In the years since  photo galleries began selling larger and larger fine-art prints, photographers who print on a large scale have moved away from the traditional wooden frames with glass faces to explore other techniques. One reason is practical: Mats aren’t available in large sizes, and a wooden frame with glass made to fit 50x40-inch print is both heavy and expensive to ship and transport.  Needing to find a new way to keep their prints smooth and flat, photographers began about a decade ago to back their prints with rigid material like aluminum or Sintra, a PVC-based plastic material.  Some photographers chose to protect or laminate the front of their prints by bonding them to sheets of plexiglass which is thinner and lighter than glass.

Mounting without glass also has an esthetic appeal.

“The main concern for me is trying to get the image directly in front of the viewer,” says photographer Chris Jordan, who has exhibited his oversized, mounted prints at Yossi Milo Gallery in New York, Paul Kopeikin Gallery in Los Angeles and many museums and educational centers.  “Despite being clear, glass always feels like a wall between the image and the viewer, especially when it is used in the recessed shadow-box style that many photographers are using lately.”

Jill Greenberg, who is represented by Clampart in New York and other galleries, says she admired the look of prints mounted without glass by photographer David Maisel and others. “I thought the prints looked so great, I started researching some of the ways photographers are mounting prints so they don’t have to put glass over them.” She adds, “My images are often confused with paintings, and I liked to add to that confusion.”

At the advice of her framer in Los Angeles, Fine Art Solutions, Greenberg has had many of her inkjet prints rear-mounted on Dibond, a composite made of two aluminum sheets sandwiching a core of polyethylene.  The front of the print is then laminated with a clear, matte finish liquid coating that contains UV absorbers. The result is a vibrant print in which the vivid colors of Greenberg’s image shine through without the glare of glass.

Brian Clamp, owner of Clampart, notes, “Dibond is the strongest  material to which you can mount a print,” adding that  Dibond-mounted prints are almost impossible to bend. He says Dibond is also “the flattest panel material on the market, meaning that you do not get a distracting ‘orange peel’ texture to the photograph when it is mounted, as with Sintra.” (The adhesive used to back-mount prints atop Sintra is believed to create a puckering texture.)

There are many laminates on the market.  In searching for a way to display prints without glass, Jordan tried out a variety of laminations which came in sprays or pressure-sensitive sheets. These products (manufactured by Drytac, Lyson, Acrylite, Neschen,  and others) promised some UV protection, but he didn’t like the  texture they added to his prints and was unsure about their longevity.  After experimenting, Jordan has chosen to have Laumont Studio in New York mount his prints in a process similiar to the patented Diasec technique.  In the process, according to Willie Vera at Laumont Studio, Jordan's print is fixed with an airtight seal to a sheet of 1/8-inch sheet of non-glare plexiglass.  Says Jordan,  “Lots of progress has been made with laminates, and now there are several out there made from archival materials, and one made from Lexan [a brand of plexiglass; another is Acrylite] that is extremely scratch resistant. I use the [plexiglass] laminate for my exhibition prints, because people tend to touch my prints a lot (especially kids), and with the laminate that’s not a problem at all.”

Greenberg adds that she has her laminated prints hanging in her home, where her children’s messy hands sometimes soil them. “We have wiped them down with no ill effects.” A glass of red wine spilled at a gallery opening can also be wiped off a laminated print.

Clamp believes lamination techniques like the one Greenberg uses offer advantages over glass. “They do not add weight to the artwork; lighting the artwork is not an issue; they come in various finishes (matte, luster, and glossy); shipping is easier when not having to worry about the fragility of glass,” he says.

However, the question about all lamination and face-mounting techniques, Clamp says, “is archivability.”  He explains, “While we are told these products are totally archival, we really do not know.  I have heard of laminates yellowing over time, which does not totally surprise me.  Also, laminates protect artworks from moisture and UV-rays, but if something sharp falls into the photograph, it is ruined.”

Andrew Darlow, the author of 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques, says it’s too early to tell whether these new mounting techniques will last. “There is not a lot of data available with regard to the longevity of many of the materials. And to add to that, when you mix different types of prints and different adhesives plus mounting surfaces, the variables increase.”  Paper, adhesives, plexiglass and aluminum all react differently to moisture, heat and UV light – the factors that can age and fade prints. Darlow, who notes that he’s not an expert on art preservation or conservation, says it’s difficult to estimate how a combination of organic and inorganic materials will age over the years. 

“Temperature and humidity are also big factors with any artwork, but I would think that face-mounted art would be more susceptible to problems compared with matted and framed prints. In general, I personally feel more comfortable recommending pigment inkjet prints on acid-free coated inkjet papers, matted and framed traditionally.”

Clamp says that most collectors appreciate the vibrancy of prints mounted without glass,  “and usually defer to the artist's preference for presentation.” Museums, however, are  wary. “The problem for dealers with face-mounted works is that US museums won't take them, anticipating conservation problems down the road and finding storage very difficult,” says W.M.  Hunt, co-owner of New York’s Hasted Hunt Kraeutler Gallery.

Sylvie Penichon, conservator of photographs at the Amon Carter Museum, says she hasn't heard of any museums not buying prints because they are face- or rear-mounted. However, she notes, "What we have learned is that C-prints face-mounted to plexiglass are more sensitive to light than unmounted prints. Also due to the softness of plexiglass, it's very easy to scratch. We've seen prints that with time do not look as good because the plexiglass is scratched." She has also seen fading and yellowing of face-mounted prints. "Bowing is kind of common for early face-mounted prints," dating from the early Eighties when the technique was first popularized by Thomas Struth, Thomas Ruff and other German photographers, "when people weren't countermounting them in the back. Nowadays photographers put Dibond or Sintra on the back so it's much more rigid."

Earlier this year, stories appeared in the art press suggesting that prints by Andreas Gursky, who started using the Diasec process in the mid-1990s to mount his C-prints, were fading or getting scratched. Jim Coddington, the chief conservator at New York’s Museum of Modern Art, said his department was exploring the best way to store and display the prints to improve their longevity.  “We are also doing research on care of the plexi-face mount, to prevent scratches and other disfigurements that might also necessitate replacement of the work.”

Because the plexiglass is bonded to the print, it can’t be easily replaced if it chips, as the glass in a traditional frame can.Jordan admits that plexiglass is more vulnerable to scratches than glass,  but he thinks the concern about scratches or chips is overblown. “My editioned prints that are sold to museums and collectors are all face mounted.   The reason that museums don’t like face-mounted prints is because of their fragility. But oil paintings are just as fragile, and my work can be reprinted if it gets damaged.” 

Penichan says some museums acquire two prints: one that's mounted for display, "and one not mounted that’s considered an archive copy and isn’t exhibited." Jordan and other photographers have chosen to make prints in different formats: laminated for public displays in high-traffic areas, and as unframed prints for collectors or curators who want to store the prints in files or select their own mounts.  

“To protect collectors from losing their investment in case of a scratch, I have a policy that I will replace any damaged print for the cost of production. To date that hasn’t happened, but at least that gives collectors some security in owning a fragile piece,” Jordan says.

He adds,  “Some collectors and museums have asked for loose prints, and I’m always fine with that.”