Proper way to frame a photo?

Hi,
I have an 8" by 12" photo and a frame with mount.
What's considered the best way to secure the photo in the frame?

do people generally use masking tape and sellotape the photo onto the back of the mount?
or put something (cardboard etc.) behind the photo and then the back of the frame onto it?
or use a 'special' tape thingy/triangle that the photo corners sit into and tape to the mount?
or what is the best method?
Cheers in advance,
pa.

I use an acid free tape and "hinge" the top of the photo to the back of the mount , i.e. 2 small bits of tape to position the photo behind the hole in the mount and then add a couple of longer pieces to act as a hinge at the top. The rest of the photo then hangs from the hinge. I then add a backing card over the lot.

I don't know whether this is the "best" way, but the result look OK to me (subject to me having cut the hole in the mount card accurately in the first place!)

I have recently exhibited some photos and used the hinge method mentioned by 'swarf'. Wisdom suggests using acid free tape to prolong print and mount life. I made some mounted but unframed prints and sued backing board for them stuck on with acid free & ph7-70 double sided tape.

For the framed pictures, I used pre-bought frames that come with their own clips, or 'jegs', to hold in the back. With those I hinged the photo to the 'mount card' and then used the sheet of paper that came inside the galls to go between the photo and the frame backing.

I hope that helps!

Andy

If the frame has a glass panel to protect the picture, you should put a "subframe" in it to create a gap between the glass and the picture. If you don't, eventually, the picture will stick to the glass panel, and you wont be able to undo it anymore. Given enough time, it might destroy the picture.

thanks. the photo sits behind the mount so wont touch the glass

To extend the question slightly (and I'm not offering an answer!), I think it might make a difference depending what how the print was made

I would imagine that a 'traditional' print (ie made in a darkroom from photographic paper) would behave differently from an inkjet or a block-printed image?

I suppose another question is what is the intended lifespan of the picture?.
Do you have the original 'negative' or digital file? and so could redo the picture in years to come.

I'm mindful of the longevity of coloured inks/coloured negatives etc, as just about all the photographs I took in the 60's and 70's have suffered colour change/loss.

Either way I'd agree with the above :- backing card, fornt mount and acid free materials where in contact with the print/picture

regards
Bernard

The hinged method is best as it allows for expansion of the print, if you secure the print fully to the mount with anything then it's much more likely to ripple as the print paper and thicker mountcard will have slightly different expansion rates. Practicaly speaking it's easier, & no less effective, to hinge the print to the mount aperture rather than the backing board

Simon

This is how we do ours in the gallery.

link

Linky no worky

Should have used Cibachrome! My prints made using that process are still as good as they were 40 years ago, and that is in sunlight.
Regarding modern printer inks, apart from Chromolife (so Canon say) most prints hung in a room that gets the sun are unlikely to last more than a year or two without serious fading / colour loss.
The best way to get a reasonable long life print is to use a dye-sublimation process. There are some reasonably cheap home use dye-sub printers but generally seem to be limited to just 6"x4".

What dinneenp hasn't said is what type of print he has.

John K

Have no idea how that happened, very strange!

Lets try that again! link

That's a Powerpoint slide show Danny. I don't have the means to view it .

Gwyn,

You can download a Powerpoint Viewer from Microsoft.

Thanks for the link Danny. Useful to have this. recently exhibited some photos and had got part way there; ideally would have seen this a few weeks back! But great to have now

Andy