CPF Test - insight from those who have taken it?

[Jim Miller MCPF GCF]

So far, the MCPF exam has required matcutting to be done using manual cutting tools, and nearly all shops have straight-line matcutters in good working condition. Using a CMC has been prohibited, because that may be the one piece of equipment requiring extensive training to operate the software. There has been discussion of allowing MCPF candidates to use a CMC for the exam, but I oppose that change. Few candidates would be familar with more than one CMC model. If the CPF exam shop were equipped with an Eclipse CMC, for example, perhaps a candidate familiar with that machine could have a distinct advantage in taking the exam, while all the others would be unable to use it.

From the beginning, I have advocated requiring MCPF candidates to use primitive equipment for the exam. That is, a manual miter box and hand-held miter saw for cutting the moulding, vices & brads for joining, and a straightedge and matknife for cutting mats. Gaining proficiency with such tools would involve a learning process of benefit to any framer, because the same fundamentals of the work would apply to the use of even the most sophisticated equipment. After all, speed, convenience, and precision are the advantages of using automated framing equipment, but a Master Certified Picture Framer ought to be able to construct a frame of good quality using the primitive tools.

That would "level the playing field" for all candidates. Also, using primitive tools would make it possible for PPFA to provide all the necessary equipment in one box shipped to the exam site, which could be set up anywhere that a workbench is available.

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

I see why you'd advocate that Jim and I completely agree relative to "advanced equipment" like the CMC.
But, when it comes to saws and even joiners they seem to be "base state of the art" to me.

If you don't allow them, why not require a chisel and gilding?

I could see some consideration for using vice and brads.
Maybe even allowing a candidate a little extra time if they choose to use vice and brads in the practicum.
But a candidate shouldn't be FORCED to use a vice and brads because I'm pretty sure the "state of the art" in the industry is the use of a joiner.

But to force the use of a hand saw seems silly.
Although it would obviously be easier to set up an exam site, it isn't the way any commercially viable framer would operate.

 

[Jim Miller MCPF GCF]

You have expressed the prevailing opinion well, Cliff. You can rest assured that my opinion in this regard has not enjoyed serious consideration at any time.

In my opinion the MCPF exam should be based on certain principles:

1. The purpose of the MCPF exam should be to test the framer's design skills and manual skills, and not the framer's commercial viability. Perhaps a test of commercial viability would be a good idea, but that is not what the MCPF program is about.

2. If the framer's skills are limited to the use of certain advanced tools, then his skills may be lost when those tools malfunction or become unavailable for any reason. Some framers might fail the MCPF exam in their own shops, but most would perform well in their home environment, and that might not test of their mastery of the skills.

3. If the MCPF exam requirements are to involve "state of the art" tools as technology continues to advance, then at some future time the exam might only test design skills, and one's ability to operate certain software and push buttons. Operating a CMC does not test a framer's matcutting skill.

4. If the framer can build a good frame using primitive tools, then using more advanced tools only makes his job easier, faster, and more precise.

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

The reason why v-nailers have largely replaced corner-vices in professional framing shops is speed. Many commercial framers no longer own a corner-vice (even though they should) and hence do not know how to use them, let alone produce a quality frame with them. Then there are the nail-holes in the corners. They can be filled up even on high gloss frames, but again this takes time.

One of the highest costs in a framing enterprise is labor. Cutting down on the cost of labor, or cutting down on the time it takes to produce a finished frame is beneficial to the owner of the frame-shop. The customer is not that interested in whether a frame was produced using as much manual labor as possible. They mostly care about the cost of the finished product and how it looks.

When it comes to breaking down of certain tools, one tool many framers cannot do without is the point of sale computer. When the power goes out, certain tasks in the frame-shop cannot be performed. Working out the price of framing for a customer is one of them. I like to be able to calculate the prices for a customer with or without a calculator (yes I know how to use an abacus) but with so many frames hanging on the wall and prices changing regularly by the supplier, this will be extremely time-consuming.

By the time I have set up an accurate manual pricing system, the power-companies will have restored power.
The same applies to the use of cmc's. It is nice to advertise to a customer, that a matboard has been cut with a straightedge and hand-held knife, but when presented with a bill for the extra time involved, that same customer will not be impressed and will take his business elsewhere next time.

Some of the intricate mat-designs can only be produced by a cmc in a reasonable time and quality, excepting perhaps when Brian Wolfe has a go at cutting a mat with a dexter-knife. The cmc can cut complicated matboards on its own, while the framer can perform other tasks at the same time. The cmc will pay for itself in a few years time.

I was unaware that a candidate for the MCPF Exam can bring along (any) favorite framing tools to the test-site.

 

[Ormond Williams MCPF]

The MCPF should test a framer really well and I think it does that. As far as going back to all hand tools is concerned, how far back do you go? A 2 x 4, hand planes & gilding/finishing by hand? I'm not convinced that we should go that far or even as far as you suggest, Jim. I reckon the current requirements are OK.

When I did my exam in Vegas in 2008, the drop saw provided in the makeshift workshop at the convention venue was quite inaccurate. There were two vee nailers that didn't work. I coaxed one back into life to make my joints, but the other guy gave up on the vee nailers nailed his joints together.

To this day I have no idea whether that was planned or not, but it didn't matter, we both worked around the problem. Neither of us needed that problem, but it was a test of adaptability. I wonder whether other framers have had any additional equipment problems like that? I wonder whether it is fair and reasonable for any candidates to have such equipment problems, while none of the framers, that I have personally been involved with examining have had such an equipment problem?

I have seen framers bring a few favourite hand tools to the exam. I'm not sure that this is a a great idea. I knew this was a a difficult test and personally I saw no need to bring anything except me to the exam. I certainly didn't want to appear to be 'wimpy' by not testing myself completely!

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

For some of us the experience of sitting either the CPF or MCPF exam was harrowing, but once passed and the certificate(s) hang on the wall of the shop, the customer is not interested in the score.
I think designating a testing site for an MCPF exam is in need of fine-tuning. Do we allow or disallow the presence of foot-operated v-nailers? They need to be in a well-maintained condition with all the types of v-nails present.
All equipment and rulers need to be in metric and imperial sizes, not one or the other. Can we limit the matcutters to only the popular brands?

We had the discussion about the use of cmc's at an MCPF Exam before, but I'll raise some points about it. If the GCF Exam allows the use of cmc's, then the MCPF Exam can do so too. With the GCF Exam, a candidate has a choice. Either a manual or computerized matcutter - not both. I do not think this is necessary. If both are present at the site, then why not use both. It is the result of how the mat looks and is of the right size, that is important. Not so much how the candidate created the matboard. When operating a cmc, it is still possible for the candidate to stuff up a matboard and start over again. The cmc is not fool-proof and can make hooking or overcuts. This can be remedied by the candidate.

However for the MCPF Exam, complicated matboards need not be cut. That is as far as I know, since I have not yet sat the exam, but when it comes to comparing matcutting for the Advanced GCF in Mount Design and Function to the MCPF exam, the advanced GCF is a real challenge. I also think, that the same testing site used for a GCF Exam can be used for an MCPF exam. The exams do not differ that much. Some may disagree, but they both require the use of basic framing equipment.

I also think it is beneficial for the candidate to know beforehand what type of tools are available at the site.

 

[Ormond Williams MCPF]

The MCPF exam is a test of knowledge and skill as a framer. Someone can be taught to use a CMC in a very short space of time and requires very little skill, just training. The CMC cuts the bevels, not the framer!

As there are some 60+ framers who have the MCPF certification, I believe it would devalue all those certifications if framers were permitted to use a CMC and I for one would be more than unhappy about that!
Let's not lower standards so that some framers would have an advantage that others did not have!

If the GCF allows this and has allowed it and provided those resources for all participants, then so be it. The MCPF has not and IMO it's best to leave it that way!

Time is given to MCPF participants to get to know the equipment provided and test it and they should use that time to do just that. Whether it's foot operated vee nailer or pneumatic doesn't matter, IMO. If it doesn't work then the framer has to find a solution. That's a real test!

Usually MCPF exams are conducted at annual conventions because two MCPF framers are required to examine each participant. That's the way it's done down here, but there may be other times and locations that it is held in North America. I'm not sure about that!

 

[Andrew Lenz Jr.]

Certain philosophies aside, the fact of the matter is that equipment breaks. Our CMC went down this year for two months. Out came the trusty 20+ year old Fletcher manual cutter. None of my framers were trained on it but since I had cut mats manually for 23 years before we bought our CMC in 2002, we were able to get our orders out. Master framers should know alternative lower-tech methods of completing a project.

I'll admit I've never used a miter box to cut a frame. But I've used a foot chopper, sliding table saw (FrameSquare), a chop saw, and a 3-phase double-miter saw. Push comes to shove, I'm sure I could figure out a miter box!

I think the general public would be surprised how ingenious framers need to be on occasion!

Andrew

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

Here we have several different methods of joining a frame
a) corner-vice
b) foot operated veigh nailer
c) pneumatic operated v-nailer
d) hand-operated vee nailer
e) computer operated v-nailer.
Which of these can a candidate for an MCPF Exam expect to find at the testing site and which not?

Then there the miter-cutters
a) foot-operated guillotine
b) pneumatic operated guillotine
c) hand-held saw with miter-box
d) electric single or double miter-saw

I think the electric saw is noisy and can be distracting for other candidates

Matcutters:
a) hand-held knife with straightedge
b) manual matcutter
c) cmc

Why do we allow the use of time-consuming framing equipment in a professional framing exam, while the most modern equipment available is not? Are we trying to attract young people to our industry by shunning these tools in the MCPF Exam?

 

[Ormond Williams MCPF]

Why do we allow the use of time-consuming framing equipment in a professional framing exam, while the most modern equipment available is not? Are we trying to attract young people to our industry by shunning these tools in the MCPF Exam?

The MCF exam has very little to do with attracting young people to the industry. It has little to do with equipment being time consuming.

The MCPF exam is a test of knowledge of conservation framing and a test of the framer's skill!
A competent framer will be able to use any of the equipment mentioned.

Don't forget that four pieces are done in the framer's own shop, where they can take all the time they need.

 

[Jim Miller MCPF GCF]

Why do we allow the use of time-consuming framing equipment in a professional framing exam, while the most modern equipment available is not? Are we trying to attract young people to our industry by shunning these tools in the MCPF Exam?

Again, the MCPF exam is not about using the most advanced equipment, not about speed, not about commercial viability.

The purpose of the MCPF exam is to test a framer's design skills and manual skills in constructing frames including all of the preservation features appropriate for the item being framed. That has nothing to do with age or years of experience. It has to do with study, practice, and precise workmanship.

 

[Jim Miller MCPF GCF]

I'll admit I've never used a miter box to cut a frame.

You should try it. Cutting precise miters using a hand-held saw and miterbox is neither difficult nor extraordinarily time consuming, but your tools must be in good condition, properly adjusted, and you must move the saw through the moulding using precisely straight strokes with proper pressure, being careful not to skew the saw to one side or the other. Using a professional-grade, steel miterbox and asharp, good quality, hand-held miter saw, a skilled framer can cut miters as perfectly as it could be done using any electric saw.

I would not advocate using a hand-held saw and miterbox for commercial framing, but learning how to use such a tool teaches essential fundamentals of cutting miters, which apply to all of the more-advanced tools, as well.

In my shop we have used choppers, double miter saws, and single mitersaws. Presently we use a Phaedra SawHelper system with twin DeWalt mitersaws, and it works a treat.

 

[Jim Miller MCPF GCF]

As far as going back to all hand tools is concerned, how far back do you go? A 2 x 4, hand planes & gilding/finishing by hand?

Ormond, shaping and finishing moulding is an advanced skill superfluous to modern framing, since no framer needs to shape and finish his own moulding. On the other hand, most framers need to know how to cut and join moulding.

If the MCPF exam were to test only those skills necessary in framing, what would be the exam for framers who buy their frames cut and joined from their suppliers? Indeed, some framers even have their mats and glazing products cut by thier suppliers. For example, a framer without a CMC probably would consider having a supplier provide a mat with 30 windows. Some framers would buy Museum Optium cut-to-size, rather than buying a sheet and cutting it themselves. Should thre MCPF exam ignore these unnecessary skills? I think not.

Some of you may know that I was on the Certification Board that developed the MCPF program, along with Chairman Merrill Grayson, William Parker, and Diane Day. I saw the program through every stage of its development. From the beginning, I advocated a program of cumulative certifications leading up to the MCPF designation, plus some additional, optional, specialty qualifications. For example, I would have required an MCPF to pass all of these specific, separate exams in order to earn the designation:

1. Matting: Design, cutting, decorative features using penlines, powdered-pigments, and watercolors

2. Moulding: Cutting, joining, stacking, adding liners, panels, and fillets

3. Mounting: Preservation mounting of canvas, paper, flat textiles, garments, several kinds of objects

4. Fitting/finishing: Assembly of all frame parts, including spacing devices, shadowbox sides, and finishing techniques including hanging hardware, dustcover, taping, solid-board backing.

Then I would have preferred to offer these advanced, specialty qualifications for framers who want to achieve further-advanced credentials:

1. Advanced Moulding: shaping and finishing, including stains and gilding techniques

2. Advanced Matting: Designing and cutting a cove mat, fabric coverings & embossed features, debossing, adding fillets

3. Advanced mounting: Strip-lining and keying-out a canvas; starch-paste preparation and several hinging techniques, several types of non-adhesive attachments for paper; attaching delicate garments and heavy/bulky garments; attaching difficult objects (roller skates, a bowl, a seashell, a wine glass)

4. Advanced Fitting/finishing: Stacking mouldings/liners/fillets in several combinations; back-box extenders; accommodating extreme environments; hanging hardware for extreme size, extreme weight.

But alas, we ended up with a single exam and no optional, advanced qualifications.

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

I have used a miterbox to cut a molding into four rails, but the result is not that good, unless all eight ends are subsequently trimmed using a miter-trimmer. This is a guillotine, that runs sideways and shaves off tiny amounts.
The blade needs to be hollow ground, just like the blades on a chopper.

Miter-trimmers can be bought second-hand as they were quite common a hundred years ago and can be set at any angle between 45 and 90 degrees. Miter-trimmers are still made new, as I saw them advertised on Ebay. It is even possible to purchase accessories to trim double beveled rails.

The argument that allowing cmc's in the MCPF will cause framers who already passed this exam using a manual matcutter to throw up their arms in horror does not stack up, as this has not happened when the use of cmc's was allowed in the GCF Exam and the Advanced Accreditations.

The MCPF Exam is comprehensive as it is and I think it is good, that it was not split up into separate exams.
Think about the time it takes to sit each separate exam, the cost of these exams for the candidate. Accommodation, travel, lost wages etc. for each separate exam.

Advanced exams can still be introduced, but I doubt there will be many candidates for these exams, if the MCPF designation already means a lot. There will be some who take advanced exams, but very few who will sit and pass them all.

 

[Ormond Williams MCPF]

Ormond, shaping and finishing moulding is an advanced skill superfluous to modern framing, since no framer needs to shape and finish his own moulding. On the other hand, most framers need to know how to cut and join moulding.

Jim,
I agree with you, but using a mitre box and saw is also a skill that is superfluous to modern framing.

If the MCPF exam were to test only those skills necessary in framing, what would be the exam for framers who buy their frames cut and joined from their suppliers? Indeed, some framers even have their mats and glazing products cut by thier suppliers. For example, a framer without a CMC probably would consider having a supplier provide a mat with 30 windows. Some framers would buy Museum Optium cut-to-size, rather than buying a sheet and cutting it themselves. Should thre MCPF exam ignore these unnecessary skills? I think not.

I agree completely!

Some of you may know that I was on the Certification Board that developed the MCPF program, along with Chairman Merrill Grayson, William Parker, and Diane Day. I saw the program through every stage of its development. From the beginning, I advocated a program of cumulative certifications leading up to the MCPF designation, plus some additional, optional, specialty qualifications. For example, I would have required an MCPF to pass all of these specific, separate exams in order to earn the designation:

1. Matting: Design, cutting, decorative features using penlines, powdered-pigments, and watercolors

2. Moulding: Cutting, joining, stacking, adding liners, panels, and fillets

3. Mounting: Preservation mounting of canvas, paper, flat textiles, garments, several kinds of objects

4. Fitting/finishing: Assembly of all frame parts, including spacing devices, shadowbox sides, and finishing techniques including hanging hardware, dustcover, taping, solid-board backing.

That would have been interesting. It would have required a lot more time to test those aspects at the examining venue, but It would have separated the horses from the goats!

Then I would have preferred to offer these advanced, specialty qualifications for framers who want to achieve further-advanced credentials:

1. Advanced Moulding: shaping and finishing, including stains and gilding techniques

2. Advanced Matting: Designing and cutting a cove mat, fabric coverings & embossed features, debossing, adding fillets

3. Advanced mounting: Strip-lining and keying-out a canvas; starch-paste preparation and several hinging techniques, several types of non-adhesive attachments for paper; attaching delicate garments and heavy/bulky garments; attaching difficult objects (roller skates, a bowl, a seashell, a wine glass)

4. Advanced Fitting/finishing: Stacking mouldings/liners/fillets in several combinations; back-box extenders; accommodating extreme environments; hanging hardware for extreme size, extreme weight.

But alas, we ended up with a single exam and no optional, advanced qualifications.

This would have been an excellent addition to the MCPF exam. Maybe in the future it will happen. It will be way to late for me!

 

[David Lantrip MCPF GCF]

A lot of good thoughts exchanged here. One issue I'd like to address is that of using computerized matcutters or not.

With the four submitted pieces, it doesn't matter. A candidate could use a manual stright-line cutter, a CMC, a straightedge and utility knife, a steak knife or teeth. The examiners are looking at and scoring the results only. If the mats are the correct type for the artwork, accurately sized with smooth bevels and sharp, crisp corners with no overcuts, that's all that maters.

The practicum is another matter. The policy has been, and still is, that computerized matcutters will not be used. A couple reasons for this:

1. Not every testing facility will have a CMC. It would not be fair to give some candidates the opportunity to use one while others do not have the same opportunity.

2. There are various types of CMCs out there. Some candidates may have an unfair advantage if they are familiar with it and its operation, while others are not.

 

[Jim Miller MCPF GCF]

...I agree with you, but using a mitre box and saw is also a skill that is superfluous to modern framing.

...Until the power goes out and Mrs. Urgentcustomer is willing to hold the flashlight.
:yield:

 

[Jim Miller MCPF GCF]

The MCPF Exam is comprehensive as it is and I think it is good, that it was not split up into separate exams. Think about the time it takes to sit each separate exam, the cost of these exams for the candidate. Accommodation, travel, lost wages etc. for each separate exam.

Kai, of course the MCPF program is good as-is. My proposal back in 2000 was to have a building-block approach, rather than an all-or-nothing approach, and I still believe it could have worked well. If the MCPF program had gone that way, a candidate could take all three exams in one session, and it would not take any longer than the existing MCPF exam. However, the elements of the frame assembly would be considered separately, so if the candidate passed three and failed one, he would have to re-take only that specific segment of the exam and, in the meantime, would still be recognized for accomplishing the other three qualifications.

Some framers, who find the MCPF exam to be a very intimidating process, would prefer to earn the accomplishments in smaller segments. It would be much less intimidating that way. A framer might sit for one or two segments at the annual PPFA convention in succesive years. In that case, he would attend the convention anyway, so the peripheral expenses would not be a factor. Also, the simpler, individual exams could be staged at local PPFA chapter events held at local shops willing to host a segment or two of the qualifications.

Anyway, my proposal was a moot point, because the MCPF program has been developed and has succeeded as it is. I mention it only because there might still be interest in advanced MCPF specialty qualifications. And other credentials, such as the once-proposed "Certified Frame Designer" (CFD) program could be developed that way.

 

[Ormond Williams MCPF]

...Until the power goes out and Mrs. Urgentcustomer is willing to hold the flashlight.
:yield:

Hahaha.....anyone with MCPF qualification ought to be able to cut joints on a mitre box with a saw by feel, anyway. No need for flashlights!

David,
I agree, definitely no CMC's in the practicum for those reasons!
Imagine a Valiani owner trying to cut a mat on a Gunnar or Wizard? The mind boggles!

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

Since at present there is no Advanced MCPF accreditation or Certified Frame Designer award, the Fine Art Trade Guild has the three Advanced Accreditations. Why spend all the time developing three new PPFA accreditations when the exams are already there, just run by a different organization.
Any framer interested in sitting these FATG run accreditations will have passed the GCF exam (and enjoyed it). Currently there are no FATG examiners in North America and only one being an Advanced GCF in that part of the world.
There are plenty of CPF's or MCPF's in North America who are also GCF's. These framers undoubtedly have a healthy interest in pictureframing in general.

Customers do not really mind whether a framing exam specializing in conservation framing is run by the PPFA or FATG. They will be impressed regardless. Even if the PPFA is to run a separate module on conservation framing, then the format will be similar to the accreditation run by the FATG. I wouldn't mind traveling to North America and examing candidates for any of the four FATG exams in conjunction with a trade-show.