Author | Thread |
|
09/28/2005 10:05:15 PM · #1 |
I was playing around with some framing ideas in my free time today and came up with one that is a little interesting. It's a bit difficult to see what I have done in the photo so I'll explain...
This wooden frame is designed for a small shadow box application. The frame is 1.5" deep, so it's a good bit deeper than the average frames (1/2" or less).
Step 1:
I sandwiched my photograph between two 11x14 sheets of glass (cleaning the glass thoroughly is important here) and then I taped and trimmed the edges to help hold the glass together. I placed the glass in the frame.
Step 2:
I cut 4 strips of black foamcore to line the inside of the frame, leaving 1/8" of depth available in the frame. I used acid free double sided tape to hold the foamcore on the inside edges of the frame (this is a standard shadowbox technique.)
Step 3:
I cut a piece of colored (to match my print colors) mat board to fit in the back of the frame and stapled it in place.
Step 4:
I put the dust cover on the back along with the hanging hardware.
This technique makes the photo appear to be floating in the frame. Use of museum grade glass (which i did not use here) would really make it appear to be floating.
I'm interested in seeing any unique framing you have done.. feel free to post photos here... |
|
|
09/28/2005 11:08:08 PM · #2 |
That's a great idea and a very nice effect.
I would think that the sandwiched print will be doubly protected from the elements, especially if you used the UV protection glass and will keep the print perfectly flat. I'm just wondering if the print will have a tendency to slip as the tape holding the glass together ages and loosens some. |
|
|
09/28/2005 11:16:13 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi: That's a great idea and a very nice effect.
I would think that the sandwiched print will be doubly protected from the elements, especially if you used the UV protection glass and will keep the print perfectly flat. I'm just wondering if the print will have a tendency to slip as the tape holding the glass together ages and loosens some. |
I guess i forgot to include one minor step... I place one small bit of acid free double sided tape on the back of the print so it would not slip inside the glass.
In this particular frame, I did not use UV filtering glass since the project was an experiment. If I did choose to use UV filtering glass, I would only use it on the outside glass. It would not be required on both sides. |
|
|
09/29/2005 01:17:46 AM · #4 |
I like the look. You need not only clean glass but a really accurate placement of the print on the glass.
I thought you mentioned in one of the other threads on framing that the print shouldn't contact the glass directly (needs a mat). Does this technique place any limits on the life of the print or anything? |
|
|
09/29/2005 07:07:07 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: I like the look. You need not only clean glass but a really accurate placement of the print on the glass.
I thought you mentioned in one of the other threads on framing that the print shouldn't contact the glass directly (needs a mat). Does this technique place any limits on the life of the print or anything? |
I use a similar technique. I have done floating mounts but mostly leave a white space around the image. I've found that glossy paper tends to be pressure and heat sensitive. I either use matte or lustre (E-surface) papers. My technique can be viewd here: //www.newfoundlandrepublicimaging.com/pages/information.html As John mentioned it's very important to make sure the glass is extra clean. Insofar as the paper touching the glass, if there is an air tight seal, there shouldn't be a problem; by laminating and taping the seams you effectively isolate the print from the airborne contaminants that would normally affect a print.
|
|
|
09/29/2005 07:42:20 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: I like the look. You need not only clean glass but a really accurate placement of the print on the glass.
I thought you mentioned in one of the other threads on framing that the print shouldn't contact the glass directly (needs a mat). Does this technique place any limits on the life of the print or anything? |
I don't have the contact issues with true matte papers... |
|
|
09/29/2005 08:11:21 AM · #7 |
Looks lovely. Have seen this before in art shops etc but would never have thought of doing something like it myself. Excellent idea.
|
|
|
09/29/2005 09:41:11 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler: Originally posted by GeneralE: I like the look. You need not only clean glass but a really accurate placement of the print on the glass.
I thought you mentioned in one of the other threads on framing that the print shouldn't contact the glass directly (needs a mat). Does this technique place any limits on the life of the print or anything? |
I don't have the contact issues with true matte papers... |
I don't have the contact issues with "true" matte papers either nor do I with E-surface papers. Glossy paper I do have issues with in this type of application.
|
|
|
09/29/2005 12:21:01 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by orussell: Originally posted by jmsetzler: Originally posted by GeneralE: I like the look. You need not only clean glass but a really accurate placement of the print on the glass.
I thought you mentioned in one of the other threads on framing that the print shouldn't contact the glass directly (needs a mat). Does this technique place any limits on the life of the print or anything? |
I don't have the contact issues with true matte papers... |
I don't have the contact issues with "true" matte papers either nor do I with E-surface papers. Glossy paper I do have issues with in this type of application. |
I have had the problem with papers like Epson's premium luster paper... |
|
|
09/29/2005 12:33:22 PM · #10 |
The Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl works fine for me. The Ilford Gallerie Smooth Glossy is a different story, as are all the glossies I've tried to laminate. As I said very pressure and heat sensitive (I solder my copper foil tape).
Your problem could have something to do with pigment inks because they are more viscous than the dye based inks. Just a thought.
Thanks for letting me know about the premium luster in any case. I don't often use it but I'll be sure not to laminate it just in case.
|
|
|
09/29/2005 01:10:24 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler: I don't have the contact issues with true matte papers... |
OK, so it's a pressure problem (getting Newton's Rings) with glossy papers? Thanks for the clarification! I almost always get prints on matte/lustre papers. |
|
|
09/29/2005 03:41:14 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by jmsetzler: I don't have the contact issues with true matte papers... |
OK, so it's a pressure problem (getting Newton's Rings) with glossy papers? Thanks for the clarification! I almost always get prints on matte/lustre papers. |
Most places where you buy prints sell a 'matte' that is actually like a luster. They aren't real matte papers. The real matte papers have no reflectivity at all.. the are more like a white card stock, but not quite as thick. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 11:02:06 PM EDT.