Dry mount tissure for fiber based prints

[jeroldharter]

I am using up my stock of Seal MT-5 and I understand that it is no longer available. I have used Colormount in the past and I don't like the flimsy structure of it. Also, it is more expensive. Has anyone tried the Arista dry mount tissue? How does it compare to the MT-5? Thanks.

 

[JBrunner]

You may find "Bienfang Buffermount" to be an acceptable substitute.

 

[MMfoto]

You may find "Bienfang Buffermount" to be an acceptable substitute.

Buffermount is the ONLY mounting tissue I would recommend. Acid free and reversible (at great pains) and uses wax as the adhesive not glue or polymer.

 

[jovo]

Has anyone tried the Arista dry mount tissue? How does it compare to the MT-5? Thanks.

I was really at a loss when MT-5 was discontinued, but I've been through a couple of packages of Arista and it has worked well. It adheres when cooling rather than when heating like the MT-5, so I got a pizza stone to weigh the print down flat (covered with a sheet of archival paper) after it comes out of the press. I've been quite successful with it thus far. Now Freestyle is offering a slightly more expensive tissue as well that bonds when heating. I'm debating whether to try it or not so I can't offer an opinion yet. Good luck.

 

[Monophoto]

I've been using Arista drymount tissue for years.

The last batch I bought was distinctly different from early materials. Initially, it was a brownish glassine-like material. The newer version is a creamy white color and is much waxier. It is also perceptible thicker (sorry, I haven't actually measured the thickness).

Both new old and new versions have worked very well for me. The only negative comment is that the waxier new material tends to bead up just a bit when it is first tacked in place. I haven't noticed that this causes any visible bumps in the surface of the mounted print, but it is a bit disconcerting to feel irregularities in the dry mount tissue.

To John's point, I place the mounted print face down on a cool, flat counter top, and place a sheet of particleboard on top to weight it while it cools. A pizza stone would also work, but I would be concerned about getting mozzarella on the back of the print.

 

[bill schwab]

Buffermount is the ONLY mounting tissue I would recommend.

I have to agree.

Bill

 

[Shane Knight]

Bienfang/Seal Fusion 4000 - works very well for Fiber Base.

Shane Knight
horse photography

 

[User Removed]

I have used MT5, but now use Colormount and it works great.

I've tried the new Arista and it was AWFUL! It was terrible thick, very gummy and messy, and would always cause my prints to very slight come back up around the edges, even when coldpressed afterwards. Because I'm also using single weight paper, the gummy bumps I would get from the tacking iron would show as bumps on the surface of the print.

I do not suggest using the Arista.

 

[ZoneIII]

I'm with Ryan. I have used Colormount for years with no problems at all. I don't know about it being "flimsy" but I have never had a problem with it. Colormount was also Ansel Adams' preferred mounting tissue but, of course, the other tissues mentioned here were not around in his time.

However, since I have used it for so long, I am not familiar with too many other types. But I just now looked at my stock of dry-mount papers and was surprised to find that I have a few hundred sheets of MT5 in 11x14" size. I don't know when I got it or why. I am comparing my Colormount and MT5 tissues right now. They are almost identical in appearance except that MT5 is more translucent. If anything, the MT5 is flimsier than the Colormount tissues but the difference in appearance is slight. Well... I take that back..... I'm looking more carefully now and the MT5 most definitely is "flimsier" than Colormount. I'm not sure what you mean when you say Colormount is flimsy.

In any case, I'm glad that you asked this question because I was just getting ready to order a 50 yd roll of 20" wide mounting tissue and I have never used some of the one's mentioned here. The responses are interesting. I had been wondering about Arista, for example. But I am hesitant to change when Colormount has always worked so beautifully for me. One thing that definitely does not appeal to me are the tissues that bond as they cool. That's a pain, IMO. I just take my prints mounted with colormount out of the press and they are done. I have never a bond fail. I don't know what more I could ask for.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Will Buffermount work on larger prints?

I just 'cut & pasted' this from www.dickblick.com ;

Buffermount Plus — This archival quality dry mounting tissue is for paper, delicate materials, and photographs. A removable adhesive, it activates at 175°F. It features acid-free tissue, buffered to prevent acidic migration on the substrate. It is also breathable. Use it for preservation applications, thin papers, rice paper, tissue paper, parchment, watercolors, silks, and other fabrics.

Colormount — This permanent dry mounting tissue is especially formulated for photographs. It activates at 175-200°F. It is a porous tissue, versatile and breathable, which mounts to both non-porous and porous surfaces. Use if for color photos and slick posters.

Fusion 4000 Plus — General purpose, solid form dry mounting adhesive, useful for fabrics and textured materials as well as paper. A removable adhesive, it activates at 170°F to form a solid adhesive. Buffermount Plus melts during heating and bonds during cooling. Use it for fabrics, textured materials, paper artwork, canvas, and puzzles.

Are these descriptions accurate? I've used Colormount for some time now, but there's a big difference between, "This archival quality dry mounting tissue..." (Buffermount), "This permanent dry mounting tissue..."(Colormount), and "General purpose, solid form dry mounting adhesive..."(Fusion 4000).

I've been using Colormount because I figured at larger print sizes (11x14 to 16x20), it would hold better than Buffermount which has a lower melting point. After reading, "This archival quality..." as opposed to, "This permanent..." I'm wondering if I made the right choice.

Will Buffermount work on larger prints?

Murray

 

[JBrunner]

I just 'cut & pasted' this from www.dickblick.com ;

Buffermount Plus — This archival quality dry mounting tissue is for paper, delicate materials, and photographs. A removable adhesive, it activates at 175°F. It features acid-free tissue, buffered to prevent acidic migration on the substrate. It is also breathable. Use it for preservation applications, thin papers, rice paper, tissue paper, parchment, watercolors, silks, and other fabrics.

Colormount — This permanent dry mounting tissue is especially formulated for photographs. It activates at 175-200°F. It is a porous tissue, versatile and breathable, which mounts to both non-porous and porous surfaces. Use if for color photos and slick posters.

Fusion 4000 Plus — General purpose, solid form dry mounting adhesive, useful for fabrics and textured materials as well as paper. A removable adhesive, it activates at 170°F to form a solid adhesive. Buffermount Plus melts during heating and bonds during cooling. Use it for fabrics, textured materials, paper artwork, canvas, and puzzles.

Are these descriptions accurate? I've used Colormount for some time now, but there's a big difference between, "This archival quality dry mounting tissue..." (Buffermount), "This permanent dry mounting tissue..."(Colormount), and "General purpose, solid form dry mounting adhesive..."(Fusion 4000).

I've been using Colormount for a while now because I figured at larger print sizes (11x14 to 16x20), it would hold better than Buffermount which has a lower melting point. After reading, "This archival quality..." as opposed to, "This permanent..." I'm wondering if I made the right choice.

Will Buffermount work on larger prints?

Murray

I use buffermount on 8x10 and 11x14 prints. It behaves as you would expect any drymount tissue to behave, and I believe it would adhere any size print you would care to mount. I use it because it is reversible, and archival.

I like to drymount, because it gives the best presentation for fiber prints, but I would not do so, if I could not use buffermount, as regular drymount would likely impare the collectability of my prints with some collectors.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Thanks

Murray

 

[MMfoto]

Buffermount will absolutely work on large prints. I've never once had an adhesion issue with it. If you're concerned about it adhering as it cools I would say two things: Quite a bit of adhesion occures in the press, and you'd be hard press to lift a print off of it straight out of the press; Secondly, if you did have a problem, or wanted to prevent any potential problems then all you need is a clean sheet of glass to weight the print with as it cools.

BTW, there is also this new(ish) product called Artcare Restore that is an acid free foamboard with an "archival" heat activated heat releasing adhesive. It's a little finicky, but you dry mount at a fairly low temp, for a fairly short time. It's the slide film of drymounting: It get's more adhesive as it's heated till a point than it get's less adhesive. So you press it within a certain window and it sticks, then to remove it you heat it again. It's not perfect, and with heavy fiber prints you pretty much have to weight them with glass after pressing, but if you want a nice presentation but don't want a permanant bond, than I would suggest this. Might be hard to get for some people, ask a frame shop. It may only come in 32X40" sheets too, by the box, I'm not sure. Buffermount is also removable, but have you ever done it? It sucks, and it's easy to damage the print in the process. Not something to plan on doing.

Color mount is not remotely archival, BTW

 

[JBrunner]

Buffermount is also removable, but have you ever done it? It sucks, and it's easy to damage the print in the process. Not something to plan on doing.

Color mount is not remotely archival, BTW

Yes, I have. It wasn't hard, more tedious than anything, requiring only a sealing iron and patience. The few prints I have unmounted suffered no damage.

 

[StigHagen]

Buffermount is the ONLY mounting tissue I would recommend. Acid free and reversible (at great pains) and uses wax as the adhesive not glue or polymer.

How big an issue is it that it is acid free? Will the other types of mounting tissues affect the image over time? Is buffermount the only archival tissue?

Maybe the others are acid free as well, maybe they just don´t write about it?