Unsure of mounting processes and equipment

Hi all,

I'm finally at the point where I want to move into printing photos and while I'm au fait with printing processes and colour matching, I'm just trying to grasp the basics of getting a print window-mounted, with the nice 45degree bevel around it.

I've so far reached a conclusion that I need a LOGAN 4000 Deluxe Pull Style Bevel Cutter, but I'm not sure of the fitting process of the print onto the prepared mount. Is it just masking-taped? Is it glued?

Once in the mount, I wanted to frame it - does this mean that my photo's aspect ratio determines whether I can keep a constant width mount border?

Thanks in advance

Hi,

The normal way is to use tape, I use a little bit of clear tape (sellotape in the UK, but you may have different brand names) over two corners and lower the mat down over it, lining up the aperture carefully with how I want the print to be seen. The last part of the mat to make contact is where the tape is, I then check alignment and press firmly to get the tape on the two corners to stick. I then lift the mat and double check the print is correctly aligned then place it face down on the table and run parcel tape around all four edges, being careful that the print stays flat.

As I don't usually frame mine (they are for entering competitions and salons) I need to attach a backing card, which is simply glued to the back.

As for aspect ratio, my images are all mounted to the aspect ratio that suits them best, so it is normal for me to not have an equal border all round. This is typical amongst work for competitions, you just make sure that top / bottom are the same* and left / right are the same.

* The exception to this being "letterbox" or panoramic images which generally look better with a lower border twice the width of the top border (although some people do mount them in the middle, it isn't a "rule").

If you are going to be doing quite a few mounts, you might found the Logan 4000 a bit basic. I know a couple of people that bought one but soon moved up to a better cutter such as the Logan 350-1 (the one I use). It makes life much easier, quicker and is extremely accurate for getting everything fully squared off, with nothing offline. It is personal preference of course and the 4000 will be fine for occasional use.

sandpiper wrote in post #16958287
If you are going to be doing quite a few mounts, you might found the Logan 4000 a bit basic. I know a couple of people that bought one but soon moved up to a better cutter such as the Logan 350-1 (the one I use). It makes life much easier, quicker and is extremely accurate for getting everything fully squared off, with nothing offline.

Curse you.... another piece of kit I will have to buy.

UKmitch86 wrote in post #16957881
Hi all,
I'm not sure of the fitting process of the print onto the prepared mount. Is it just masking-taped? Is it glued?

Once in the mount, I wanted to frame it - does this mean that my photo's aspect ratio determines whether I can keep a constant width mount border?

I use an aerosol spray glue between the backing and the print. I found that using masking tape allowed odd "wrinkles" to develop over time.

Not sure what you are referring to with the aspect ratio comment and the mount border. I have framed shots with white borders and others with none (hidden behind the bevelled mount). If you are planning to cut your own mounts, then there's no need to stick to "standard" aspect ratios.

But it is true that non-standard, specially made frames can be expensive, so it makes sense to standardise where possible.

FWIW I have used a commercial supplier of (custom) cut mounts and backing boards. I use ph neutral acid free tape to T hinge the prints to the mount and the same tape to hinge the backing board to mount see here http://www.trueart.inf​o/hinging.htm for a pretty good explanation of the methods with the only difference in process for me was that whichever the image orientation (portrait or landscape) I hinged the backing board at the top edge. Oh, I used ATG tape gun to stick the mount and back together

Why T hinge well as the article I link to points out the print needs to "hang" because there will be movement and this method ensures it is accurately hung and avoids it wrinkling.

For the record all that I mounted & framed were for sale and did sell so I made sure to use ph neutral acid free mount board and tapes.

Mount aperture wise the commercial supplier I used cuts the aperture 2mm each side smaller than the print size and I had the prints made with a 10mm border ~ with very carefull positioning measurements I got them dead square with no border showing.

Oh, though the crops varied slightly depending on the camera aspect ratio and of course the aesthetics of the crop the mount apertures were centred and for cost reasons the outer dimensions of the mount/backing such as 30cm x 40cm were chosen to fit in standard readily available frames from a large well known Swedish company.

HTH

sandpiper wrote in post #16958287
Hi,

The normal way is to use tape, I use a little bit of clear tape (sellotape in the UK, but you may have different brand names) over two corners and lower the mat down over it, lining up the aperture carefully with how I want the print to be seen. The last part of the mat to make contact is where the tape is, I then check alignment and press firmly to get the tape on the two corners to stick. I then lift the mat and double check the print is correctly aligned then place it face down on the table and run parcel tape around all four edges, being careful that the print stays flat.

As I don't usually frame mine (they are for entering competitions and salons) I need to attach a backing card, which is simply glued to the back.

As for aspect ratio, my images are all mounted to the aspect ratio that suits them best, so it is normal for me to not have an equal border all round. This is typical amongst work for competitions, you just make sure that top / bottom are the same* and left / right are the same.

* The exception to this being "letterbox" or panoramic images which generally look better with a lower border twice the width of the top border (although some people do mount them in the middle, it isn't a "rule").

If you are going to be doing quite a few mounts, you might found the Logan 4000 a bit basic. I know a couple of people that bought one but soon moved up to a better cutter such as the Logan 350-1 (the one I use). It makes life much easier, quicker and is extremely accurate for getting everything fully squared off, with nothing offline. It is personal preference of course and the 4000 will be fine for occasional use.

Thanks for the response - I looked it up and the 350-1 certainly seems to be a step above in capability, and I do intend on doing many mounts. My terminology is a bit poor in this area - are some people using the term 'mount' interchangeably with 'mat''?

Lowner wrote in post #16958646
I use an aerosol spray glue between the backing and the print. I found that using masking tape allowed odd "wrinkles" to develop over time.

Not sure what you are referring to with the aspect ratio comment and the mount border. I have framed shots with white borders and others with none (hidden behind the bevelled mount). If you are planning to cut your own mounts, then there's no need to stick to "standard" aspect ratios.

But it is true that non-standard, specially made frames can be expensive, so it makes sense to standardise where possible.

My thought process was that if you took a digital shot, processed it, cropped it and printed it, it may not be of a standard aspect ratio any longer - therefore, to occupy a standard affordable glass-fronted frame, your mount border wouldn't have consistent width between top/bottom and left/right - I suppose my question is, does anyone care and is it viewed as unprofessional? I have to say, my shots that are right in-camera and left at 2:3 or 3:2 always look nicer to my eye than odd extreme ratio crops.

Box Brownie wrote in post #16958677
FWIW I have used a commercial supplier of (custom) cut mounts and backing boards. I use ph neutral acid free tape to T hinge the prints to the mount and the same tape to hinge the backing board to mount see here http://www.trueart.inf​o/hinging.htm for a pretty good explanation of the methods with the only difference in process for me was that whichever the image orientation (portrait or landscape) I hinged the backing board at the top edge. Oh, I used ATG tape gun to stick the mount and back together

Why T hinge well as the article I link to points out the print needs to "hang" because there will be movement and this method ensures it is accurately hung and avoids it wrinkling.

For the record all that I mounted & framed were for sale and did sell so I made sure to use ph neutral acid free mount board and tapes.

Mount aperture wise the commercial supplier I used cuts the aperture 2mm each side smaller than the print size and I had the prints made with a 10mm border ~ with very carefull positioning measurements I got them dead square with no border showing.

Oh, though the crops varied slightly depending on the camera aspect ratio and of course the aesthetics of the crop the mount apertures were centred and for cost reasons the outer dimensions of the mount/backing such as 30cm x 40cm were chosen to fit in standard readily available frames from a large well known Swedish company.

HTH

Again, my lack of knowledge - but are the photos being glued to a board (paper? cardboard? foam?), then taped to the cut window mount?

UKmitch86 wrote in post #16960722
My thought process was that if you took a digital shot, processed it, cropped it and printed it, it may not be of a standard aspect ratio any longer - therefore, to occupy a standard affordable glass-fronted frame, your mount border wouldn't have consistent width between top/bottom and left/right - I suppose my question is, does anyone care and is it viewed as unprofessional? I have to say, my shots that are right in-camera and left at 2:3 or 3:2 always look nicer to my eye than odd extreme ratio crops.

I have a framed panorama of the Southern Dorset (UK) coastline hanging in this room right now, the frame is 40" x 16.5" with a mount that's roughly 1.5" around the image inside that (slightly more top and bottom than each side). Obviously the frame and the mount are non-standard but I ordered the cut frame in sections and glued it together myself. The back board and mount I cut myself. I forget what it all cost, but it was not excessive.

I've bought a Logan 350-1, and the supplier was kind enough to supply some mountboard to practice on. Will have to post up some results!

One more questions that's still plaguing me - what do people mean when they refer to 'matboard' or 'mat'? Is it the same as mountboard?

Perhaps it's an American/British difference.

Same thing as far as I am concerned, the terms are used interchangeably.

I always thought that Mountboard was the board you mount the photo on - hence the term Dry Mounting for sticking the photo to the mounting board, while the Mat was the card that had the "window" cut out and acts as a frame around the print.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16968414
I always thought that Mountboard was the board you mount the photo on - hence the term Dry Mounting for sticking the photo to the mounting board, while the Mat was the card that had the "window" cut out and acts as a frame around the print.

That's interesting, I thought it may have been the opposite!

Maybe POTN can start a movement to rename mat (or mount?) to window and mount (or mat?) to backing board!

Coincidentally, 'dry mounting' implies there's a 'wet mounting' - is that so?

I'm still not 100% certain of how you attach the photo to backing board and window - I should read the book that came with the Logan cutter.

How large are your prints going to be?

UKmitch86 wrote in post #16968862
Coincidentally, 'dry mounting' implies there's a 'wet mounting' - is that so?

I imagine so. Maybe glue paste applied by brush would qualify?

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16968414
I always thought that Mountboard was the board you mount the photo on - hence the term Dry Mounting for sticking the photo to the mounting board, while the Mat was the card that had the "window" cut out and acts as a frame around the print.

I think the question was about the differences in the board, and it is generally the same type of board that is used for either method, hence a sheet of matboard (or mounting board) is typically around 1-1.2mm thick with a coloured side and a white or cream core. The term "mat mounting" does refer to using an aperture in front of the image, so a "mat" would become so, only after the hole is cut out I guess, until then it is just a sheet of card and can also be used for dry mounting.

There are self coloured card sheets available, that don't have a white / cream core, and these can be used for sticking prints on to, but they are usually sold as coloured card, rather than mountboard.

My prints get two sheets of identical card when mounting, I use 1.2mm cardstock, with a white core for both the cut out mat on the front and the (uncut) backing board.

UKmitch86 wrote in post #16968862
Maybe POTN can start a movement to rename mat (or mount?) to window and mount (or mat?) to backing board!

.

Well, it's the same stuff most of the time (although you can use thinner self coloured card for backing of course). It becomes a mat when you cut a hole in it.

UKmitch86 wrote in post #16968862
Coincidentally, 'dry mounting' implies there's a 'wet mounting' - is that so?

Yes, although it is normally called gluing, rather than wet mounting. There are several ways of sticking prints to a card. You can use double sided adhesive tape, you can glue it with a variety of different glues or you can dry mount it. Dry mounting is the best way to avoid wrinkles as glue etc., can cause the print to wrinkle up as it dries, if not applied properly.

Dry mounting is still a form of gluing but, rather than a liberal application of "wet" glue, it uses a drymounting tissue which is placed between the print and the backing. The tissue is essentially a very thin sheet of adhesive which needs to be heated to work (until then it is just a sheet of tissue and can be handled without any stickiness). You place it between the print and the board and place everything into a heated press to apply pressure as it is heated.

You need to set the thermostat to the appropriate temperature and then apply the heat and pressure for the recommended time (temperature and time vary depending on the tissue you are using, instructions will be supplied with the tissues).

The very thin, uniform, layer of glue and the way it works with heat and pressure, ensure a very flat result that won't wrinkle over time.

UKmitch86 wrote in post #16968862
I'm still not 100% certain of how you attach the photo to backing board and window - I should read the book that came with the Logan cutter.

There is some degree of personal preference here. I know someone who uses double sided adhesive tape around the edge of the print (you need to allow some extra print surface for this of course, around the outside of the aperture). Personally (and most people I know do the same) I just stick it on with tape around the back of the print, making sure it is aligned correctly in the aperture first of course. I don't use archival quality tape, or acid free this and that, but mu prints don't need to last a long time, as they are going to competitions and as exhibition entries and will be retired after a relatively short while as the mounts can get a bit tatty, and grubby, being carted here, there and everywhere and with a lot of people handling them. If you intend them to be framed and hung for a long period, or sold, then I would think it worth looking into archival quality materials.

Personally, I tape around all four sides then glue the backboard on with a liberal application of "pritt stick" type glue around the edges. I have had no problem with wrinkling, but the idea that someone mentioned above of just taping the top edge could be worth looking into, if that is a concern, or you are having trouble keeping the print level while you tape it down.

UKmitch86 wrote in post #16960722
My thought process was that if you took a digital shot, processed it, cropped it and printed it, it may not be of a standard aspect ratio any longer - therefore, to occupy a standard affordable glass-fronted frame, your mount border wouldn't have consistent width between top/bottom and left/right - I suppose my question is, does anyone care and is it viewed as unprofessional? I have to say, my shots that are right in-camera and left at 2:3 or 3:2 always look nicer to my eye than odd extreme ratio crops.

I've never heard anyone saying it was considered "unprofessional". It all depends on the image composition at the end of the day, and how that will suit a particular frame.