort for me.

    It's crucial that I not screw up with this process, because I don't want it to fail and have complaints about my canvas prints being defective. As an example: When I was at the art supply store a couple of days ago, a sales clerk told me that a famous artist (who I know of) came into the store and mounted one of his canvas giclees with double-sided tape onto Coroplast. That method is contradictory to advice that I'd get here, because the tape may eventually damage the canvas, and then the artist might get complaints from the customer. I want to avoid such mistakes by learning how to do it properly.

    I think I'm close to finding a solution, though, because I've eliminated many options because of steering that I've gotten in this thread and the research I've done by looking at Web sites and checking at the art supply store.

    Robert
     
  2. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Coroplast:

    The flutes in Coroplast are not necessarily parallel to the edge of the board. Over a 60" cut, you will cross flutes and along the edge that is parallel to the edge of the flute, you will always have a particial cavity. Therefore you will have a thin edge that is usually sharp enough to cut you. It is also hard to keep a cut piece of Coroplast "square" and it is also almost impossible to trim a small amount with a razor knife.

    Unless you go to thicker Coroplast, your mounts will not be flat. 4mm coroplast is not dimentionally stable.

    The overall surface of Coroplast is not smooth (even with corrugations excluded) and there are "depressed" areas that are part of the extrusion process. This is not a defect as it has no effect on the material's use if used as intended.

    Coroplast is flexible. I would stake my professional reputation on saying that if you do enough of these, there WILL be bond failure, if not immediately, then after shipping, especially with severe climate changes.

    Standard Coroplast is not made for mounting. Just because something will stick to it does not mean it is appropriate. Masking tape and other pressure sensitive tapes will hinge artwork too, but that doesn't mean they are correct to use. Same for ATG - it will stick things together, but I sure would not rely on it in a shadow box to hold things up as I KNOW that the pieces will crawl and eventually fail.

    There are several types of Coroplast. What type is being used. Again, opens the "archival" vs what is being mounted question. Archival Coroplast in this instance is a complete waste of money. If you do insist on mounting to Coroplast, there is a product made with ONE SMOOTH SIDE THAT IS INTENDED FOR MOUNTING.

    No one has answered my question: How many 24 x 60 mounts can you get from a 48 x 96 board?

    If you say 2, you are also dilusional. There is NO WAY you can accurately cut 2 24 x 60 blanks from a 48 x 96 and accurrately wet mount a 24 x 60 giclee with perfect registration and clean edges.

    Jeff is correct-

    You may not immediately see the corrugations telegraphing through any mounting substrate that is wet mounted to Coroplast, but once the piece dries and shrinks, they WILL be there.


    No one has answered why Gator is NOT the preferred solution to the mouning question.

    Gator:

    For this purpose - outgassing is not a concern as there will be no glass. In fact, there is probably more of a concern that the inkjet print is cured before top coating and the top coats are cured before mounting.

    3/16" is much more dimentionally stable than 4mm Coroplast.

    It cuts easier and more cleanly. Easier to get a dimensionnaly accurate finished size with square edges on all sides.

    Edges can be cleaned up with a simple sanding block made with Trimite sand paper.

    It accepts wet glues as that is what it is intended for.

    Will not dent as easily as Coroplast.

    Is smoother on the surface.

    Is available in sizes other than 48 x 96 that give a more cost effective yield.

    Robert- tell me where you are located and I will give you sources for Gator. It is not something available at your local art supply store, but usually is available whereever Coroplast is sold.

    Also, be sure you are using the right kind of Coroplast.
     
  3. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    No Robert you have made assumptions in my statements leaving you to believe it is contradictory. To meet the standard you are trying to hit you must print 100% of your edition at one time.

    How can you be sure that the papers, inks and your printer will be available in a year or even a month. In less than 3 years I have seen numerous changes in availability of papers and canvas. What if your printer dies and has to be replaced.

    If you have an edition of 100 you need to print 100 at one time. There is a thread going about S/N prints currently and that would help you understand what I am talking about. Traditional printing used printing plates of varying types. Editions were printed in their entirety then inspected to assure there was no change in quality or appearance. Had they printed a partial edition then gone back to finish it and found only 70 viable prints existed the edition would be bogus because there were never 100 released.

    You either need to relax your desires and terminology or do the right thing and print these all at one time and stretch them. You should also relax in the tone of the general converstion since you are receiving tens of thousands of dollars of education here from industry professionals. You are receiving my 30 years of knowledge along with Rob's nearly 40 and Jim's 25 for absolutely nothing here. You also should get to some trade shows for some formal education. I understand what you are attempting here since I deal with in excess of 400 artists along with hundreds of students in the arts programs at the local college. I assist in making artists desires meet their budgets daily.
     
  4. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    I do not understand how anyone can say I am against varnishing digital output on canvas.

    So there is NO mistake -

    I fully advocate the use of a top coat or laminate on all digital canvas and I think that of all of the products out there, Premier's products are excellent, easy to use, and they have great support.

    I will not, however, overcoat digital output brought in to me by a customer that they did not print or have access to replace (without any recourse on me) for all of the variables that have been discussed in this thread.

    I purposely take my trade show tours to their booth at the PMA show because I think framers should know about them and they usually do not market to to the picture framing industry (specifically).

    If there was any misunderstanding , I apologize.

    I do, however stand by my experience that all ink jet prints (and prints on canvas) whether they are framed behind glass or overcoated will fade. I also stand by my opinion that it would be unwise to represent any digital output as permanent, lifetime, or other such statement.

    I also feel that after the OP made us aware of what he is really trying to do, and his thoughts on longevity of art displayed on the wall (people's decision to "change their art") and his expectations that he is not creating something intended for museum or long term display, and his desire to sell these at a price point that is affordable - that the search for the ultimate "archival" mount is misdirected.

    As a businessman and framer, I think the search should be for a process that is easy to accomplish in his studio, without special tools (vacuum or roller press), is cost effective, and will provide the longest lasting mount for the art without degrading it during its lifetime.

    The only way the OP can determine if the materials suggested work for him, is to try them himself. Narrow down the suggestions and try the best two or three.

    To discount my suggestion of Gator because one cannot buy it down the block (especially if there in a ongoing use and not a one of a kind project) is also foolish. I use many things in my business that I can't get from framing or art supply stores that are better solutions for projects we do and I probably accomplish them faster and more cost effectively as a result.

    Ironically, if you had asked framers what is Coroplast five years ago, I am willing to bet that they had never heard of it or used it. And, just because it is available from a major framing supplier (Larson) does not mean that the product that Larson carries is the "best" type of Coroplast to use for the job. Same for GATOR. Larson carries it, but it is NOT the most appropriate board for 99% of what I do and I source my GATOR elsewhere.

    I make my living doing what the OP is trying to do, and I have done so for 37 years. I am still in business because I use things that work and combine the most labor saving, cost effective materials with great concern to "doing no harm."
     
  5. shayla

    shayla WOW Framer

    I do tend to agree with what Francis said.
    Whatever he does, a gallery will be less likely to
    take his work if it basically looks like it's mounted
    to foam core. By mounting to gatorboard and
    framing, artwork looks finished, but on it's own,
    I think it would look less high quality than most
    galleries want to display.

    It sounds to me like if he's going to try to sell
    them unframed, then stretching them would at
    least make them look halfway finished.

    It sounds like, no matter what, he needs to be
    sure they're either coated or under some sort of
    protective glazing. Otherwise they're just too
    fragile and prone to damage. I read somewhere that
    printing on canvas isn't the greatest method for
    long term art anyway, because eventually the inks
    would crack and separate from the fabric, even if
    it took years. This was assuming the given of stretching,
    so if they were just mounted perhaps that would
    be less of an issue. What that says to me is that,
    given the potential for this sort of separation, and
    for fading over time, these prints are inherently prone
    to quality changes. Anyone wanting to create an artwork
    to last for generations might want to work in originals
    instead. The confusion seems to arise when many artists,
    and the public in general, assume that a print on canvas
    is going to have the same lasting ability as an original would.

    Just trying to process this.
     
  6. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Thanks, R. I understand the concern about floppiness.

    But why is a test of canvas on Coroplast, squished between one's fingers and held up to a raking light, not an adequate test?

    Is it possible we have different brands of Coroplast, because I can't see any ridges of the Coroplast showing through onto the canvas when I do this test. I can't even see the ridges when I use paper instead of canvas in this test.

    My canvas sample that I'm using for the test is pretty thick. It's Premier Art Water-Resistant canvas.

    Robert
     
  7. Jay H

    Jay H PFG, Picture Framing God

    Shayla, I've been working on a good sized art reproduction project. These paintings are 30-40 years old. Most of them have some oil paint coming off as one place or another. So you could argue that oil painting on canvas is inherently prone to quality changes. But I don't like printing on canvas anyway. I do it, but don't like it.

    The fading thing I just don't get. Anybody who has been framing longer than a week has seen LE prints faded away. I had one in my shop that had never been exposed to florescent or sun light to any serious degree. It's faded to nothing and I threw it away. I suspect the fading was caused more by heat than UV.

    I have inkjet prints that I use as advertisement that has been taped to my front window and shows signs of fading after 3 or 4 years. You just simply won't find a less desirable location for a print than this. These prints last, from my experience, many many times longer than more traditional inks we are used to dealing with. There really is no comparison. The constant drum beat that they fade is a really weird argument. Oh I guess an actual oil painting or pastel is much more colorfast than these prints but these prints would be a close second to those. By their very nature they are extremely colorfast. I don't see any issue with a printer stating that simple fact.
     
  8. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Thanks, Kristie. The jury is still out as to what approach I'll take. There are so many responses (and so many angles and caveats), I haven't even had a chance to read all of the responses yet! :confused::popc:

    Robert
     
  9. Jay H

    Jay H PFG, Picture Framing God

    Robert, however you decide to mount them is fine with me. My only suggestion from a marketing standpoint, as other have said, don't glue these to anything. They will look like Kmart junk. 99% of all photolabs and art publishers offer canvases two ways, rolled or stretched. Framers that print often mount them to various boards but they most often go directly into a frame. I can't think of any reputable art publishers that will glue a canvas to some flimsy board and try to sell them.
     
  10. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    The test by pressing does not in any way give you real life results. By glueing these pieces there will be moisture soaking into the canvas and making it more flexible. When it dries it will slightly shrink which will exagerate the lines from the fluting in the coroplast.

    Take a scrap of canvas much smaller than your image and glue it to the coroplast. You can pick up a piece of coroplast at any local sign shop or possibly a building supply store by the "FOR SALE" signs used on cars and homes being sold by owner. The total cost of you test should be in the $5-$10 range if that.
     
  11. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Gator:

    For this purpose - outgassing is not a concern as there will be no glass. In fact, there is probably more of a concern that the inkjet print is cured before top coating and the top coats are cured before mounting.[/QUOTE]

    Somebody here warned that the urea formaldehyde could seep out of the sides. (Forgive me for asking about this again. I can't remember if this was addressed already; the thread is getting so long it's becoming harder to go back to find specific advice.)

    I'm in Vancouver, Canada. I just did a cursory search and so far I found black and white locally.

    Robert
     
  12. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Thanks, Rob. You misunderstood me. I'm not averse to buying materials from out of town if they're not available locally. (I've even bought products from thousands of miles away and imported products from other countries when they weren't available close to home.)

    My point was that I don't want to buy all sort so materials and experiment with them before I'm fairly confident that I've made the best choices.

    Robert
     
  13. Kirstie

    Kirstie PFG, Picture Framing God

    Robert, you may want to attend the Photo Marketing Association connvention in February in Anaheim, CA. There are several classes on printing on canvas and canvas coatings that would address your needs perfectly. http://www.pmai.org/pma2010_home.aspx
     
  14. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Urea Formaldehyde can't "seep out the sides" and if someone said that they are incorrect.

    It is true that there is outgassing on gator, but if the package is opened and aired out, working with it is not problematic (we use it every day) - read their MSDS. Did you get one from Premier? It is important to have one for anything we work with, and in California, if you have employees, it is the law. (Right To Know)

    The concern is that if the gator is contained in a sealed package (framed under glass), in a purely archival setting (which we have already agreed your application is not), potential residual outgassing could be a problem.

    Your pieces are not in that kind of environment. Outgassing is not a factor.

    There are only a few good choices for your application (based on what you have told us):

    Some form of paper surfaced fome center board - bad choices for many reasons

    Gator - best possible choice. Buy some black (same properties as tan) and try it.

    4 ply conservation board laminated to coroplast - labor intensive and not cost effective.

    I would print out some tests, try mounting to these (and look at how much time it takes) and go for it.

    All of these options are best framed, with the rabbet of the frame lined with volara so the overcoated giclee does not glue itself to the interior of the frame.

    Mounting to Coroplast is just plain wrong.

    I still do not understand the resrvation of stretching these in the first place. Did I miss something?
     
  15. GUMBY GCF

    GUMBY GCF SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I am an Art Supply Store & we sell Gatorboard....Don't clump use altogether.....
     
  16. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Thanks, Jeff. You've misunderstood the standards that I'm going by. Just as with the coating/glassing controversy in this thread, the standards that you go by for edition consistency are unnecessarily stringent, impractical and idealistic.

    I've been in the art business for a long time. I've never heard of any artist or publisher that prints entire giclee editions at once. One of biggest advantages of giclee printing is being able to print on demand, so as to minimize the up-front investment of money, labor and storage requirements. Those advantages are lost if I have to print the entire edition up front.

    Even for editions of 100, printing entire editions upfront so as to maintain consistency of inks, paper and coating is impractical.

    My editions range from about 550 to 1,100 total, and are available in two, three or four sizes.

    I estimate roughly it would have cost me $1,500,000 to $1,750,000 to publish all of my existing 72 editions up front, and would require a warehouse to store them in! And that doesn't include the canvas editions that I'm about to print and mount and/or stretch!

    Your advice is bad for another reason. If I print an entire edition now, then five, ten and 20 years from now, my customers will be getting today's print technology. If I print on-demand instead, then five, ten and 20 years from now, my customers will be getting the superior print quality that will be available in the future, because in the future I'll be printing with superior printers, inks, media, computers, scanners and software.

    And yet another reason why your advice about this is pure poppycock is that probably most of my prints will never sell out (especially given the way the art market is crumbling more every year), so I'd be spending a fortune to print prints that I'd eventually end up dumping into recycling bins! As with other artists and publishers, only a minority of the images are popular.

    It's clear to me from the naiivté of you advice on this topic that you have little or no experience at producing or selling limited edition giclees.

    I certainly appreciate the fact that I'm getting free advice from the pros. Let there be no doubt about that.

    But of course not all of the advice is good, as exemplified by your advise about the necessity of having to pre-publish all of my prints and the other advice given to me that discredits canvas coatings. (Remember, the coating advice is coming from non-scientists like Rob Markoff, and he's contradicting various teams of scientists without any scientific studies of his own.)

    So I have to separate the wheat from the chaff, and naturally it's annoying to get advice that I know is preposterous.

    I've noticed a tendency in online forums to get advice from people who are overly stringent and particular.

    I see it also in the computer and fine art newgroups where I've sought advice.

    For example, in another fine art forum, another artist ridiculed me, claiming that if I paint on wooden panels, if I were a 'serious' artist, I'd buy four-by-eight-foot Baltic birch panels and sand them with a commercial sander (in my one-bedroom apartment, by the way). I am a serious artist, despite having ignored such ridiculously extreme, impractical and idealistic advice of the segment of perfectionist advisers.

    My art is regarded by most of my peers, gallery/frame shop owners and retail customers as sufficiently professional, and that's good enough for me.

    I can't please everyone, however. It's never possible to please everyone and perfection is unrealistic and unnecessary.

    Robert
     
  17. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Wow-

    Lots of issues here- but I cannot agree (as an art dealer) that there are "new standards" for POD vs conventional editions size that are all printed at once.

    If I understand you Robert, you feel that a print that is printed today on paper "x" with inkset "x" on printer "x" can be called the same edition as a print made in the future (of the same image) on paper "y" with inkset "y" and possibly on a new printer as well because the technology changed?

    Or even that there are two prints made at the same time but on different paper?
    That they could be numbered sequentially as 5/100 and then 6/100 and be part of the same edition?

    Sure doesn't fit into my philosophy. Digital printing is the new frontier and the fact that we can POD does change things, but my preference would be for an "edition" to have consistancy.

    I can't accept a series of etchings or stone lithos that had 4-5 made one
    month/year, then another 4-5 at another time and say that they are part of the same edition. Another state of the edition maybe, but they clearly are not the same edition and therefore, need some numbering or other indication that they were not made at the same time.

    To me, a "limited edition digital print" made a year apart of the same image on different paper with a different inkset on a different printer is hardly the same edition.


    On a separate note - you seem to think that I disagree with the findings of WIR. Again, I am being misinterpreted. What coatings advice? I advocate coatings. But I am realistic enough to understand that there are variables of application which will yield variables of thickness and as a result, the final product will be different than the test. Close, maybe, but different. And, there is NO way for a lay person or end user of the product(s) to know how thick 10 mils is.

    Am I the only one who finds irony in the instructions from Premier that says to test proper application thickness fold a corner, and if it cracks, put on a 4th or 5th coat? Is this "scientific"?

    Or to demonstrate water clean up of Eco Shield, that the application roller is rolled on a concrete driveway to remove excess material? (and that they don't say throw away the roller after you do this - and if you are throwing away the roller, why wash it out?) And if they don't expect you to throw away the roller, that somehow rolling it on a driveway to clean it does not impart a level of archivability or self respect for the process?

    Does anyone remember one of the first Vivian Kistler videos where she actually licked a hinge to moisten it to demonstrate hinging? Anyone see anything wrong with that?

    What I am saying is that results as presented are confusing and possibly ambiguous - and that personal experience has shown me that inkjet prints (and also conventional photochemistry) FADE, and often before the "life expectancy" ratings.

    I also believe there are those who have misinterpreted the data from the WIR and feel that "life expectancy" means that there will be no appreciable change in the image until "the meter runs out" and that suddendly the image will disappear.
     
  18. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Absolutely yes!:faintthud::D:soapbox::smileyshot22::thumbsup::D

    Unless you put the two prints next to each other, no one would know the difference! Besides, many original print makers boast about the fact that the prints in their editions vary from one another, i.e. due to mistakes made during printing or simply the desire to make the prints different from one another. They regard differences in the prints as an advantage – not a disadvantage.

    Robert
     
  19. Jay H

    Jay H PFG, Picture Framing God

    Man this is one super dynamic thread isn't it?

    Don't limit the edition if you want to print them that way. I don't believe in limiting digital prints but that's a different topic.

    If you wish to leave the image open enough to print it for years to come at your convenience then number them like this "Edition 2, Print _____ of 10" If you don't wish to print 10, then print 5 or 4 or 2. Each time you print them its a different edition. There is no real need to have edition 2 look like edition 5 or 10. I do think they should be on the same paper and same size. Basically they should very similar to be the same edition. Or better yet don't number them at all. Certianly there is no way to be dishonest in that case.

    Even though I think print 10/250 in the digital realm is bogus, I do think if you are going to number them like that, they probably should be printed in a short time line and they should look near identical. I've never heard that artist relish differences in their copies. Most I have ran into are so darn particular that I refuse to print for them. Most often any print with a flaw is rejected and they wouldn't ever pay for prints with flaws.

    That's my .02.
     
  20. JFeig

    JFeig SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    That come to approximately 1,100 to 4,400 prints from what you are saying. That is a lot of one image.... almost an open edition IMHO beyond what might be actually sold from my experience as a dealer as well as an appraiser, for a non "High Street" self published artist. What another artist might do is not relevant to the issue. What the industry considers proper relevant is.

    Again, I disagree with that concept. At least they should be called "monoprints" if there is intentional changes in the image. With your marketing plan, not print all at one time and with possible changes in paper - ink - etc the go beyond the scope of what the industry calls a limited edition or most state laws about multiple prints and possibly Canadian law - to which I have no knowledge.
     
  21. JFeig

    JFeig SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Correction:

    The last 2 sentences of my comment for the first quote were intended to be after the second quote.
     
  22. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Robert, in our world it either IS ARCHIVAL or it is NOT ARCHIVAL. Same standards apply in limited edition prints. Close enough falls into the NOT category on both cases. We understand you want to do what you want to do but we are explaining that your desires do not match your terminology. We have conceded that you can do as you wish but you have not met standards by doing so.

    You have explained that your peers use the close enough methods and that is very much a part of why the limited edition print market has turned to carp. Do what you want but if one of your buyers walks into my store, Rob's store or Jim's store the truth will come out. I believe that Rob has been used as an expert witness in court cases in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Should a claim arise against you he will print this thread to PROVE that you knew better but disregarded all standards in the interest of being profitable.

    I will draw another Grumbler into this thread who is a professional print maker/publisher. He will continue to educate you on the printing piece of the puzzle.
     
  23. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    As one of my heros said:

    You Can't Argue with a Sick Mind

    I'm done.
     
  24. jframe

    jframe <span style="color: red"><b><i>Charter Member</i><

    Don't blame you. You, Jim, Jeff, Hugh, others have gone above and beyond. It's swim or sink time.
     
  25. Blackcat

    Blackcat CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    Mr. Montgomery,

    Creating limited edition prints is a traditional way of allowing others to know how many prints were made, and yes, this does help give value to the work. Printmakers will also destroy the plate to ensure no more prints will ever be made, hence a limited edition would truly be limited. And the initial idea of LEs may have been based on the fact that it was so difficult to make many prints either due to plate degeneration or the labor in traditional printmaking methods which wouldn't relate to modern digitial prints where numerous copies can be made with relative ease, but if you don't like the system then don't use it. When you and others like you (referring to many digital artists) don't follow the standards of LEs, you tear away at the integrity of the tradition that so many others have used to help guarantee the quality and professionalism of their work.

    If you don't want to do LEs in the traditional sense, then why don't you simply number the pieces. This way there is no impression that each work will be the same as the next from a series. By the way, traditional printmakers are never proud of differences between limited edition prints as printmaking strives for accuracy and technique, however it allows for some minute differences due to the nature of the work. And in my opinion, minor differences in a LE of digital prints is unacceptable, including such things as using different papers, printers, sizes, or inks.

    Jay H has said in another thread that he believes limiting editions of digital prints is a marketing ploy that is needlessly applied to digital works since more prints can be made at any time. If you agree that it is just a marketing ploy, than why even bother to label them as LEs. I think to do so is simply a marketing ploy by digital artists to make them appear to be more professional and to give their work more value. And I know that some digital artists believe they can create a small limited edition of an image (for collectors and the like) but then also create more copies as they want for the random buyer, however I have also heard that this is illegal and may be constituted as fraud. I do not know for sure one way or the other, but it may be something you should look into just to be safe.
     
  26. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Why don't you complain to the company about the lack of information about UV on the Web site? Complaining about it here won't do any good. Tell the company to hire a professional editor to edit the copy on the Web site.

    Not yet. I've only bought a sample kit so far. and I don't know yet if I'll be continuing to use Eco Shield. I might switch to Breathing Color and it's Lyve canvas and Glamor II laminate.

    You're arrogant to assume that you know more than the scientists who devote their careers to the understanding of inkjet print permanance.

    Do you really think that all those scientists (at Wilhelm Imaging, Epson, Canon, H.P., etcetera) are so stupid and inept that they'd overook the fundamental issues of ultraviolet light and ozone and contamination re. inkjet coatings? Those are fundamental aspects of image permanence. They devote their careers to these technical issues, yet you imply that they're bungling idiots.

    Meanwhile, you make idiotic assumptions – like assuming that the Wilhelm reports claim that inkjet prints will suddenly start fading at the end of 65 years or 100 years or 150 years, or whatever the particular number of years the inkset/paper combination is rated for. No one said the prints suddenly start to fade after a certain number of years. You make things up.

    The acrylic paintings you allude to didn't have laminates. The laminates I'm referring to (Premier Art, Golden, Breathing Color, etc. recommend laminating or veneering to reduce the type of contamination problem you mention above. It says so right in their literature. You're apparently not reading the literature, and yet purporting to be an expert on the topic of laminating.


    Jim Miller and Hugh Phibbs also recommend acrylic top coats as an adhesive for other applications- so be careful that if the rabbet of the frame is not lined, the painting WILL adhere itself to the interior of the frame making it difficult to remove without damage.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for that tip, Rob.

    It's debatable as to whether or not the artist is responsible for educating customers about this. For example, if you buy a cotton shirt, there's no warning on the label that the shirt may shrink if washed in hot water. Almost all of my sales are to picture frame shop/art galleries. Those merchants bear at least some responsibility in educating the retail buyers.

    Why don't you complain to Golden Artist Colors that the quality of writing on it's Web site is lacking, and ask them to hire a professional writer or editor to improve the clarity of the info on its site? Complaining about it here will do no good.

    You're so picky! If you give some areas seven coats and some areas five coats (due to the imprecision of roll-coating that you're so worried about) you'd still be doubling the amount of coating recommended by Premier Art. It recommends two or three coats. You also have the option of spray coating.

    That's why your proposed six coats would come into play.

    Why don't you consult the tech support people at companies like Premier Art, to ask them about this?[/QUOTE]

    Another source of information is the FLAAR Digital Imaging Technology Center (http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/)

    You can also download the free FLAAR reports or contact the company for referrals for more info on varnishing of giclees. (http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/pdfs_fine_art_giclee_printers/listofpdf-reports.html). The organization has a ton of information.

    Robert
     
  27. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Why don't you complain to the company about the lack of information about UV on the Web site? Complaining about it here won't do any good. Tell the company to hire a professional editor to edit the copy on the Web site.

    Of course the Epson Web has a disclaimer. It does so to protect itself from super picky and skeptical people like you, who are never satisfied. Inkjet permanence is an inexact science, so the estimates are only that – estimates – but based on the best science available today. But that doesn't mean that their estimates of permanence aren't generally true.

    Not yet. I've only bought a sample kit so far. and I don't know yet if I'll be continuing to use Eco Shield. I might switch to Breathing Color and it's Lyve canvas and Glamor II laminate.

    You're arrogant to assume that you know more than the scientists who devote their careers to the understanding of inkjet print permanance.

    Do you really think that all those scientists (at Wilhelm Imaging, Epson, Canon, H.P., etcetera) are so stupid and inept that they'd overook the fundamental issues of ultraviolet light and ozone and contamination re. inkjet coatings? Those are fundamental aspects of image permanence. The researchers devote their careers to these technical issues, yet you imply that they're bungling idiots. Scientists are among the most skeptical people. They don't make claims easily.

    Meanwhile, you make idiotic assumptions – like assuming that the Wilhelm reports claim that inkjet prints will suddenly start fading at the end of 65 years or 100 years or 150 years, or whatever the particular number of years the inkset/paper combination is rated for. No one said the prints suddenly start to fade after a certain number of years. You make things up.

    The acrylic paintings you allude to didn't have laminates. The laminates I'm referring to (Premier Art, Golden, Breathing Color, etc. recommend laminating or veneering to reduce the type of contamination problem you mention above. It says so right in their literature. You're apparently not reading the literature, and yet purporting to be an expert on the topic of laminating.


    Jim Miller and Hugh Phibbs also recommend acrylic top coats as an adhesive for other applications- so be careful that if the rabbet of the frame is not lined, the painting WILL adhere itself to the interior of the frame making it difficult to remove without damage.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for that tip, Rob.

    It's debatable as to whether or not the artist is responsible for educating customers about this. For example, if you buy a cotton shirt, there's no warning on the label that the shirt may shrink if washed in hot water. Almost all of my sales are to picture frame shop/art galleries. Those merchants bear at least some responsibility in educating the retail buyers.

    Why don't you complain to Golden Artist Colors that the quality of writing on it's Web site is lacking, and ask them to hire a professional writer or editor to improve the clarity of the info on its site? Complaining about it here will do no good.

    You're so picky! If you give some areas seven coats and some areas five coats (due to the imprecision of roll-coating that you're so worried about) you'd still be doubling the amount of coating recommended by Premier Art. It recommends two or three coats. You also have the option of spray coating.

    That's why your proposed six coats would come into play.

    Why don't you consult the tech support people at companies like Premier Art, to ask them about this?[/QUOTE]

    Another source of information is the FLAAR Digital Imaging Technology Center (http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/)

    You can also download the free FLAAR reports or contact the company for referrals for more info on varnishing of giclees. (http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/pdfs_fine_art_giclee_printers/listofpdf-reports.html). The organization has a ton of information.

    Robert
     
  28. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Jay wrote:

    "The confusion and abrasiveness you are met with is in your own contradictions. You ask about "archival mounting" then say things like this:

    "..glass is better than the Premier Art coatings. But in my case, I think that the coatings will still last long enough that it won't matter."

    Rob and Jim aren't discussing shades of gray. It's either archival or not. I have no issue with the advice but do reprimand their unwillingness to see the bigger picture. Again some of that was your fault. The advice they are giving are spot on if you didn't have your restrictions (ability, desire, budget...). Acknowledge the difference between what is best for the art (which was your question) and what is the best way to produce your product for a fair price. The “educators” will not likely join you in that effort especially if you don't request it."

    But, as with other products and services, there are shades of gray when it comes to giclee image permanence. It's not an necessarily an issue of archival versus non-archival. There are degrees of archivability as well.

    "I applaud your interest in learning about all the possibilities. We so often see shoty photos printed on typing paper and matted in a $2 paper mat with the photographers signature right there on the junky mat. It's great to see somebody more conscious than that but in the end you will most certainly have to compromise on what is "archival" and what must be done to produce and sell your product. Even as framers doing custom work we make these compromises often when dealing with clients desires and budget. However we tend to not bend in hypothetical discussions about what is "archival" or not."

    I've noticed many shades of gray also regarding the quality of the framing done by picture framers. Some do exemplary archival framing. Some framers do shoddy framing. it's not only the artists and photographers who do shoddy work in this regard.

    "I heard once that Ford is not in the business of making cars. They are in the business of making money. You are not in the business of creating perfectly archival artwork. You are in the business of selling a product. There is a big difference. "

    Not true. It's not a black and white scenario. In the beginning, because of my ignorance, I was open to the possibility that I could make the prints as archival as a museum would want, but as the advice came in, I realized that that would be impractical because I want to keep the prices reasonable enough to be able to sell the prints, and I've mentioned this several times.

    I've indicated several times now, I have modified my stipulations, as I've been listening to the advice given here.

    Because of people's varying opinions as to what archival means, I'm still unsure, though, about how archival my giclees will be if go ahead with my current plan, which is to use:

    • my Epson 7600 printer
    • laminating with Eco Print Shield or Glamor II
    * gluing the canvas with Framk's Fabric glue
    * to Kraft-colored gatorboard
    • and perhaps applying volara to the rabbets, as Rob suggested. (Don't know anything about volara yet.)

    Exactly! Archival degrees vary, and also it's largely dependent on people's opinions. It's like asking "How much money do you have to have to be rich?" or "What's good art?" It's a matter of perspective.

    Robert
     
  29. Jay H

    Jay H PFG, Picture Framing God

    The traditional gimmick that artist have used is have one image and up to 6 or 7 different "editions". These prints roll off the same machine but are numbered creatively to increase profits. Ignoring the illegitimacy of that, after those prints are all gone, they change the dimensions two or three inches and release more prints. After those sell out they reduce the size a few more inches and release open edition prints that are printed off like wallpaper until the end of time. Please tell me how that is different than a digital artist producing prints of different sizes outside of the "origional" edition?
     
  30. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    "Jay, No one is suggesting that Mr. Montgomery not coat the canvases. He should not, however, consider them fade-proof or "archival."

    I never used the term 'fade-proof'. There's no such thing.

    Robert
     
  31. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Jay the difference is that reputable publishers follow the laws of all of the states and list all editions that will ever be produced at the get go. Your literature must list that there will be a total of 7 different editions with the varying sizes and total quantities. If you sell only in your gallery you must adhere to Kentucky law. Sell on the internet and you are now marketing and selling in every state in the country.

    Craigslist was recently sued by S.C. and they claimed they were not located here. The courts determined that since they sell and advertise by way of internet they must adhere strictly to S.C. law.

    One thing for Robert to consider is that since he brought this discussion to this public forum should anybody wish to take hime to court there is now a public record of hundreds of warnings to him that will turn up in a Google search of his name. Is it really the best idea to argue that industry standards mean nothing because you don't necessarily agree with how those standars have been developed over the centuries. Just because you wish it were different doesn't make it different. Any high end gallery that would display Robert's work will search the net for his credentials and learn that his standards are extremely low for the price point.

    Robert, do what you want but it is time for you to move on from this arguement that you will never win. The more you disregard industry standards here the easier it will be for galleries to see that your pieces are not produced to the standards of the high end market. The only difference between what you sell and my own Giclees on canvas are you put a numbering system on yours then charge 5 times what I do. Digital artists have turned the LE market into a joke and the consumer has caught on to it.
     
  32. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    I do produce originals. But it takes me too long to paint them to be able to make a living only from the originals. That's why I do print editions as well.

    Some prints last longer than some originals. It depends on the materials and methods used. My paper and canvas giclees will far exceed the permanence of watercolor originals or paintings painted on acidic materials like cardboard, for example.

    Robert
     
  33. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Thanks, Kristie.

    I'm not interested enough to attend, though. I'm an artist – not a framer. I don't like picture framing because it requires mechanical aptitude, which I'm lacking.

    Once I figure out how to mount and/or stretch my canvas giclees, I hope to be done with this issue and to get busy with producing the prints.

    I also need to get back to painting. I haven't been painting much lately because this research issue (and the various tangents) have been distracting me from my other work.

    I only drop in here once in a blue moon.

    Robert
     
  34. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Thanks, Rob for taking so much time to share your knowledge.

    I now plan to stretch the long, thin prints, and mount the wider ones.

    By doing this, I won't have to compromise by making my images smaller. I'd have to make some images smaller to wrap the canvas around the sides and backs of the deep stretcher bars I plan to use.

    Robert
     
  35. Tom Reigle

    Tom Reigle Guest

    WOW!!!



    That is about the only response that comes to mind after wading through this mess!!



    RM, ya might want to read my signature line
     
  36. Blackcat

    Blackcat CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    Jay, I am a little unclear on exactly what you are saying but here is my opinion on the issue I believe you are describing...

    A printmaker can only make an edition of his work in one size and everything else in the edition should be the same as well (same paper, inks, press, etc.) If they want to make a second edition, using the same plate, it is usually with either entirely different colors or after they have changed the image on the plate a bit so that the two editions do not look similar. For the digital artist to think that changing size or papers or anything else is okay within an edition is wrong. For a digital artist to continue making endless copies of an editioned image, even if they change the size, in my opinion this is also wrong. If they changed the actual appearance of the image, either through colors or they actually added or changed things within the image, and then made a new edition, I believe that's perfectly fine. Again, if digital artists want to just keep making copies of the exact same image but in different sizes and such, I just wish they would stop "editioning" them and simply number them. That way they are still identified as being part of the same series without the promise that those are the only "x" copies of that image.

    I hope that answered your question, but if not, could you please rephrase it.
     
  37. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Your idea is quite unrealistic. Again, you're dismissing one of the main advantages of giclees over the old offset litho printing by being against print on demand for fine art.

    Tell me please: How much money have you made by publishing giclees? I can answer that for you: not a #### of a lot. Unless you're rich. Only a rich person could afford to do it the way you propose. And then most of it would be a waste of time and money and effort in the end.

    It would be like a developer building houses, and paying all the associated costs and taxes, and then having the houses sit idle, in the hope that five, ten, twenty or thirty years down the road somebody might buy some of the properties. And the developer knows that only certain designs will sell well, and to varying degrees. No businessman in his right mind would run a business like that.

    Maybe you should write a book and call it "How to Go Bankrupt in 90 Days or Less". :smileyshot22::faintthud::nuts::rolleyes::eek:

    Robert
     
  38. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Excuse me? You referred to them in an earlier message as 'poop'!

    The process of rolling or spraying a laminate isn't scientific, but the chemistry that makes up the laminate is based on science.

    Again, if you don't understand, why not ask the manufacturer?

    Picture framing also has some weird tricks. I read something in another thread here advice to put beans in a sock and leave it overnight. (Can't remember how that's supposed to help to frame a picture, yet the advice is here, somewhere in this forum.) Just because the advice sounds odd, doesn't mean it doesn't work or that it's not logical. Maybe you just don't understand it.

    If you don't understand it you should ask the experts. This is a picture framing forum – not an inkjet permanence forum.

    For example, why not research about this on the inkjet.com Web site or the Yahoo wideformatprinting newsgroup, or research it with a search engine? You clearly have a great deal of curiosity, but you're looking for answers in the wrong place.

    Robert
     
  39. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Do you have $2 million handy that you can mail me, so I can do it to your standards? I'd need to reprint about 65,000 prints and then rent a warehouse to store them in. Thanks. I'm looking forward to getting your cheque in the mail. You're another one of these people that says basically, "Do it my way" to be ethical, but you have no practical experience as a giclee publisher.

    "If you wish to leave the image open enough to print it for years to come at your convenience then number them like this "Edition 2, Print _____ of 10"

    I've never seen it done that way. And nobody but you would understand what it means.

    I agree, but it's not practical for them to be identical, for the reasons I gave before.

    That would decrease the value of the giclees.

    It's not much more bogus than it was in the pre-digital realm.

    Serigraphers, woodblock printers, etchers, lithographers, etcetera, could also fool people by claiming that they had destroyed their screens, woodblocks, etching plates, and limestone images, when maybe they hadn't.

    As has always been the case, there's an element of trust; the artist or atelier is trusted to be honest.

    Robert
     
  40. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    If I were going to disregard all standards in the interest of being profitable, I wouldn't have spent days on this research project, and wouldn't have started this thread. I think this should be obvious.

    Robert
     
  41. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    This is a common misconception that outsiders don't comprehend. Modern digital prints of the high quality (such as mine) cannot be made with relative ease[/I][/B]. How could you compare top-flight giclees such as mine with potato prints, or one- or two-color serigraphs?

    And just as with the degree of archivability, there are also degrees of originality in printing: the use of automatic and semi-automatic serigraphy presses and the use of photo stencils for lithography.

    I've read such malarkey from other ignorant outsiders. "It's easy to be a photographer" they claimed haughtily. "It's easy to be a desktop publisher," and "It's easy to be digital artist". Whenever you hear such know-it-all criticisms, it's always from people who have no serious, real world, experience at the task that they claim is to easy. How much money have you made as an artist publishing repro giclees? None to little, I'm sure, or you wouldn't have such a condescending and foolish attitude toward my profession.

    That's false. Many traditional artists relish the differences among their prints. And many artists embellish their prints on purpose to make them unique. That applies to digital repro and traditional artists.

    Pardon me, but I don't need advice on these issues. About a million dollars worth of my art (and the framing that was added to it) has sold in about 130 art galleries, and by five publishing and art distribution companies (including the world's largest poster publishing conglomerate). My archival giclees have been exported to at least 18 countries. I'm a veteran artist. I'm a master giclee printmaker and an adviser to artists. Clearly, you have no clue of what's involved in being a giclee artist and are not qualified to advise me on how to print, sign, number or market my giclees and what legal issues I should look into.

    If your idealistic standards were adhered to, there would be little limited edition art available because the costs would drive the artists and publishers out of business.

    If you want me to do it your way, send me a cheque for $2 million so I can afford to print my giclees you think they should be printed and I'll guarantee you 25 percent of the proceeds of my sales. I promise not to squander the money on things other than reprinting my editions from scratch. Since you live in a wonderful Utopia where everything is possible, I'm sure it won't be a problem for you to come up with the money.

    Robert
     
  42. RParrish

    RParrish PFG, Picture Framing God

  43. Jay H

    Jay H PFG, Picture Framing God

    There are tons of artists that produces prints. Off that run of identical prints they pull say 10 off the stack and calls them "Studio Proof". Ohh man these are pricy because there are only 10. Then they grab a stack of say 20 off the pile and call them "Publishers Proof". There are slightly less expensive because there are twice as many but only a few people will ever own a print from this "edition". Then they grab a few hundred off the pile and call them "Artists Proofs". This is a very profitable colloection of prints. No they don't fetch the price of the previous two "editions" but there are ton of em and they cost about 50% more than the regular edition. Then you're left with a 4' tall pile of prints that are called "standard numbered". There is no difference in any of these prints except the price and how they were numbered. Now print this same image on canvas and invent 3 or 4 editions out of thin air and release them. Now if all that sales out then just change the size a few inches and shove them out the door like wallpaper! I guess legally they are transparent about how many prints are out there. That doesn't make it "right" in my eyes.

    This is a several year old tradition. Most everybody (framer/art gallery) knows exactly what I'm talking about. The art market has self destructed because of these games of artificially limiting art for the sake of the all mighty dollar. Is this new to you?

    I agree and it all boils down to integrity and professionalism. Maybe legalities also but that's hardly the case reguarless of how that scare tactic is used. As long as the artists intent is to make it clear just how much (or little) an edition is limited then the law will certainly agree.

    Call it numbers, editions, collections or what ever, the goal is transparency and not altering price, not value, not supply/demand. If I buy a print that say 2/250 what does that mean? What does that mean to the public? We will never agree to exactly what that means. I'll bet we could agree on what it reasonably means as long as honestly creating a history of the image is the goal and not a marketing scheme.

    Robert says that not numbering his images would devalue the work. That thought primarily exists in the this art community. There is very little historical relevance to that statement. All art, music, concerts, plays, cd's, dvds,..... is limited by some natural factor. Including artificial limitations does very little or nothing to increase the value. Rather it be through marketing, value, demand, or quality sells. Bad art even in a limited supply won't.

    I think I'll move this conversation over to the thread about LE prints. Robert is clearly just here to argue with anybody over everything they say. I mostly agree with him on this issue and he has asked me for 2 mil also.

    Carry on.
     
  44. JFeig

    JFeig SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

  45. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Not exactly.

    When discussing a particular product or procedure in a specific context, its protective value may be judged in absolute terms, based on certain characteristics that may serve to protect a particular item framed, or not, or may actually cause harm to it.

    But when discussing a completed assembly, protective value can not be judged absolutely. A framing assembly can not be described as absolutely protective, or absolutely not. It isn't that simple.

    Every part and procedure that goes into a picture frame affects the protective value of the whole assembly, either positively or negatively. That is, each method and material ought to be individually judged on its merit or detriment for the item to be framed. Protective framing is not an all-or-nothing, black-or-white issue. It is a matter of degree or, to use Robert's words, 'shades of gray'.

    For example, if you toss a giclee onto a busy street, you do nothing to protect it. If you place it on a table indoors, that's better. If you cover it with something (presumably transparent), it would help to protect the art. Further protection would come from closing the item's environment from air circulation, dust, airborne oils, vapors, chemical contaminants, temperature and humidity changes, and mechanical damage. Using chemically neutral, long-term stable materials and UV-filtering glass or acrylic would assure longer life. And finally, intelligent handling, packaging, transit, storage, and display would complete the preservation effort and provide the best protective value for nearly any art.

    If you frame a poster with UV-filtering glass, should you call it "archival" framing? No, but that single feature of the framing may extend the poster's useful life by a number of years, so it definately is a protective feature.

    As a side note, "archival" and "museum grade" are terms I generally do not use or encourage in framing discussions, since they have no clear definitions applicable to framing. Likewise, "conservation" is done by conservators, not by framers. I prefer the terms "protective" or "preservation" to describe framing intended to protect or preserve an item in a frame. These words have clear definitions that are applicable to framing.
     
  46. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    What? You haven't been misinterpeted. You were so sure that the coatings are ineffective that you called me and the others who believe in coating 'delusional', '[poisoned] Kool-Aid drinkers' and you described the coatings as 'poop'.

    You are the one who has misinterpreted the Wilhelm Imaging Resources report results.

    If you're so sure that they're ineffective, why not go to the press and blow the cover off of this scandal?

    After all, millions of innocent printers and artists and photographers and average Joes are being misled by the false claims being made by the manufacturers and Wilhelm.

    Rob, you can become famous overnight and get front page news coverage and TV and radio coverage, and do all sorts of interviews, and write a book and get rich, because you've got the inside scoop. You've got proof that the coatings for inkjet prints – that are said to last for decades with coating – are ineffective and that the cherished, expensive giclees people are sweating over and paying big bucks for are just a corporate and independent testing lab rip-off.

    You can become a hero by exposing this fraud and blowing the whistle and holding those scoundrels responsible to account, with your valid scientific reports (I mean your opinions) and in the process you'll make the scientists look like fools and they'll all be fired.

    Robert
     
  47. framerbob

    framerbob CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    Is it just me, or is anyone else having a hard time believing that an artist who has sold millions of dollars worth of his works through major publishers and throughout the world and who calls himself “a master giclee printmaker and an adviser to artists” has turned to an internet framing forum in order to find a cheap way to mount and sell prints made on a personal printer

    But then again, I probably shouldn’t be posting this because despite the fact he RM came here “asking” for advise; us simple framers are “not qualified to advise me on how to print, sign, number or market my giclees”:shrug:
     
  48. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Or reinvest some of the profits in a New and Larger printer. While these Epsons are not free they certainly aren't expensive either.
     
  49. framah

    framah PFG, Picture Framing God

    Was thinking the same thing. He can't afford a 9900 yet he is apparently one of the premier artists and printers out there.

    So far, all i hear is talk from him and nothing to back up his assertions of proficiency.

    How about offering a link to your website so we can all see for ourselves your artistic abilities.
     
  50. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    There's no conflict in anything I wrote. If you know the art market today, you know that customers' prime interest is low price. In case you have been on another planet for the last year, we've just been through the biggest recession in 80 years and employment in the U.S. and Canada is still rising. The latest news now also is that one in six Americans uses food banks.

    And one of the wisest things a businessman can do is to make his business more profitable is to minimize his costs.

    And as was pointed out (I think by Jeff) there's a tremendous amount of knowledge in the collective intelligence of the framing experts here. Why not tap into that for free? It makes perfect sense to me. Why do you call yourself a 'simple framer'? Don't be so humble! :D I never said – or even implied – that the framers here are 'simple' when it comes to framing.

    Why would it seem odd that a professional artist would seek advice from professional picture framers about how to mount his art? Your criticism is bizarre. Who am I supposed to ask for advice on this topic: the little old ladies in a basket-weaving club?

    The Internet is "Internet University". Online forums have been a godsend for me.

    And why should I traipse from picture framer to picture framer to ask my questions? Here I get advice from dozens of experts at once, all of whom share their ideas with me and simultaneously with each other!

    Also, you misquoted me. I never wrote that I 'made millions' from my art. That's not what I wrote, nor did I even vaguely imply that.

    I just have to be smart enough to be able to discern, the good, appropriate advice from the bad, inappropriate advice.

    Advice about how or whether I should sign and number my prints and seek legal advice about my giclees has nothing to do with the question I posed here (which was how to archivally mount a giclee print onto canvas) and of course it's annoying to be told by people who know nothing about those things how I should conduct those aspects of my business.

    It's called professional pride. You're picture framers – not artists. I'm sure that a lot of you would be offended if I (being ignorant about framing) lectured you about how you should frame your pictures and run your businesses.

    And I think most professional artists and photographers who spent a lot of time and effort researching how to protect their art against fading would be offended if someone who claims to be an expert on art permanence attacks them for putting s__t on their art and calls them delusional and poisoned Kool-Aid drinkers. It's clear that people like Rob are very knowledgeable about framing, but he doesn't know a hill of beans about inkjet varnishing.

    Thanks, everyone, for your input! I truly appreciate the help on the picture framing-related info.

    Robert
     
Sponsor Wanted

Share This Page

Wizard Ad