Display lightboxes - would anyone use static cling as only printed graphic layer

[Humble PM]

We have a firm of architects who want us to produce prints for a set of lightboxes. These will display photographic art-work.

Images will be A0 (33-1/8 x 46-13/16 in) in size, and the drawings they've sent over for the light boxes seem to be designed to only accept static cling on reverse of front face. These light boxes will be in a fairly dimly lit area.

I have trouble imagining that the resulting images will look great. Am I wrong?

 

[weyandsign]

I would give them a sample print and let them decide if it looks ok.

 

[visual800]

I love it when architects play sign people...and to date, Ive never seen them do a good job of it. I will assume the the faces can be removable? If so I would suggest prints on clear think duratrans that would slide in on top of existing faces that way they could be changed out more easily. Digital prints on clear decals would also be good but that is something that would be better printed on clear poly....in my opinion

 

[DL Signs]

Test it first. Used to do some retail displays like that for one chain of stores so they could swap out promotions, but these went on the front of a lighted panel. Once we found the right combination of materials it worked OK, I didn't like it much, but they liked them. Rather than static cling, if they're going to swap & re-use graphics, look into GlassAppeal. Lays & stays better, and bubbles less than static cling. Best option would be like visual800 suggested, something on the order of clear poly.

 

[Humble PM]

I should mention, that I only have a little aqueous printer, but have pretty good combination of backlit front print film, and acetate, which I can run in perfect register.

From what I can see from their drawings, there is no middle diffusing layer, and only a 2mm acrylic face for the static cling to adhere to.

They are award winning architects.

 

[Precision]

Print on clear, lam with white backed vinyl, apply in reverse on clear using rapid tac or a similar product.

The result is your print, behind a clear acrylic, backed in white (your diffuser).

Makes for a nice presentable product.

I hope this helps.

 

[Humble PM]

Thank you all for your help & suggestions!

I would give them a sample print and let them decide if it looks ok.

Working on this, though there is a complex combination of client, architect and the firm designing the construction of the light boxes (details of brightness and colour temp TBC)

I love it when architects play sign people...and to date, Ive never seen them do a good job of it. I will assume the the faces can be removable? If so I would suggest prints on clear think duratrans that would slide in on top of existing faces that way they could be changed out more easily. Digital prints on clear decals would also be good but that is something that would be better printed on clear poly....in my opinion

Faces are removable, held in with 6 bolts. I'd assumed that there would be a backing diffusion layer that prints could be sandwiched against. Will see if that is an option. Then either print on backlit front print film, or clear (I get a much better inkload on the back print, than on the acetate).

Starting to wonder if I can cut/drill/punch holes in the backlit front print film, and use those to secure the prints between the frame of the light box and the acrylic. Would require all 7 boxes to be manufactured to almost exactly the same size...

Test it first. Used to do some retail displays like that for one chain of stores so they could swap out promotions, but these went on the front of a lighted panel. Once we found the right combination of materials it worked OK, I didn't like it much, but they liked them. Rather than static cling, if they're going to swap & re-use graphics, look into GlassAppeal. Lays & stays better, and bubbles less than static cling. Best option would be like visual800 suggested, something on the order of clear poly.

Light boxes will be in a public concourse, front application definitely not an option. I can't print to glass appeal or cling, but I can see how this being used second face might make things simpler.

Print on clear, lam with white backed vinyl, apply in reverse on clear using rapid tac or a similar product.

The result is your print, behind a clear acrylic, backed in white (your diffuser).

Makes for a nice presentable product.

I hope this helps.

Trying this now - initial looks are showing OK density of print. the clear I have available is not self adhesive, so not sure this will stay put.

The work on display is set to change every 3-4 months, so this will be an ongoing production. Client is local, so I may be able to take front faces into our space, to apply print, if we do go down the slightly/semi adhesive route.

 

[unclebun]

It sounds like those are Duratrans lightboxes. They're made for Duratrans prints. Find a trade vendor for Duratrans prints and outsource them.

 

[Gino]

I'd like to see the bunch who turned up to vote on that one........................

 

[Humble PM]

It sounds like those are Duratrans lightboxes. They're made for Duratrans prints. Find a trade vendor for Duratrans prints and outsource them.

These are very custom made lightboxes. The plans specifically call out "front cover panel 2mm acrylic captures graphic printed on clear static cling vinyl", which I thought was a strange choice.
I can print to match density of durartrans (clear second layer behind translucent front print layer), so would like to retain the profit in the print sides of things (unless they insist on cling...)

 

[JBurton]

They are award winning architects.

I'll just leave this here: https://licpost.com/city-sues-desig...over-non-compliance-of-federal-ada-guidelines

But really, have you had a chance to communicate with the fabricators? It sounds like they are making a lightbox, akin to the xray light boxes you see in your doctor's office, white diffuser preinstalled, then an additional 2mm front panel cover. I think you're imagining a light box as a sign maker builds it as opposed to whatever this company is calling a 'light box.'

 

[Humble PM]

I'll just leave this here: https://licpost.com/city-sues-desig...over-non-compliance-of-federal-ada-guidelines

But really, have you had a chance to communicate with the fabricators? It sounds like they are making a lightbox, akin to the xray light boxes you see in your doctor's office, white diffuser preinstalled, then an additional 2mm front panel cover. I think you're imagining a light box as a sign maker builds it as opposed to whatever this company is calling a 'light box.'

I'm not sure they're having anything other than the 2mm front panel.
Box is 100mm deep, so I can work without the diffuser. Spec for led back light is yet to be determined, so I can control (be responsible for) the illuminant level, and colour balance... Thinking to take readings (either with an i1, or a seconic incident light meter) from my laptop screen (showing 255,255,255) across a few brightness settings, then taking a controlled test image into the location, and eye-balling.

 

[Humble PM]

Fortunately, these are not celebrity award* winning architects.

*award for most energy conserved in a 2nd grade egg & spoon race.

 

[gnubler]

They are award winning architects.

They all are. At least, that's what they tell everyone.

 

[unclebun]

Are you sure there's not a piece of white plexiglass that will be behind the print? If they are spec'ing a clear print, that would be what I would expect. I would actually talk to the people ordering it and the people making the lightbox to find out for sure. If there really is a piece of white plex inside, then a clear static cling print would work.

I have a feeling they are basing this order on the kinds of lightboxes they've seen in airports and museums and such. And those are Duratrans lightboxes. It's a well-mature technology and implementation for a specific need. If that's what they are wanting, there is no real good reason to reinvent the wheel. And you can make more money reselling than making it yourself....especially when you build up the adward-winning aspect of genuine Duratrans as seen in innumerable high visibility applications. (that's architect-talk there)

 

[Humble PM]

Are you sure there's not a piece of white plexiglass that will be behind the print? If they are spec'ing a clear print, that would be what I would expect. I would actually talk to the people ordering it and the people making the lightbox to find out for sure. If there really is a piece of white plex inside, then a clear static cling print would work.

I have a feeling they are basing this order on the kinds of lightboxes they've seen in airports and museums and such. And those are Duratrans lightboxes. It's a well-mature technology and implementation for a specific need. If that's what they are wanting, there is no real good reason to reinvent the wheel. And you can make more money reselling than making it yourself....especially when you build up the adward-winning aspect of genuine Duratrans as seen in innumerable high visibility applications. (that's architect-talk there)

I'll talk with the lightbox designers, but the drawings don't show a diffusion layer. If there is one, then I'd consider suggesting they order Duraclear® prints, otherwise, I've got a pretty good Duratrans® substitute.
Down side of subbing out the printing is I still need to work out the density of the print so we're not too light or dark.