Mounting a large print on masonite

[AgX]

This thread made me realize that I never ever came across Masonite.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, I don't intend to offend anyone .... the less "archival" the mounting is, that will just thin out the mountain of ugly oversized Fauxtoshopped inkjet prints the next generation has to figure out how to get rid of. But Chris - facemounting done right can be lovely. It's just kinda ironic
in a thread advocating acidic, formaldehye-fumey, sulphur-speckled pulp-wood mounting. I did quite a bit of facemounting at one time, and
it was a minimum thousand dollar upcharge per print. With today's optically-coated plexi, I'd realistically want double that upcharge for even
a moderate sized prints. Really big spliced ones can cost tens of thousands of dollars to mount that way. But I don't print billboard-sized stuff
myself. Never will.

 

[nsurit]

Update from original post. Print is 10" X 60" and was mounted on a box made of 1X4 lumber and masonite. Sides painted black. Print stuck to box with either a gloss or mat medium (Golden) and then weighted down to dry. Looks great. Was not intended to be archival. If it lasts 20 to 30 years it will outlast me. It is a piece in a show to give context to the other work. There will be two other similar presentations in the show. I will try to remember to post images here. Bill Barber

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just as long as folks understand important distinctions. Our company here does cut down thousands of pieces of Masonite Duolux (the smoothest variety) a year - entire pallet loads - for a particular photographic interest/event. But this is a temporary event, and they do things totally different for any museum collection. And they also put a little slip of Saran Wrap or some other plastic between the print and the masonite. Some of the nasties of these kinds of boards can be sealed in with true shellac, but that kinda defeats the ability of water-based glues to soak in too.

 

[removed account4]

Oh, I don't intend to offend anyone .... the less "archival" the mounting is, that will just thin out the mountain of ugly oversized Fauxtoshopped inkjet prints the next generation has to figure out how to get rid of. But Chris - facemounting done right can be lovely. It's just kinda ironic
in a thread advocating acidic, formaldehye-fumey, sulphur-speckled pulp-wood mounting. I did quite a bit of facemounting at one time, and
it was a minimum thousand dollar upcharge per print. With today's optically-coated plexi, I'd realistically want double that upcharge for even
a moderate sized prints. Really big spliced ones can cost tens of thousands of dollars to mount that way. But I don't print billboard-sized stuff
myself. Never will.

when did i say or even suggest plak mounting, mounting on masonite, making light jet prints &c was archival ...or i was offended ?

i amused how you equate well done "trade show" stuff as an elvis rug on the wall of a double wide trailor
and of course, the way you posture as ... well ... DREW ...

good times!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nobody uses masonite for trade shows either. Too heavy. Just fomecare at best, maybe inkjet directly on Sintra. Nobody cares. Three days later it all gets thrown away anyway. Otherwise, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

 

[removed account4]

Nobody uses masonite for trade shows either. Too heavy. Just fomecare at best, maybe inkjet directly on Sintra. Nobody cares. Three days later it all gets thrown away anyway. Otherwise, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

thanks for the info, its newz to me .. !

 

[DREW WILEY]

I sure haven't been seen it done that way in a long time. I've attended a lot of trade shows and even organized quite a few of them. Things gotta be portable and fast to set up. I don't think I've even seen a mfg logo printed on masonite for a couple decades. Big sign shot across the street never uses it. Sintra took over well back. And fomecore is actually cheaper than any of the good grades of masonite. But customs might
differ elsewhere. Masonite is messy stuff in a shop.

 

[Rick A]

I was at Silver Eye Gallery in Pittsburgh a couple of weeks ago, and almost all the large prints were mounted on masonite. Of course, they were all printed digitally.

 

[Chris Lange]

99% of people will use materials that are subpar from the best to mount/present their artwork, whether they are photographers, painters, or printmakers. The remainder will take the time/spend the money/live on ramen in order to go all out. This has always been the case. I refuse to even think about using anything other than 8 ply for my windows.

That said, not every occasion demands the best, but as an artist I think it is my responsibility to provide it nonetheless.

 

[removed account4]

in addition to what you said chris,
there is a difference between images used for presentation and
decorative purposes and something that is sold as " high art "
personally, i would rather get my work out there, and offer someone an inexpensive alternative
to a 2k mount job for a print whose life expectancy is 70 years at most.

and the people i have sold to really dont mind that ...

 

[DREW WILEY]

As long as there's no misrepresentation about expectations. Let me give you an example. A local dealer of very expensive, irreplaceable classic
19th century images (selling for quite a few thousands of dollars apiece), made the mistake of storing them on shelving of this kind of material.
Collectors bought the images (which naturally weren't toned with most stable compounds way back then)... pull out their portfolio boxes six
months later, and no image! Just an ugly stain. So the dealer ends up facing about a hundred grand loss out of his own pocket, uninsured, plus
the accusation of fraud. The sad thing, is that he took the word of an eccentric art conservator in Britain who only knew about conserving
sculptures, and never sought a second opinion. ...Er, rather rejected it with some cusswords as I recall... But C prints actually do a little better on masonite because the silver is fixed out and only a dye image remains. But in humid conditions (especially) the contaminants in the
board will eventually discolor the paper itself. Some adhesives help isolate things a bit.

 

[nsurit]

As I was the one who stated this thread I'll post a couple of images of my nearly completed mounted print. Frame build of 1X4 lumber. Masonite top. Sides painted black. Golden gloss gel cut with water. 80% gel/20% water. Brushed heavily on the masonite. Print applied to masonite. Rolled with paper protecting the print to even gel. Weighted down overnight. Edges trimmed. I still need to run a black marker around the edges to get rid of the white line from the paper trim. Image is six consecutive frames of 35mm to give context to 18 other images about this person.

 

[nsurit]

Oh, the image is six feet long. The ruler in the front is a 4ft ruler.

 

[lxdude]

You're in Texas. Shouldn't you be using dixonite?

 

[analoguey]

As I was the one who stated this thread I'll post a couple of images of my nearly completed mounted print. Frame build of 1X4 lumber. Masonite top. Sides painted black. Golden gloss gel cut with water. 80% gel/20% water. Brushed heavily on the masonite. Print applied to masonite. Rolled with paper protecting the print to even gel. Weighted down overnight. Edges trimmed. I still need to run a black marker around the edges to get rid of the white line from the paper trim. Image is six consecutive frames of 35mm to give context to 18 other images about this person. View attachment 85160

Looks pretty good, I'd say. Great idea!

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's not uncommon in the world of both photography and photolithography for clients to pay far more for the framing than the print is worth,
if the intended application is decor. Presentation can be important. Without mentioning any names, I can think of some disgustingly kitchy
nature photographers who basically just make giant Photoshopped postcards, but present them in a marketable manner (at least according to
the taste - or lack of it) of their target clientele. These giant color images are of course going to be displayed under big windows or banks of
UV-intense lighting, so will probably start visibly fading within a decade. But the people who buy this kind of thing don't care. They'll just throw the thing out, even if it cost thirty thousand bucks, and put up something else to match the new furniture. So lack of "archival" considerations is certainly not something restricted to temporary or inexpensive framing techniques.

 

[gone]

Uh, if you coat masonite w/ acrylic gesso it will last decades. Seen it w/ my own eyes. I'm an artist and deal w/ archival issues every day. There are oil paintings made on plain old wood that are over a hundred years old. Everything has to be shown and stored in an archival manner. of course. Painters have been painting on masonite as long as it was invented. You cannot paint or mount directly to it. I have seen paintings on properly sealed cardboard that are over 50 years old.

The problem w/ gluing a photograph to something is that it will not be allowed into a museum context. They require that the work be able to be removed from whatever it is mounted on in a manner that will not damage the piece. I doubt my work will end up in MOMA, so I will sometimes go this route, but be warned that many big galleries follow the same protocols.

I used to share a New Mexico studio w/ another artist. She was sued by a buyer that bought her work when she used inferior techniques and the piece began to fall apart years later. if it is "art" it has to exhibit the qualities of art, and relative permanency is crucial, unless you are up front in the beginning and furnish a signed statement to the buyer indicating such.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You're confusing "archival" standards for certain painting media with photographic standards. Whole different ballgame. Completely different. But even if it was the same, what makes you think art store "gesso" does not itself contain any adulterant harmful to the image?

 

[removed account4]

As I was the one who stated this thread I'll post a couple of images of my nearly completed mounted print. Frame build of 1X4 lumber. Masonite top. Sides painted black. Golden gloss gel cut with water. 80% gel/20% water. Brushed heavily on the masonite. Print applied to masonite. Rolled with paper protecting the print to even gel. Weighted down overnight. Edges trimmed. I still need to run a black marker around the edges to get rid of the white line from the paper trim. Image is six consecutive frames of 35mm to give context to 18 other images about this person. View attachment 85160

thanks for posting this !
that's impressive, and must be something-else
in person ..

john

 

[nsurit]

Thank you for your kind words. The exhibit is of three individuals I have known for some time. Each, in their own way is a collector as am I. Some might say hoarders. Each of the three is printed in a different alternative process. The three used are cyanotype, kallitype and ziatype. These long pieces are used to give context to the person and their stuff. I'm not complete with the printing however expect to have about 50 images in 20 X 24 frames in addition to the three context pieces. Although I had no intention of making these three as archival prints, I imagine with the gloss gel between the masonite and the image, they should last for some time. They also were not made to be sold. I began this thread looking for answers and have included the answers of "How to do it" should anyone else decide to undertake this relatively easy project. Pretty sure I may do this again in the future. Bill Barber

 

[dvornik]

I was looking into masonite and a friend of mine has forwarded this solution he saw at a gallery in NYC (sintra on masonite). Printed and mounted by Laumont. He said it looked great. Laumont have confirmed it was their job. But generally it looks like mounting shops avoid masonite for some reason.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If the term "archival" happens to come up, masonite is a big no-no.