ask a museum or gallery about mounting... brace yourself

[removed account4]

So, if Ciba testing shows a certain longevity, it is true. But if pigment inkjet tests by the same organizations state something about longevity...they are suspect. Gotta love the internet.

i don't trust what any organization suggests is "archival" i am not sure how many years ago, the pro labs were printing on a paper with a certain process
they claimed was 50 or 100year stable, colors shifted in normal display conditions ( in homes on walls not in direct light ) in a number of months. work was replaced..
archival pigment on rag paper less than 16years ago was claimed to be archival, yet they shifted to green. i cant' say anything about ciba or ilf-chrome but
often times archival stability is used as a selling point and it is not as stable or it is learned soon after to not be stable. that all said, i have some cheap ink jet prints
made on an epson 740 from 15 years ago ( cheap as in consumer ink + paper, or the cheapest paper i could get to print quick portfolio pieces for my book ...they still look
exactly as i printed them, same with a cheap cannon printer on the same cheap paper ... my local lab told me that fuji told them their prints have a 700 years life span.
seems to be all hype to me, and what i find to be kind of funny ( not funny ha-ha ) is that a lot of governement agencies that collect mitigation photography ( HABS type photography )
don't want archivally processed film or prints delivered in unbuffered thumb tabbed envelopes and corner-mounted on photo mount cards, but a CD/DVD of files, and ink / pigment prints.

I suggest we ask the galleries to which we plan to submit our work. Some do have "hard and fast" rules, others will peddle anything that's colorful.

jtk
i was speaking from experience. i used to part own an art gallery, we didn't have any hard and fast rules.
the way it was delivered to hang was the way we displayed it. we didn't store people's work, we displayed.
as you said, different galleries have different rules and agendas but not all of them want things window matted with 8ply
RE dry mount, while some suggest it is reversible ( its wax sometimes ) that might just be a selling point.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The term giclee always brings a smile to my face when you know what the slang French means.

It always brings a smile to my face too and for the same reason. My girl friend used to have a cat that would giclee around the house when she did not like something.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

my local lab told me that fuji told them their prints have a 700 years life span.

This is achievable and in no means outlandish as a claim.
Conservation treatment, either without or with full frame-up, occasional illumination and predominantly well maintained dark storage conditions can see a lot of photographic prints go on and on long after their original creators have gone.

The other thing is that I don't consider, and never have considered, archival permanence to be the sole or overriding consideration when purchasing photographic artworks, nor do astute prospective buyers. My consideration, which also correlates with so many others, is the quality of the work from concept, composition, technical mastery, knowledge of the subject and lastly, the print quality. Presentation is important, despite what so many amateurs think to the contrary. It would be extremely odd and unbecoming for an established photographer to produce a $700 print and frame it using materials obtained from K-Mart for $10! It's always nice to see a photographer show he/she values their work by providing it with quality finishing. If I produce a $700 print (and I have produced many hundreds), it is unlikely the quality frame-up will cost much less.

So many silly problems I see with hobbyist/amateur-produced inkjet prints are the result of glaring gaps in technical competence e.g. mismatched profiling or substituting cheap, third party inks over the original OEM product and printing to the wrong media — and then making unsubstantiated claims about archival permanence! An inkjet print that was lab-produced for me in 1998 shows evidence of incorrect profiling/colourimetrics, but it has remained stable in terms of colour. I do not know for certain now but I think it was an early Epson used. Subsequently over the years many of my pinhole prints have been lab-produced produced on high-end media via an Epson printer that is about 3 metres long when I saw it. My favourite stock is Canson BFK Rives, Museo Portfolio Rag and Ilford Galeri Smooth pearl. Occasionally Hahnemuhle's uber-pricey German Etching — each media with its own custom manufacturer-supplied profile.

 

[removed account4]

This is achievable and in no means outlandish as a claim.

really ? for a machine print ?
good to know !

 

[jtk]

This is achievable and in no means outlandish as a claim.
Conservation treatment, either without or with full frame-up, occasional illumination and predominantly well maintained dark storage conditions can see a lot of photographic prints go on and on long after their original creators have gone.

The other thing is that I don't consider, and never have considered, archival permanence to be the sole or overriding consideration when purchasing photographic artworks, nor do astute prospective buyers. My consideration, which also correlates with so many others, is the quality of the work from concept, composition, technical mastery, knowledge of the subject and lastly, the print quality. Presentation is important, despite what so many amateurs think to the contrary. It would be extremely odd and unbecoming for an established photographer to produce a $700 print and frame it using materials obtained from K-Mart for $10! It's always nice to see a photographer show he/she values their work by providing it with quality finishing. If I produce a $700 print (and I have produced many hundreds), it is unlikely the quality frame-up will cost much less.

So many silly problems I see with hobbyist/amateur-produced inkjet prints are the result of glaring gaps in technical competence e.g. mismatched profiling or substituting cheap, third party inks over the original OEM product and printing to the wrong media — and then making unsubstantiated claims about archival permanence! An inkjet print that was lab-produced for me in 1998 shows evidence of incorrect profiling/colourimetrics, but it has remained stable in terms of colour. I do not know for certain now but I think it was an early Epson used. Subsequently over the years many of my pinhole prints have been lab-produced produced on high-end media via an Epson printer that is about 3 metres long when I saw it. My favourite stock is Canson BFK Rives, Museo Portfolio Rag and Ilford Galeri Smooth pearl. Occasionally Hahnemuhle's uber-pricey German Etching — each media with its own custom manufacturer-supplied profile.

There are many very fine papers...not just "uber pricey" types. I especially like recent versions of Hahnemeule Photo Rag and, when price is relevant, Canon's various papers...hundreds of large sheets have accumulated literally free due to Canon's marketing to early Pro-10 users

The "pinholes" were result of dust that settled on paper before printing, not a paper flaw but result of dusty printing environment OR dust that settled on paper when it was cut to size ( ... the solution was/is blowing/brushing possible dust off paper before printing). Moab investigated those claims because they were the paper maker/marketer with most experience due to favor they found in the largest market.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There are many very fine papers...not just "uber pricey" types.

That's right, there are. I mentioned just a few of my favs. About 32 types are available here, and each is cut to a small swatch and titled (what is what, its weight, common size pricing, special features etc.) so that clients can pick it up and feel it. Today I am printing some pinhole images on Ilford's gold fibre silk media.

Hahnemuhle's media isn't often used [by me] unless a special texture that accentuates the image is desired. Their products have a big following here in Australia.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

really ? for a machine print ?
good to know !

Did anybody imagine that tiny, frail scraps of papyrus from ancient Egypt 3,000 years ago would be legible/readable in a laboratory today?
Fuji Crystal Archive (FCA) has well-known archival properties, chiefly for the gloss variant. I do not know if there are other machine print media with comparable archival keeping properties. All I see is Fuji stuff!

 

[Bob Carnie]

Did anybody imagine that tiny, frail scraps of papyrus from ancient Egypt 3,000 years ago would be legible/readable in a laboratory today?
Fuji Crystal Archive (FCA) has well-known archival properties, chiefly for the gloss variant. I do not know if there are other machine print media with comparable archival keeping properties. All I see is Fuji stuff!

These Dyes are no different than Kodak Endura Paper and both do not have well known archival properties here in North America... I doubt the paper is any different in Australia.

 

[Bob Carnie]

The well know archival testers, Arrendenburg and Whileheim SP are only as good as reliable as the content provided them to test... if the work is not processed, fixed , washed properly then their testing can be off.... We know from our recent history that C Prints of all types have faded off the walls they are hung, We have not had enough time to predict what Inkjets will do on clients walls.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

These Dyes are no different than Kodak Endura Paper and both do not have well known archival properties here in North America... I doubt the paper is any different in Australia.

Kodak... wait while I fetch the swatch...
Kodak Supra Endura Metallic 300gsm polyester is what all my work has been produced on since 2008 in tandem with Ilfochrome Classic up to the last service of 2010.
This work is in several private collections that I maintain contact with and nothing has been forthcoming about any loss of viewing quality. All prints were conservation framed (9P rag matt with TruVue UV-retardant glass).

The Kodak Supra Endura Lustre media (270gsm) is also swatched but I have not printed to this.

 

[Bob Carnie]

It is a well know fact that all C prints will fade in light and in dark storage... Cibas were apparently very good archival quality in dark storage.
The time line of this fading is somewhere between 15 years and 40 years,depending upon how, where , who printed the work.

I have no idea of the reality's of inkjet.

For my personal work I have switched to Gum Dichromate colour prints and Pt Pd for black and white, and in some cases Silver Gelatin.
The pigments I am using are ground stone and are suspended in hardened gum.. I doubt they will fade soon.

 

[tomkatf]

Do you mean dismounting a dry mounted print with Unstik?? Thanks!

T

Just to answer my own question, in case it's useful... I ordered a litre of Heptane and WAS able to use it to remove dry mounted prints (mounted aprox 45yrs ago!!) from the Crescent non-archival boards. I would soak a corner of the print and gently separate it from the board. Once there was some separation I would pour a little Heptane behind the print while gently pulling the print away from the board. Being careful not to crease or dimple the print. The Heptane was very efficient in dissolving the wax from the dry mount tissue and evaporates quickly. Repeat until the print came free, usually with the dry mount tissue still attached. Repeat soaking a corner while separating the attached dry mount tissue and continue as above. Heptane is not nice stuff and very volatile, wear nitrile gloves, a respirator, eye protection and work only in an extremely well ventilated area. Follow ALL the MSDS caveats... HTH, Tom

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I thought the most archival method of mounting a print are photo corners with an over mat? If the print needs to be remounted because of a damaged board, the print could be easily removed. I know Seal makes archival mount tissue that will release when heated to a certain temperature. For years, I mounted prints with photo corners because owning a dry mount press is just too expensive.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I thought the most archival method of mounting a print are photo corners with an over mat? If the print needs to be remounted because of a damaged board, the print could be easily removed. I know Seal makes archival mount tissue that will release when heated to a certain temperature. For years, I mounted prints with photo corners because owning a dry mount press is just too expensive.

 

[AgX]

So, if Ciba testing shows a certain longevity, it is true. But if pigment inkjet tests by the same organizations state something about longevity...they are suspect. Gotta love the internet.

Ageing testing always is a critical think, because it means cranking up the clock, and then even in lab circumstances. These tests themselves only exist for few decades. Thus we even got only little time period to control these test in hindsight on long existing materials.

 

[adelorenzo]

The humidity in my workspace right now is below 20%. My fiber prints dry like crispy potato chips, handling them you are almost worried they will crack.

I'd be concerned that if I shipped a T-hinge mounted print somewhere else with normal or even high humidity the prints would go all squirrelly under the mat. At least with dry mounting I know that the print will look right when it

 

[faberryman]

I'd be concerned that if I shipped a T-hinge mounted print somewhere else with normal or even high humidity the prints would go all squirrelly under the mat. At least with dry mounting I know that the print will look right when it

You need not be concerned. My FB prints, when flattened in a dry mount press, stay flat under a mat even when the humidity drops to 20% when the heat is on during the winter.

 

[jtk]

It always brings a smile to my face too and for the same reason. My girl friend used to have a cat that would giclee around the house when she did not like something.

The best cats are deep-fat fried.

 

[mdarnton]

It's an interesting question whether museums are operating to museum standards, which are quite strict, as far as I know. I think the definitive answer is the one from the Library of Congress; https://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/mat.html
Notice that any type of permanent mounting is specifically NOT in this specification. Now whether Bob's Museum of Art follows these or not. . . .