Friends dont let friends print on 1/8″ acrylic

We have been spending a lot of time looking at the options photographers and artists have in terms of mounting acrylic.  There are lots of companies that will mount a photo for you.. but they all use 1/8″ or 1/4″ acrylic… Now we have been doing this for a year and we understand why other companies use the thin stuff 1) its cheap and 2) it can be handled in a very light lamination process… and those are good things from manufacturing perspective… but from a product offering perspective (IMHO) there are better options for customers without breaking the bank.   The other thing that we don’t understand is the desire to drill holes into a photo and put hardware on top of a picture.  Almost every solution in the market requires post mounts but as a photographer I dont think I ever envisioned a post (let alone 4) on the front of my work… it does make a nice solid mount but it is an easy way out to a hard problem.. just doesn’t seem to do the art any favors

When we set out we made a couple of product development goals 1) no piece should be thinner than 1/2″ and we should use 3/4″ whenever we can… this gives the piece an incredible depth and draws the viewer in.  It also lends excellent saturation and contrast to the mounted image.  2) No hardware on the face of the image, in fact you shouldn’t see hardware at all if you can avoid it 3) It should be the quality that we would be proud to display in our homes, offices and give as gifts to our friends.

When I look at the broad offering in the market I always come back to the quality vs cost evaluation and the acrylic market makes me scratch my head… In almost every case we offer a 3/4″ acrylic on metallic paper with a stainless steel hanging solution that is LESS expensive than our competitions 1/8″ solution… Some may say we are missing some of the market but we prefer to think that we are giving exceptional value to our customers.

If you have ever tried an acrylic print (or wanted to) give us a shout and compare thick acrylic to thin, I think you will be amazed at the relative improvement between the two

Thanks, Brian (