Dry Mounting & Archival Permanence

[UKJohn]

Well, before I go on I hope this posted in the correct place.

Does anyone know whether the glue in dry mounting tissue has a detrimental effect on the archival qualities of a FB print (that is assuming that the print has of course been fixed, washed and toned correctly in the first place)?

Many thanks

John

 

[Pinholemaster]

It's not a glue, it's a wax. I haven't heard of any detrimental affect since dry mounting has been done for decades. I'm sure others with more knowledge than me will set us straight.

 

[Vaughn]

I don't believe it is a "glue" -- instead it melts and bonds the layers together. I do not think there is any problem with the tissue reacting with the paper fibers. The tissue actually can help longevity by blocking any migration of contaminates from reaching the print from behind.

Museums and collectors tend to frown upon dry-mounting due to the difficulty in re-matting the photo if something happens to the mount board, and the difficulty in washing the print if the need arose.

Vaughn

 

[jstraw]

Seal makes an archival mounting tissue.

 

[JBrunner]

Bienfang buffermount is the only real "archival" dry mount as far as I know. (formerly the Seal product, I believe)

What constitutes archivability is debatable, but there is now a good chance that a quality mounting board and a wax mount like buffermount are as "archival "as the photograph mounted with them. The crux of the matter for a curator is that the mounting process is reversable, which is the real benefit buffermount provides, however, removing the print is easier in theory than in practice, and requires patience and care to prevent damage.

I use it for FB prints because it provides the best compromise between archivability and good presentation. If my prints need to endure in the care of a curator someday, they can debate my decision amongst themselves. I'm not to worried because

1. I'm not that famous, and by the time I am I won't care. 2. The modern buffered mounting board and tissue are not likely to degenerate faster than the print.

 

[UKJohn]

Thanks one and all for your comments, my reason was that it came up in conversation between a few friends as we discussed the merits of dry mounting compared to other approaches (I always dry mount my FB prints).

I have to confess that I thought it was a glue, its good to be corrected.

Once again many thanks.

John

 

[percepts]

The answer to your question both Yes and NO with the emphasis on the NO.

So archival mount tissue is archival in that the "glue" is actually an acryllic polymer which is PH neutral so it will not contaminate the photographic paper.

However, you need to define what archivally mounted means. Mount board can also be defined as archival in that its PH is neutral or slightly alkaline. So it seems you have archival materials so that makes your mounting archival.

VERY WRONG!

Mount board acts like a sponge and soaks up airborne contaminents. When the mount becomes saturated it no longer soaks up those contaminents and it serves as a reservoir of contaminents in very close proximity to your image.

If you dry mount your image it is very very very difficult to change the mount board. If you don't dry mount you can change the mount board every 5 or 10 or 20 years as required very very simply.

So being archival means hanging in pollution free environment and if thats not possible then being able change mount board regularly is important.

Most hanging space is not pollution free. i.e. air is not pollution free. Humidity is not controlled. And Temperature is not constant. Ultimately dry mounting will reduce life of print because once the mountboard starts to look contaminated you either pay a professional conservator a lot of money to get the print off, or it gets binned. If your images are not considered of significant value to the art world, the latter is more likely.

 

[laverdure]

The bottom line for me is that it's plenty archival enough (even if it is, perhaps, not as good as some other things,) plenty respectable enough, and looks so much better than most any other method of mounting, that I do it every time. Besides, a collector is more likely to want to buy a print if it's well presented, and the collector (or museum, ha ha) can always request an unmounted print.

 

[percepts]

I agree but what these discusions about "archival" never include is what the questioner really means by the term "archival".
For true long term archival preservation, dry mounting is not the way to go. For "the rest of the buyers life", archival means 50 - 70 years max and in reasonable conditions dry mounting will do fine.

As you say it holds the print flat and looks good.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think percepts offers a good explanation of this issue.

One additional point about the "reversability" of "archival" drymount tissue. What this involves is putting the print back in the press, slipping release paper under it as it heats up and comes off the board, putting it back in the press, and repeating until it's off. If you mess up your tacking and the print shifts in the press when initially mounting, this can save your print.

But now imagine the print is 150 years old, and even if the photographer isn't particularly famous, the work is interesting, perhaps because it shows something of historical interest--the city of Los Angeles before it fell into the Pacific or some such. Or maybe it's a lost Weston that got mounted to a board that's become moldy in an attic somewhere. And after all, you don't really know what kind of tissue or adhesive was used on the print, and maybe the paper has become brittle after 150 years. Are you ready to put it into the press and to start lifting up the first corner?

 

[greybeard]

For most of us, the biggest risk to a photograph is that of being tossed because it is bent, torn, unidentifiable or otherwise compromised. To ward off this fate any sort of mounting is better than none (unless is is going to reside in a box somewhere). If the print is to be hinged to a mount and overmatted, then the burden clearly shifts to the quality of the board: not only is the print directly against it without the relatively impervious dry mounting resin layer in between, but the edges of the overmat are in direct contact with the face of the print. A dry-mounted print floated in the mat window may well hold up better, all other things being equal.

Some of Edward Weston's early prints must have been dry-mounted onto shirt cardboard, judging from the present condition of the boards (ghastly) and the prints (pretty good, actually...).

 

[jstraw]

Is the use of corners on the mounting board intended for overmatted, rather than floated prints?

 

[Vaughn]

percepts made some good points, but some may not be that significant, or can be worked around.

If a print is framed -- and backed by foam core or a buffered piece of mat board, not much contaminates are going to get to the board the print is dry-mounted to. Changing tha backing board of the frame is a lot easier than the board of the photo is attached to (which might have historically important info on it.) Same thing if the print is in a good storage box. Proper storage is as important as using archival materials.

As I stated earlier, if the board the photo is dry-mounted to is exposed to contaminates, the tissue will keep them from reaching the print.

I have a couple Watkins prints from the 1800's. The backing board is shot -- I just put on new window mats and put a piece of buffered board behind the original backing board to help neutralize it a bit. I am certainly not going to bin them!

But in the end, I do not dry-mount my carbon nor my platinum prints anyway. They'll definitely out-last any board I put them on. My silver gelatin print I do...because I float them within a larger hole in the mat -- I just think that presentation style is so much better for my work, that I am willing to risk the ire of the museums or my kin in the next century or two.

Vaughn

 

[Vaughn]

Is the use of corners on the mounting board intended for overmatted, rather than floated prints?

Normally, yes. But I have used clear ones to float manipulated SX-70's in the overmat.

Vaughn

But I "T" hinge my prints (taping the upper part of the print) to the backboard now instead of using corners. I find larger pieces tend to hang flatter that way.

 

[jovo]

.... perhaps because it shows something of historical interest--the city of Los Angeles before it fell into the Pacific.....

Okay, I'm canceling my trip!

I have great faith in the skill and ingenuity of conservators and restorers. Think of the frescoes, Renaissance paintings, etchings (on paper of uncertain provenance although amazingly durable ink) as old as those of Rembrandt etc. that have been restored to their original brilliance. I'll conjecture that restoring the lost Weston on a moldy mat can be accomplished before lunch on a Monday. But more importantly, will anyone give a flying squirrel about one's work that long into the future? Making a photograph that merits such concern someday is what I'll worry about. For now, the look of a dry mounted fiber print is so superior (in my opinion of course) that it will remain my choice of presentation. I'd be thrilled to look in on a couple of curators long into the future as they bitch about all the trouble I've caused by my decision to dry mount! In fact, I think I'll pour two fingers of Scotch in their honor tonight!

f.63 rules!

 

[percepts]

Vaughn,
I agree but the point being made was that just because you use so called archival materials, it doesn't mean the print is protected. You have to look at the whole package and environmental conditions and the changing conditions over the years such as reframing, rematting or replacement barrier boards etc. i.e. will they be carried out to archival standards? Basically these are things totally out of your control so in the end is it really worth worrying about. If the answer is yes, then your best option is to sell unmounted prints because then you can claim that it has been archivally processed which means it is in a condition capable of lasting hundreds of years if it is treated properly. Attach anything to it and you will compromise that claim. Do you really know how much of anything is in a piece of mat board or mount tissue? Anything else done to the print is then the responsibility of the buyer or later generations but your original claim is not compromised.

Incidentally foam board is not archival. Its paper covering may be neutral or even microchamber paper but the foam is not and is known for giving off contaminent gases.

 

[Vaughn]

I'd love to join you in a finger or two, John! But since all of Southern CA to SF has slid into the ocean and the Western Sierra foothills are now ocean beach properties, Eureka is now the State Capital and I must attend the Governer's Ball tonight.

But sadly percepts may be right. When the restorers of the future decide which photos to work on, our dry-mounted silver gelatin prints may be put onto the "do later" pile while they work on the millions of non-dry mounted prints. (I wonder what they'll do with the inkjet prints?)

Vaughn

 

[Vaughn]

percepts...

"Incidentally foam board is not archival. Its paper covering may be neutral or even microchamber paper but the foam is not and is known for giving off contaminent gases."

Thanks, good info. Also how good/archival is the paper that silver gelatin prints are made of? A good question for Simon of Ilford. I wonder about the quality of Eastern European paper stock, also.

Vaughn

 

[percepts]

Also how good/archival is the paper that silver gelatin prints are made of? A good question for Simon of Ilford. I wonder about the quality of Eastern European paper stock, also.
Vaughn

Well Fox Talbots prints are still viewable, although because they were not fixed properly they don't look as they did when he made them. Assuming paper quality has remained constant, and you do all the right things, then your prints should be good for at least 150 years and more probably several times that if someone thinks they are worth conserving.

for more on this read:

Dead Link Removed

look at conservation / can the first photographs last

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have a couple Watkins prints from the 1800's. The backing board is shot -- I just put on new window mats and put a piece of buffered board behind the original backing board to help neutralize it a bit. I am certainly not going to bin them!
Vaughn

Are they albumen prints? These are something of a different case, because they are all mounted to a board of some sort. Albumen swells more than gelatin, and they are usually on thin paper, so unmounted albumen prints would curl much more than silver gelatin prints. They may be starch mounted or mounted with some other glue.

I've been drymounting my albumen prints, because that's what I know how to do, but I've also been experimenting with starch mounting and trying to figure out how to do it neatly. There is a technique described in Reilly's book (you can find it at albumen.stanford.edu) that involves starch mounting the print to another piece of paper (even the same paper as the print itself or a heavier version of the same paper), which could then be hinge mounted or corner mounted to another board with a mat. This technique would also work with other kinds of single-weight prints, like Azo prints.

 

[Vaughn]

David,

They are (approx) 16x20 albumen prints. No info on the images/mats. One is a vertical of the Three Brothers taken along the Merced River in Yosemite, the other is a two locomotive (steam, of course) train in the Sierras somewhere -- with men standing on top of the cars. Looks to be in the western upper foothills. "CP" (Central Pacific, I assume) on the cars.

My best guess is that they were originally in an album that Watkins sold, but was later taken apart and individually framed. The frames are put together using hand-forged nails, placing them in the late 1800's or so. Some slight damage to the prints, but still in pretty good shape.

I grew up with these prints on the walls...perhaps one of the reasons I became a photographer. A great great Aunt had bought them at a roadside stand in the Central Valley or something like that, the story goes. Obviously growing up looking at two 16x20 contact prints influenced my use of large format!

If the sh*t hit the fan and my kids were starving, it would be a hard choice what to sell first -- the prints or my cameras.

Vaughn

PS...they are already glued (starch?) to the old backing board. Any work on them would be done by a pro -- I'm not messing with them!

 

[Daniel_OB]

The biggest problem with dry mounting is temperature. I just pasted some text from my web site about mounting problems below.
-------------
Mounting is a permanent bonding of a photograph to the mounting board (mat). Most of art galleries requires no mounting, so a photograph can be separated from the board. Mounting drops a value of your artwork. Some other problems with mountings are:
DRY MOUNTING is use of a dry tissue (placed between a photograph and the board) that is activated (liquefy) by heat at 110-135 degC. It produces flat and clean work and is easier than wet mounting. However it is not reversible in some cases, and the high temperature may cause bubbling and prematurely age a photograph. Generally it is not considered as archival mounting.
WET MOUNTING is the use of a water-based adhesive to bond a photograph to the board. The moisture can affect artwork in unpredictable ways (e.g mold may set). Using spray adhesives is not considered as a professional form of mounting.
VACUUM MOUNTING utilizes an adhesive applied to the back of a photograph combined with high pressure between the board and a photograph which forces adhesive to penetrate into both, the board and a photograph. This is the best, and the most expensive, but also can cause some fibers from photo paper to tear and a photograph cannot be removed any more.


www.Leica-R.com

 

[Early Riser]

Daniel your statement of, " Most of art galleries requires no mounting, so a photograph can be separated from the board. Mounting drops a value of your artwork." is just wrong. I am with many galleries and none of them place a lower value on mounted work, for lesser known artists I would think that the opposite would be true. I know for a fact that one of the most sought after exhibition printers is vehemently opposed to shipping any of his large prints unless they are dry mounted. He doesn't even want his spotters to work on them unmounted for the risk of kinking a print.

In addition your comment of mounting tissue requiring 110-135C (230-275F) degrees of heat is also wrong. Buffermount requires only 77c (170F) degrees of heat.

Some collectors, who may not display their collection but store it in boxes might prefer to have prints hinge or corner mounted, but galleries in general prefer mounted prints as it makes it easier for them to show out of a drawer, it's ready to frame, and has a smoother and nicer appearance. Larger prints require mounting as the possibility of them kinking and breaking their emulsion increases significantly with size. Also hinge mounting large prints often makes for a bubbly appearance of the print.

Current dry mounting using materials like Buffermount are low temperature and are removeable. The mat board that a print is mounted to, either by dry or hinge, etc, is the biggest sponge for environmental acids. Even buffered mat boards eventually turn acidic. The dry mount tissue, which is also buffered is non porous and actually blocks the transmisson of acids from the mount board. Over time if the mount board gets too acidic the print can be carefully removed, refixed and washed if need be, and remounted to a fresh board. It is because of the transmission of acids from the mat board that I float mat and not overmat my prints.

Some people speak of the down side of dry mounting that something can happen to the mount board like dog-eared corners. Well if that happens there is no need to remove the print from the existing mount board, just replace the window mount and leave the damaged but non visible mount board intact. Better to dog-ear the moat board than the print itself.

The simple fact is that the biggest cause of damage to prints happens in handling unmounted prints. That is when they most often get kinked,dog-eared or get handled by people without the use of gloves. If someone without a glove touches a print, in all likelihood a non removeabele fingerprint stain will appear in 20 years.

 

[Early Riser]

But more importantly, will anyone give a flying squirrel about one's work that long into the future?

John, whether one is charging $100 for a print or $100,000 there are certain professional standards, or even just pride in one's own work, that require some diligence. Even a print that may have fetched a modest price might become a cherished piece for the buyer. And if you charge a siginificant amount for your prints then it is imperative that you provide work that has been processed and mounted to the highest archival standards.

 

[jovo]

Even a print that may have fetched a modest price might become a cherished piece for the buyer. And if you charge a siginificant amount for your prints then it is imperative that you provide work that has been processed and mounted to the highest archival standards.

I completely agree. My point was that, having "processed and mounted to the highest archival standards", the more significant issue is the excellence of the photograph itself regardless of its monetary value.