snip With respect to the framer I would simply say that he is talking rubbish! The only difference as I understand it is that RA4 paper for laser exposure has different reciprocity characteristics to that sold for conventional photographic exposure.
Dear Bernadette
I stand by that statement!
The framer is John Jones, which has a reputation of being the best in Europe.
So?
When I first complained the consultant I dealt with said it was because my print was fibre based. Fuji paper is resin coated, so it's not that. When I told him it was resin coated that's when he said it was because it was a digital print.
For years and years and years the manufacturers of sensitised photographic printing papers have been producing resin coated (RC) papers...its really nothing new! The fact that the colour emulsion is being exposed by laser rather than the light from a QH bulb is not an issue, as the print is being processed in what is known as RA4 chemistry, and the difference is not the type of emulsion just it's response. The exposure of a laser exposure source is far and away faster than that used in conventional enlarger exposures.
I spoke to Metro who do a mounting service and asked them if they could get a mirror finish with a digital print, the technician I spoke to, initially said yes. But then he paused, and said to date he had only dry mounted traditional photographs on aluminium.
By that is he saying he has never dry mounted a laser exposed print made on RA4 paper or is he actually meaning an ink jet print?
I spoke to A Bliss in London, who specialise in mounting and they wouldn't commit themselves 100% that they could get a mirror finish dry mounting a digitally processed Fuji paper on aluminium either, but they seemed fairly confident.
Its down to technique. A gloss print is easily damaged in mounting if you do not do it right unlike the matt type of surfaces where you can get away with less careful workmanship....and it shows in damage to the mirror surface. Mounting onto aluminium is fine but do bear in mind that due to it's unyielding surface, the slightest bit of dirt that comes between the aluminium and the underside of the print will show. Also anything on the print surface will damage the surface of the print. I suspect this is what is putting these people off.
I spoke to the proprietor John Jones, yesterday evening and explained to him my concerns, and he did say that it would never be perfect, also, under the circumstances aluminium is the best for an 'archival mount'. Archival quality is a major consideration with any materials that I use because of the market I am in, and this print is part of a limited edition. I think foam board as some have mentioned would be out of the question.
I quite understand your concern, but as I said earlier....
____
Use a proper good quality dry mounting press with double strength dry mounting film (not tissue) We have both and might be prepared to part with same for silver!! _______
I am curious about the use of mounting film, is that also referred to as 'tranny film'. My framing consultant mentioned that 'tranny film' could be used, but he said I would encounter the same problem because my print was digitally processed.
No idea what he is talking about....better ask your framing consultant for a full unambiguous explanation and actual product details and we may be able to help you further.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Richard -- For quality drum scans that are really right... Satisfaction Guaranteed. New PDF on request. +44 (0)1873 890670 www.rkdi.co.uk =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
