Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Acrylic face-mounting

Acrylic face-mounting

2016-09-17 by goch@...

Do any of you have experience with Bay Photo Lab's "acrylic mounting" or equivalent?


Bay Photo simply describes this as "lustre or metallic photo prints face mounted to a crystal clear acrylic surface". I understand all the words, of course, but have no idea how a lustre surface print would be "face mounted" to acrylic. Any idea what they do? From the appearance of their products it appears that the front surface of the print actually adheres to the acrylic. What adhesive or process could be used?


This is not something I would routinely do, but it might make a nice gift for someone not addicted to "museum quality, archival" printing, mounting and presentation. Yes, I could simply buy the service, but I enjoy putting as much of my own skill and labour into gifts as I reasonably can.


Myron


RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

2016-09-17 by Jim Bechtel

There are a couple of ways to go at this.. Their process is to use a laminating film (adhesive both sides) and a laminator (a machine that used rollers to feed the job thru) the better films use heated rollers. The image stock you choose typically wants to be smooth so that you get a total surface mesh between the image and the acrylic.. You can use the same process to mount a sheet of aluminum or a second sheet of acrylic to the back of the job.. Then the print is basically encapsulated.. You don’t want to use a stock that has texture to it as that will leave micro air pockets which you’ll read..

 

You can use an acrylic that has a UV protection and if you use the right adhesive films the process can be said to be archival.. The other way to do this is to use a silicone adhesive but this process is much more involved (commonly known and Diasec face mounting) .. Both John C and myself played with these processes a while back.. I still have cases of silicon here.. Unless it’s changed the most expensive photograph ever sold was a large Diasec image encapsulated using silicon.. About 3 million or something like that .. can’t remember now..

Anyway, using either way the images display very well.

 

jimbo
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 6:34 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

 

  

Do any of you have experience with Bay Photo Lab's "acrylic mounting" or equivalent?

 

Bay Photo simply describes this as "lustre or metallic photo prints face mounted to a crystal clear acrylic surface".  I understand all the words, of course, but have no idea how a lustre surface print would be "face mounted" to acrylic.  Any idea what they do? From the appearance of their products it appears that the front surface of the print actually adheres to the acrylic. What adhesive or process could be used? 

 

This is not something I would routinely do, but it might make a nice gift for someone not addicted to "museum quality, archival" printing, mounting and presentation.   Yes, I could simply buy the service, but I enjoy putting as much of my own skill and labour into gifts as I reasonably can.

 

Myron

 



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13027 - Release Date: 09/16/16



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

2016-09-17 by John Castronovo

Good post Jim, but I wanted to toss in my 2 cents.

The print you mention was reported sold by the photographer himself, Peter 
Lik, for over 5 million dollars in a private sale to an unknown buyer, so 
there's no proof of any of it. None of his work has sold in the secondary 
market, so the value and the whole thing has been highly questionable, 
bordering on fraud. I'm also pretty sure his work is done using the first 
method of adhesive coated Mylar rather than silicone, but that part doesn't 
matter.

I have a problem with the whole concept of putting a high value on these 
prints because they're an accident waiting to happen. Drop one on the corner 
or scratch the plastic and you have nothing. A print in a traditional frame 
with protective museum grade acrylic glazing is far more worthy of an 
investment in my opinion because it can be curated. Even ancient pottery can 
be restored if it's been shattered to bits, but not these. Prints can also 
delaminate from the plastic over time due to environmental conditions.

Acrylic face mounting a print certainly has a great and slick look, and it 
will last longer than a print that's not sealed - so long as it's not 
physically damaged. I used to do a lot of this kind of work, but I never 
marketed it as collectible fine art. It's commercial decor to be enjoyed 
today rather than a wise fine art investment expected to hold value for 
future generations. There are many, including myself, who believe that the 
process can even reduce the value of a print.

IMHO
jc
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message----- 
From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

You can use an acrylic that has a UV protection and if you use the right 
adhesive films the process can be said to be archival.. The other way to do 
this is to use a silicone adhesive but this process is much more involved 
(commonly known and Diasec face mounting) .. Both John C and myself played 
with these processes a while back.. I still have cases of silicon here.. 
Unless it’s changed the most expensive photograph ever sold was a large 
Diasec image encapsulated using silicon.. About 3 million or something like 
that .. can’t remember now..

Anyway, using either way the images display very well.

RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

2016-09-18 by Jim Bechtel

Hi John … I’m doing this out of memory.. I honestly tried to do a search to find the images..  This is not a Peter Lik photo. It was actually two pieces … as I recall… they were either 4x8’s or 5x10’s.. The two images were of a store or produce display in a market.. and they were hung one over the other I think ….maybe side by side... So a duo tic if you will.  They were about 3M but might have been like 2.8 or something like that .. It’s honestly been too long …. I can’t remember …sorry..  I will try to track it down and follow up.. So I’ll be digging.. The work I’m referring too I know was done with silicon not a film as that piece had me look at what you and I started playing with.. It was done by the folks that do Diasec face mounting …I originally saw the image on a web site of a firm that did the Diasec process..  Ok here we go I found it I got lucky…  https://www.slrlounge.com/2-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world/  It’s the forth one down by Andreas Gursky ..It was “auctioned” at Sotheby’s..  take the time if you will to check out the pieces listed.. Lik is way down the list.. there are a few pieces on the list face mounted.. so interesting maybe.. Note Robert Mapplethorpe’s pic of Andy … #26.. I totally love the originality of the framing.. Wowser…

 

As far as your point regarding high value.. I understand where you’re coming from. I was however coming from a totally different place on this one. We’ve discussed Liks outrageous pricing and a few others way back when ..My point here was simply to show that a face mounted print had value.. At the time It was touted as the highest priced photograph back then.. 

 

As far as your fraud comment.. I think that’s more of a personal opinion.. I honestly can’t mess with that and for me it would wrong to do so….. we are all entitled to feel the way we do and that is totally ok.. You and I have been buds for a long time and I totally respect your perspective on things.. I mean that.. It’s ok.. 

 

The longevity of doing this process to photographs and or artwork I think is not intended to last 1000 years.. That is no secret.. The resins in the acrylics will deteriorate over time.. at a rate depending upon it’s exposure to the elements. I think we both know that a hot shot original oil painting will fail over time also if it is not properly taken care of. That being said I think this process has a purpose and is typically done with a print not an original.. But it still is a display method for what we consider to be artwork. I have done quite a few pieces using both film and silicon.. and I do feel that for many types of displays in certain places it’s the cats meow and absolutely the right way to do it..  

 

So I also get where you’re coming from  when you say it might devalue a piece.. but there is another side to that which I think is application sensitive.. I’ll try to explain..  Let’s take two identical high end B&W prints.. one of them gets archival mounted, double matted, museum glass and a fancy custom frame.. The other is face mounted to acrylic.. Clearly the intent of both is very different as was the cost to produce the end output.. So the fancy one hangs in a lawyer’s office while the other is on the wall at McDonalds.. Both were done to suit the application and to me while I know their very different their both winners and done correctly for their intended use. Ok now let’s raise the bar further….just cause we can… suppose we took 2 of Cindy Sherman’s prints (she’s on the list) I have a hard cover book of her work in my book case ..Her work is some of the most thought provoking I have ever seen.. Anyway.. I think if you took two identical prints of hers.. and did one up with fancy mounting and framing and the other using the Diasec process … I would agree that the fancy version would likely auction for more but how much more is anybody’s guess the real value is in the print and I’d bet both would be very collectable and expensive as all get out.. Part of this maybe due to that we’re used to more traditional practices regarding how art is done and presented.. I mean here we are saying that ink jet technology is collectable …is it more collectable or valuable than a wet process print? Or an alt process print?  

 

jimbo
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:58 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

 

  

Good post Jim, but I wanted to toss in my 2 cents.

The print you mention was reported sold by the photographer himself, Peter 
Lik, for over 5 million dollars in a private sale to an unknown buyer, so 
there's no proof of any of it. None of his work has sold in the secondary 
market, so the value and the whole thing has been highly questionable, 
bordering on fraud. I'm also pretty sure his work is done using the first 
method of adhesive coated Mylar rather than silicone, but that part doesn't 
matter.

I have a problem with the whole concept of putting a high value on these 
prints because they're an accident waiting to happen. Drop one on the corner 
or scratch the plastic and you have nothing. A print in a traditional frame 
with protective museum grade acrylic glazing is far more worthy of an 
investment in my opinion because it can be curated. Even ancient pottery can 
be restored if it's been shattered to bits, but not these. Prints can also 
delaminate from the plastic over time due to environmental conditions.

Acrylic face mounting a print certainly has a great and slick look, and it 
will last longer than a print that's not sealed - so long as it's not 
physically damaged. I used to do a lot of this kind of work, but I never 
marketed it as collectible fine art. It's commercial decor to be enjoyed 
today rather than a wise fine art investment expected to hold value for 
future generations. There are many, including myself, who believe that the 
process can even reduce the value of a print.

IMHO
jc

-----Original Message----- 
From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

You can use an acrylic that has a UV protection and if you use the right 
adhesive films the process can be said to be archival.. The other way to do 
this is to use a silicone adhesive but this process is much more involved 
(commonly known and Diasec face mounting) .. Both John C and myself played 
with these processes a while back.. I still have cases of silicon here.. 
Unless it’s changed the most expensive photograph ever sold was a large 
Diasec image encapsulated using silicon.. About 3 million or something like 
that .. can’t remember now..

Anyway, using either way the images display very well. 



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13033 - Release Date: 09/17/16



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

2016-09-18 by Paul Roark

​Jim,

Interesting link.

Throw out the old photos on the list. (We can't go back in time.) Then what is the average size?

Large sizes are more accessible to more people. They show well.

My canvas direction is to, hopefully, make that size available to those of us who are small studio, low volume photographers.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com​

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:01 AM, 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@wispwest.net [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi John … I’m doing this out of memory.. I honestly tried to do a search to find the images.. This is not a Peter Lik photo. It was actually two pieces … as I recall… they were either 4x8’s or 5x10’s.. The two images were of a store or produce display in a market.. and they were hung one over the other I think ….maybe side by side... So a duo tic if you will. They were about 3M but might have been like 2.8 or something like that .. It’s honestly been too long …. I can’t remember …sorry.. I will try to track it down and follow up.. So I’ll be digging.. The work I’m referring too I know was done with silicon not a film as that piece had me look at what you and I started playing with.. It was done by the folks that do Diasec face mounting …I originally saw the image on a web site of a firm that did the Diasec process.. Ok here we go I found it I got lucky… https://www.slrlounge.com/2-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world/ It’s the forth one down by Andreas Gursky ..It was “auctioned” at Sotheby’s.. take the time if you will to check out the pieces listed.. Lik is way down the list.. there are a few pieces on the list face mounted.. so interesting maybe.. Note Robert Mapplethorpe’s pic of Andy … #26.. I totally love the originality of the framing.. Wowser…

As far as your point regarding high value.. I understand where you’re coming from. I was however coming from a totally different place on this one. We’ve discussed Liks outrageous pricing and a few others way back when ..My point here was simply to show that a face mounted print had value.. At the time It was touted as the highest priced photograph back then..

As far as your fraud comment.. I think that’s more of a personal opinion.. I honestly can’t mess with that and for me it would wrong to do so….. we are all entitled to feel the way we do and that is totally ok.. You and I have been buds for a long time and I totally respect your perspective on things.. I mean that.. It’s ok..

The longevity of doing this process to photographs and or artwork I think is not intended to last 1000 years.. That is no secret.. The resins in the acrylics will deteriorate over time.. at a rate depending upon it’s exposure to the elements. I think we both know that a hot shot original oil painting will fail over time also if it is not properly taken care of. That being said I think this process has a purpose and is typically done with a print not an original.. But it still is a display method for what we consider to be artwork. I have done quite a few pieces using both film and silicon.. and I do feel that for many types of displays in certain places it’s the cats meow and absolutely the right way to do it..

So I also get where you’re coming from when you say it might devalue a piece.. but there is another side to that which I think is application sensitive.. I’ll try to explain.. Let’s take two identical high end B&W prints.. one of them gets archival mounted, double matted, museum glass and a fancy custom frame.. The other is face mounted to acrylic.. Clearly the intent of both is very different as was the cost to produce the end output.. So the fancy one hangs in a lawyer’s office while the other is on the wall at McDonalds.. Both were done to suit the application and to me while I know their very different their both winners and done correctly for their intended use. Ok now let’s raise the bar further….just cause we can… suppose we took 2 of Cindy Sherman’s prints (she’s on the list) I have a hard cover book of her work in my book case ..Her work is some of the most thought provoking I have ever seen.. Anyway.. I think if you took two identical prints of hers.. and did one up with fancy mounting and framing and the other using the Diasec process … I would agree that the fancy version would likely auction for more but how much more is anybody’s guess the real value is in the print and I’d bet both would be very collectable and expensive as all get out.. Part of this maybe due to that we’re used to more traditional practices regarding how art is done and presented.. I mean here we are saying that ink jet technology is collectable …is it more collectable or valuable than a wet process print? Or an alt process print?

jimbo

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:58 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting



Good post Jim, but I wanted to toss in my 2 cents.

The print you mention was reported sold by the photographer himself, Peter
Lik, for over 5 million dollars in a private sale to an unknown buyer, so
there's no proof of any of it. None of his work has sold in the secondary
market, so the value and the whole thing has been highly questionable,
bordering on fraud. I'm also pretty sure his work is done using the first
method of adhesive coated Mylar rather than silicone, but that part doesn't
matter.

I have a problem with the whole concept of putting a high value on these
prints because they're an accident waiting to happen. Drop one on the corner
or scratch the plastic and you have nothing. A print in a traditional frame
with protective museum grade acrylic glazing is far more worthy of an
investment in my opinion because it can be curated. Even ancient pottery can
be restored if it's been shattered to bits, but not these. Prints can also
delaminate from the plastic over time due to environmental conditions.

Acrylic face mounting a print certainly has a great and slick look, and it
will last longer than a print that's not sealed - so long as it's not
physically damaged. I used to do a lot of this kind of work, but I never
marketed it as collectible fine art. It's commercial decor to be enjoyed
today rather than a wise fine art investment expected to hold value for
future generations. There are many, including myself, who believe that the
process can even reduce the value of a print.

IMHO
jc

-----Original Message-----
From: 9;Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

You can use an acrylic that has a UV protection and if you use the right
adhesive films the process can be said to be archival.. The other way to do
this is to use a silicone adhesive but this process is much more involved
(commonly known and Diasec face mounting) .. Both John C and myself played
with these processes a while back.. I still have cases of silicon here..
Unless it’s changed the most expensive photograph ever sold was a large
Diasec image encapsulated using silicon.. About 3 million or something like
that .. can’t remember now..

Anyway, using either way the images display very well.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13033 - Release Date: 09/17/16

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

2016-09-18 by Jim Bechtel

The prices of most of this work is sort of scary in truth. The other side of it is most were sold at a reputable auction houses so it’s credible.. Most of the current works are fairly large as you can see.  I “am” from the school that size matters…LOL.. It about viewing distance and the placement or use of images.. I very much enjoy the drama of a large piece…… it , to me , is different..  I can do some large pieces here and as most of you know I’m sort of a canvas head.. We have the technology today to make some very large pieces of art.. I very much like that.. Many / most of the imagery on the site referenced I wasn’t really crazy about….. some I was.. As far as the prices that the art work sold for .. I really don’t care.. It’s often not representative of what my mind is capable of understanding as real value.. but that not what it’s all about.. as I’m not in a position to do something like that..

 

Personally I don’t really spend much time in the what it sold for box.. but in another way I do.. Years ago I would make smaller prints and found that in some areas that was not the right way to go.. I do very little small stuff these days.. It’s just not me.. Small pieces sort of define and limit the box of ones market.. Plus I like the market and the impact of  larger pieces.. So I’m stuck..

 

jimbo
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 9:57 AM
To: DigitalB&WPrint
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

 

  

​Jim,

 

Interesting link.

 

Throw out the old photos on the list.  (We can't go back in time.)  Then what is the average size?

 

Large sizes are more accessible to more people.  They show well.

 

My canvas direction is to, hopefully, make that size available to those of us who are small studio, low volume photographers.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com​

 

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:01 AM, 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

  

Hi John … I’m doing this out of memory.. I honestly tried to do a search to find the images.. This is not a Peter Lik photo. It was actually two pieces … as I recall… they were either 4x8’s or 5x10’s.. The two images were of a store or produce display in a market.. and they were hung one over the other I think ….maybe side by side... So a duo tic if you will. They were about 3M but might have been like 2.8 or something like that .. It’s honestly been too long …. I can’t remember …sorry.. I will try to track it down and follow up.. So I’ll be digging.. The work I’m referring too I know was done with silicon not a film as that piece had me look at what you and I started playing with.. It was done by the folks that do Diasec face mounting …I originally saw the image on a web site of a firm that did the Diasec process.. Ok here we go I found it I got lucky… https://www.slrlounge.com/2-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world/ It’s the forth one down by Andreas Gursky ..It was “auctioned” at Sotheby’s.. take the time if you will to check out the pieces listed.. Lik is way down the list.. there are a few pieces on the list face mounted.. so interesting maybe.. Note Robert Mapplethorpe’s pic of Andy … #26.. I totally love the originality of the framing.. Wowser…

As far as your point regarding high value.. I understand where you’re coming from. I was however coming from a totally different place on this one. We’ve discussed Liks outrageous pricing and a few others way back when ..My point here was simply to show that a face mounted print had value.. At the time It was touted as the highest priced photograph back then.. 

As far as your fraud comment.. I think that’s more of a personal opinion.. I honestly can’t mess with that and for me it would wrong to do so….. we are all entitled to feel the way we do and that is totally ok.. You and I have been buds for a long time and I totally respect your perspective on things.. I mean that.. It’s ok.. 

The longevity of doing this process to photographs and or artwork I think is not intended to last 1000 years.. That is no secret.. The resins in the acrylics will deteriorate over time.. at a rate depending upon it’s exposure to the elements. I think we both know that a hot shot original oil painting will fail over time also if it is not properly taken care of. That being said I think this process has a purpose and is typically done with a print not an original.. But it still is a display method for what we consider to be artwork. I have done quite a few pieces using both film and silicon.. and I do feel that for many types of displays in certain places it’s the cats meow and absolutely the right way to do it.. 

So I also get where you’re coming from when you say it might devalue a piece.. but there is another side to that which I think is application sensitive.. I’ll try to explain.. Let’s take two identical high end B&W prints.. one of them gets archival mounted, double matted, museum glass and a fancy custom frame.. The other is face mounted to acrylic.. Clearly the intent of both is very different as was the cost to produce the end output.. So the fancy one hangs in a lawyer’s office while the other is on the wall at McDonalds.. Both were done to suit the application and to me while I know their very different their both winners and done correctly for their intended use. Ok now let’s raise the bar further….just cause we can… suppose we took 2 of Cindy Sherman’s prints (she’s on the list) I have a hard cover book of her work in my book case ..Her work is some of the most thought provoking I have ever seen.. Anyway.. I think if you took two identical prints of hers.. and did one up with fancy mounting and framing and the other using the Diasec process … I would agree that the fancy version would likely auction for more but how much more is anybody’s guess the real value is in the print and I’d bet both would be very collectable and expensive as all get out.. Part of this maybe due to that we’re used to more traditional practices regarding how art is done and presented.. I mean here we are saying that ink jet technology is collectable …is it more collectable or valuable than a wet process print? Or an alt process print? 

jimbo

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:58 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting



Good post Jim, but I wanted to toss in my 2 cents.

The print you mention was reported sold by the photographer himself, Peter 
Lik, for over 5 million dollars in a private sale to an unknown buyer, so 
there's no proof of any of it. None of his work has sold in the secondary 
market, so the value and the whole thing has been highly questionable, 
bordering on fraud. I'm also pretty sure his work is done using the first 
method of adhesive coated Mylar rather than silicone, but that part doesn't 
matter.

I have a problem with the whole concept of putting a high value on these 
prints because they're an accident waiting to happen. Drop one on the corner 
or scratch the plastic and you have nothing. A print in a traditional frame 
with protective museum grade acrylic glazing is far more worthy of an 
investment in my opinion because it can be curated. Even ancient pottery can 
be restored if it's been shattered to bits, but not these. Prints can also 
delaminate from the plastic over time due to environmental conditions.

Acrylic face mounting a print certainly has a great and slick look, and it 
will last longer than a print that's not sealed - so long as it's not 
physically damaged. I used to do a lot of this kind of work, but I never 
marketed it as collectible fine art. It's commercial decor to be enjoyed 
today rather than a wise fine art investment expected to hold value for 
future generations. There are many, including myself, who believe that the 
process can even reduce the value of a print.

IMHO
jc

-----Original Message----- 
From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

You can use an acrylic that has a UV protection and if you use the right 
adhesive films the process can be said to be archival.. The other way to do 
this is to use a silicone adhesive but this process is much more involved 
(commonly known and Diasec face mounting) .. Both John C and myself played 
with these processes a while back.. I still have cases of silicon here.. 
Unless it’s changed the most expensive photograph ever sold was a large 
Diasec image encapsulated using silicon.. About 3 million or something like 
that .. can’t remember now..

Anyway, using either way the images display very well. 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13033 - Release Date: 09/17/16

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13041 - Release Date: 09/18/16



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

2016-09-18 by John Castronovo

Thanks Jim. I had a few things wrong as usual, but certainly correct as far 
as Lik is concerned. He shouldn't even be on that list due to the fact that 
once again, his sale was nothing more than an empty claim. The whole 
collectible art market is suspect in my opinion though. In a very 
self-serving way, they promote high value to the ordinary.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message----- 
From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 11:01 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

Hi John … I’m doing this out of memory.. I honestly tried to do a search to 
find the images..  This is not a Peter Lik photo. It was actually two 
pieces … as I recall… they were either 4x8’s or 5x10’s.. The two images were 
of a store or produce display in a market.. and they were hung one over the 
other I think ….maybe side by side... So a duo tic if you will.  They were 
about 3M but might have been like 2.8 or something like that .. It’s 
honestly been too long …. I can’t remember …sorry..  I will try to track it 
down and follow up.. So I’ll be digging.. The work I’m referring too I know 
was done with silicon not a film as that piece had me look at what you and I 
started playing with.. It was done by the folks that do Diasec face 
mounting …I originally saw the image on a web site of a firm that did the 
Diasec process..  Ok here we go I found it I got lucky… 
https://www.slrlounge.com/2-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world/  It’s 
the forth one down by Andreas Gursky ..It was “auctioned” at Sotheby’s.. 
take the time if you will to check out the pieces listed.. Lik is way down 
the list.. there are a few pieces on the list face mounted.. so interesting 
maybe.. Note Robert Mapplethorpe’s pic of Andy … #26.. I totally love the 
originality of the framing.. Wowser…



As far as your point regarding high value.. I understand where you’re coming 
from. I was however coming from a totally different place on this one. We’ve 
discussed Liks outrageous pricing and a few others way back when ..My point 
here was simply to show that a face mounted print had value.. At the time It 
was touted as the highest priced photograph back then..



As far as your fraud comment.. I think that’s more of a personal opinion.. I 
honestly can’t mess with that and for me it would wrong to do so….. we are 
all entitled to feel the way we do and that is totally ok.. You and I have 
been buds for a long time and I totally respect your perspective on things.. 
I mean that.. It’s ok..



The longevity of doing this process to photographs and or artwork I think is 
not intended to last 1000 years.. That is no secret.. The resins in the 
acrylics will deteriorate over time.. at a rate depending upon it’s exposure 
to the elements. I think we both know that a hot shot original oil painting 
will fail over time also if it is not properly taken care of. That being 
said I think this process has a purpose and is typically done with a print 
not an original.. But it still is a display method for what we consider to 
be artwork. I have done quite a few pieces using both film and silicon.. and 
I do feel that for many types of displays in certain places it’s the cats 
meow and absolutely the right way to do it..



So I also get where you’re coming from  when you say it might devalue a 
piece.. but there is another side to that which I think is application 
sensitive.. I’ll try to explain..  Let’s take two identical high end B&W 
prints.. one of them gets archival mounted, double matted, museum glass and 
a fancy custom frame.. The other is face mounted to acrylic.. Clearly the 
intent of both is very different as was the cost to produce the end output.. 
So the fancy one hangs in a lawyer’s office while the other is on the wall 
at McDonalds.. Both were done to suit the application and to me while I know 
their very different their both winners and done correctly for their 
intended use. Ok now let’s raise the bar further….just cause we can… suppose 
we took 2 of Cindy Sherman’s prints (she’s on the list) I have a hard cover 
book of her work in my book case ..Her work is some of the most thought 
provoking I have ever seen.. Anyway.. I think if you took two identical 
prints of hers.. and did one up with fancy mounting and framing and the 
other using the Diasec process … I would agree that the fancy version would 
likely auction for more but how much more is anybody’s guess the real value 
is in the print and I’d bet both would be very collectable and expensive as 
all get out.. Part of this maybe due to that we’re used to more traditional 
practices regarding how art is done and presented.. I mean here we are 
saying that ink jet technology is collectable …is it more collectable or 
valuable than a wet process print? Or an alt process print?



jimbo



From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:58 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting





Good post Jim, but I wanted to toss in my 2 cents.

The print you mention was reported sold by the photographer himself, Peter
Lik, for over 5 million dollars in a private sale to an unknown buyer, so
there's no proof of any of it. None of his work has sold in the secondary
market, so the value and the whole thing has been highly questionable,
bordering on fraud. I'm also pretty sure his work is done using the first
method of adhesive coated Mylar rather than silicone, but that part doesn't
matter.

I have a problem with the whole concept of putting a high value on these
prints because they're an accident waiting to happen. Drop one on the corner
or scratch the plastic and you have nothing. A print in a traditional frame
with protective museum grade acrylic glazing is far more worthy of an
investment in my opinion because it can be curated. Even ancient pottery can
be restored if it's been shattered to bits, but not these. Prints can also
delaminate from the plastic over time due to environmental conditions.

Acrylic face mounting a print certainly has a great and slick look, and it
will last longer than a print that's not sealed - so long as it's not
physically damaged. I used to do a lot of this kind of work, but I never
marketed it as collectible fine art. It's commercial decor to be enjoyed
today rather than a wise fine art investment expected to hold value for
future generations. There are many, including myself, who believe that the
process can even reduce the value of a print.

IMHO
jc

-----Original Message----- 
From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

You can use an acrylic that has a UV protection and if you use the right
adhesive films the process can be said to be archival.. The other way to do
this is to use a silicone adhesive but this process is much more involved
(commonly known and Diasec face mounting) .. Both John C and myself played
with these processes a while back.. I still have cases of silicon here..
Unless it’s changed the most expensive photograph ever sold was a large
Diasec image encapsulated using silicon.. About 3 million or something like
that .. can’t remember now..

Anyway, using either way the images display very well.



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13033 - Release Date: 09/17/16



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------
Posted by: "Jim Bechtel" <mrjimbo2@wispwest.net>
------------------------------------

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND 
�MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND 
�MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

2016-09-18 by Jim Bechtel

All is just fine..  As far as the collectible market.. In all honesty your sort of right …..by that I mean all market types have areas that are exploited possibly unfairly… I mean think about it.. Diamonds are overvalued,  typically as it’s a very controlled market.. Classic cars have been restored much of which is made to look like original but it’s not.. The list goes on and on.. Even gold…. it was higher than Platinum and is much more common.. Big money shoves it up.

In the end even though parts and pieces of it may not show up right or seem credible.. We really maybe should not spend too much time looking at the small segments or pieces that are broken we , I think, should step back and look at the whole.. Then try to figure out how we fit in and just do the very best we know how. I mean if everything was all cut and dried we’d all be selling our prints  for xx per square inch and that would be that.. way boring……We don’t do that because most of us put our hearts into what we do and of course our commitment to tools or toys is very diverse. So in the end to me , no kidding, the price doesn’t matter.. It’s really all about value whether it’s actual or perceived.. As a service provider it’s sort of hard to get ones arms around that sometimes but as an artist it shows up pretty quick.. It is all pretty much focused on one simple word.. Credibility.. That’s a pretty magic word  when you really dig into it.

 

Back a few years ago a good friend of mine and an awesome western artist passed.. Larry Zabel.. In conversation one day I asked him how he priced his commissions.. He used two factors … Image size and followed by a sq inch cost.. he shared the detail of that with me ..I pretty much fell over.. no kidding.. But that was the box, pricing wise, that he was credible in.. Now the kool part…he earned that boy did he.. 

 

So going back to the list of works I posted .. I saw several pieces that I just couldn’t get it price wise.. But in truth I’m not supposed to get it as that is not an area that I’m credible in so how could I possibly understand.. So in the end…. Right, wrong or indifferent I kinda like the idea that someone is credible up in those zones.. It’s a hell of a place to set the bar …right? J

 

jimbo
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 10:47 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

 

  

Thanks Jim. I had a few things wrong as usual, but certainly correct as far 
as Lik is concerned. He shouldn't even be on that list due to the fact that 
once again, his sale was nothing more than an empty claim. The whole 
collectible art market is suspect in my opinion though. In a very 
self-serving way, they promote high value to the ordinary.

-----Original Message----- 
From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 11:01 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

Hi John … I’m doing this out of memory.. I honestly tried to do a search to 
find the images.. This is not a Peter Lik photo. It was actually two 
pieces … as I recall… they were either 4x8’s or 5x10’s.. The two images were 
of a store or produce display in a market.. and they were hung one over the 
other I think ….maybe side by side... So a duo tic if you will. They were 
about 3M but might have been like 2.8 or something like that .. It’s 
honestly been too long …. I can’t remember …sorry.. I will try to track it 
down and follow up.. So I’ll be digging.. The work I’m referring too I know 
was done with silicon not a film as that piece had me look at what you and I 
started playing with.. It was done by the folks that do Diasec face 
mounting …I originally saw the image on a web site of a firm that did the 
Diasec process.. Ok here we go I found it I got lucky… 
https://www.slrlounge.com/2-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world/ It’s 
the forth one down by Andreas Gursky ..It was “auctioned” at Sotheby’s.. 
take the time if you will to check out the pieces listed.. Lik is way down 
the list.. there are a few pieces on the list face mounted.. so interesting 
maybe.. Note Robert Mapplethorpe’s pic of Andy … #26.. I totally love the 
originality of the framing.. Wowser…

As far as your point regarding high value.. I understand where you’re coming 
from. I was however coming from a totally different place on this one. We’ve 
discussed Liks outrageous pricing and a few others way back when ..My point 
here was simply to show that a face mounted print had value.. At the time It 
was touted as the highest priced photograph back then..

As far as your fraud comment.. I think that’s more of a personal opinion.. I 
honestly can’t mess with that and for me it would wrong to do so….. we are 
all entitled to feel the way we do and that is totally ok.. You and I have 
been buds for a long time and I totally respect your perspective on things.. 
I mean that.. It’s ok..

The longevity of doing this process to photographs and or artwork I think is 
not intended to last 1000 years.. That is no secret.. The resins in the 
acrylics will deteriorate over time.. at a rate depending upon it’s exposure 
to the elements. I think we both know that a hot shot original oil painting 
will fail over time also if it is not properly taken care of. That being 
said I think this process has a purpose and is typically done with a print 
not an original.. But it still is a display method for what we consider to 
be artwork. I have done quite a few pieces using both film and silicon.. and 
I do feel that for many types of displays in certain places it’s the cats 
meow and absolutely the right way to do it..

So I also get where you’re coming from when you say it might devalue a 
piece.. but there is another side to that which I think is application 
sensitive.. I’ll try to explain.. Let’s take two identical high end B&W 
prints.. one of them gets archival mounted, double matted, museum glass and 
a fancy custom frame.. The other is face mounted to acrylic.. Clearly the 
intent of both is very different as was the cost to produce the end output.. 
So the fancy one hangs in a lawyer’s office while the other is on the wall 
at McDonalds.. Both were done to suit the application and to me while I know 
their very different their both winners and done correctly for their 
intended use. Ok now let’s raise the bar further….just cause we can… suppose 
we took 2 of Cindy Sherman’s prints (she’s on the list) I have a hard cover 
book of her work in my book case ..Her work is some of the most thought 
provoking I have ever seen.. Anyway.. I think if you took two identical 
prints of hers.. and did one up with fancy mounting and framing and the 
other using the Diasec process … I would agree that the fancy version would 
likely auction for more but how much more is anybody’s guess the real value 
is in the print and I’d bet both would be very collectable and expensive as 
all get out.. Part of this maybe due to that we’re used to more traditional 
practices regarding how art is done and presented.. I mean here we are 
saying that ink jet technology is collectable …is it more collectable or 
valuable than a wet process print? Or an alt process print?

jimbo

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:58 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

Good post Jim, but I wanted to toss in my 2 cents.

The print you mention was reported sold by the photographer himself, Peter
Lik, for over 5 million dollars in a private sale to an unknown buyer, so
there's no proof of any of it. None of his work has sold in the secondary
market, so the value and the whole thing has been highly questionable,
bordering on fraud. I'm also pretty sure his work is done using the first
method of adhesive coated Mylar rather than silicone, but that part doesn't
matter.

I have a problem with the whole concept of putting a high value on these
prints because they're an accident waiting to happen. Drop one on the corner
or scratch the plastic and you have nothing. A print in a traditional frame
with protective museum grade acrylic glazing is far more worthy of an
investment in my opinion because it can be curated. Even ancient pottery can
be restored if it's been shattered to bits, but not these. Prints can also
delaminate from the plastic over time due to environmental conditions.

Acrylic face mounting a print certainly has a great and slick look, and it
will last longer than a print that's not sealed - so long as it's not
physically damaged. I used to do a lot of this kind of work, but I never
marketed it as collectible fine art. It's commercial decor to be enjoyed
today rather than a wise fine art investment expected to hold value for
future generations. There are many, including myself, who believe that the
process can even reduce the value of a print.

IMHO
jc

-----Original Message----- 
From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

You can use an acrylic that has a UV protection and if you use the right
adhesive films the process can be said to be archival.. The other way to do
this is to use a silicone adhesive but this process is much more involved
(commonly known and Diasec face mounting) .. Both John C and myself played
with these processes a while back.. I still have cases of silicon here..
Unless it’s changed the most expensive photograph ever sold was a large
Diasec image encapsulated using silicon.. About 3 million or something like
that .. can’t remember now..

Anyway, using either way the images display very well.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13033 - Release Date: 09/17/16

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------
Posted by: "Jim Bechtel" <mrjimbo2@...>
------------------------------------

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND 
�MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND 
�MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13041 - Release Date: 09/18/16



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

2016-09-18 by John Castronovo

You got that right. No matter how it happens, it's about time photography 
has real value. But certainly an original Ansel Adams "Moonrise over 
Hernandez" should be worth at least as much as the living artists' plastic 
stuff, but it doesn't have the glitz and size to command more, and that's 
unfortunate.

-----Original Message----- 
From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@wispwest.net [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]

So in the end…. Right, wrong or indifferent I kinda like the idea that 
someone is credible up in those zones.. It’s a hell of a place to set the 
bar …right? J

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.