• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Dry Mounting & Archival Permanence

Some years ago I wrote an article about ArtCare mat board. It can be found here: http://www.superiorarchivalmats.com/sam/Article.html

When having my prints subjected to accelerated aging and accelerated pollution testing it was found that the dry mount tissue provided a layer of protection from pre-acidic gases and made the photographs more archival.
 
"More Archival": the way I used that term regarding the accelerated aging tests, simply means that the dry-mounted prints did not show deterioration while the other prints--hinge-mounted ones--did show deterioration. See the reproductions--both color and black and white ones--at the end of the article.

Even the dry mounted ones showed some deterioration, though far less than the hinge-mounted prints, when not mounted on ArtCare board. To me, these tests, made under controlled testing laboratory conditions made a very clear no-brainer case for a) always dry mounitng and b) always using ArtCare board.
 
So I take it all of your new Platinum work is dry-mounted also?
 
No, our platinum prints are not dry mounted. You cannot dry mount prints made on Japanese hand made paper (tissue actually). That is for Paula's prints. And my prints are printed on very heavy paper and are one-meter long. And they already lie flat. Laying flat is another reason to dry mount photographs--they simply look better. We hinge these prints with archival glue.

And platinum prints do not need to be dry mounted in the first place. Platinum is as archival as it gets all by itself. Silver is a different thing. Silver tarnishes and is acted upon by pollutants. Platinum does neither of these things. This discussion, I assumed, perhaps wrongly, was.is about silver prints.
 
I, as most platinum printers will tell you the weakest link in a platinum print is the paper it is printed on. If dry mount tissue adds a layer of protection against pollutants- then wouldn't it be adding a layer of protection to the back of a platinum print also? I'm just not comfortable adding anything to the platinum print, so I'm leary of the claims of archival mounting tissue because you are still adding wax/glue to the back of a platinum print. So claims that dry mount tissue adds to the archivability should be taken in context. You may want to consider the archival corners that are available through places like Light Impressions. This way the paper of the print is only touching, acid free "archival" paper and not in contact with any glue. They are very cheap and easy to use. They are also very easy to replace and as I said, there's no need to introduce glue into the paper of the print, making claims of the glue's archival properties a moot point. Plus if the mount board is damaged nothing is lost when you go to replace it. With glue you add more work to try and get the print loose from the mounting board. I shoot 8x20 also and if the window mat ( with the print corner mounted) doesn't allow the print to lie flat enough then I'll add a small piece of "archival" linen tape hinged to the mid point of the print. I've only had to do this a few times with a finicky paper like opaline.
 
I may also add that some artist want to exhibit the deckled edge of the paper of the print. So I can see where they would want to float the print which would require some type of wheat paste or "archival glue". But most platinum printers out grow that aesthetic eventually.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe it generally counter-productive to dry mount prints made with very permanent processes, such as carbon transfer or pt./pd. The paper itself is the weak link with these processes since the image itself is extremely permanent.

An exception might be considered for prints on very thin papers, say pt./pd. prints on vellum surfaces, or carbon transfer prints on thin photographic papers. I think a good case can be made in these circumstances that the risk to the print from physical damage from handling outweight the risks from dry mounting. Dry mounting on art core material, or even on thick, well-buffered art papers provide substantil physical protection to the print.

Sandy
 
Sandy, I've seen very thin papers printed with Pt/Pd. Using a single tray developing process with a sheet of plexiglass in the bottom of the tray so when the print was through with processing all you have to do is carefully lift the sheet of plexiglass out of the tray(with the print of course) and then there is no need to touch the print. Opaline is a very thin vellum type paper but it has great wet strength so there is no need to worry, but some of the papers such as the paper that Lois Conner often uses can be pretty fragile when wet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know it's nearly a heresy, but I dry mount all my Pt/Pd prints onto the best quality conservation board I can find. The main reason I do this is because I think dry mounted prints look far better than unmounted prints. And as someone said earlier, in the unlikely event that someone wants to re-mount my work in 70 years time then I'm sure there'll be knowledgeable people around who can arrange this.
 

That doesn't do it for me. More archival means more what?
In the long term attaching anything to a print will reduce its life unless its kept in an archival environment in which case attaching or not attaching anything is irrelevant. All drymount will achieve is to prolong life in a far from ideal environment such as a testing chamber.
If a print is properly framed with sealed front of frame, i.e. glass to frame, and proper backing board, barrier board and mount board, then any contaminents have to pass through or by those to get at the print and they can be changed easily. So dry mount is not necessary.
On the other hand if the print is subjected to all these bad environmental conditions, then its life will be vastly reduced anyway regardless of drymounting.
So once again, using archival materials does not make your print archival. They can only be claimed to be non detrimental over the short term.
It is controlling environmental conditions which will preserve your print for the long term. i.e. hundreds of years instead of 50-70 years.
 
Quote (Wish I knew how to do that properly)

"In the long term attaching anything to a print will reduce its life unless its kept in an archival environment in which case attaching or not attaching anything is irrelevant. All drymount will achieve is to prolong life in a far from ideal environment such as a testing chamber."

According to what you say, no photograph not stored in a perfectly controlled environment throught its entire life, and few if any photographs are, can be considered archival. We are talking about the real world here, not some utopia of storage conditions. There are pre-acidic gasses everywhere. Eventually, they deteriorate photographs. Based on how many photographs look that were made over 100 years ago, before "Archival Processing," pre-acidic gasses can take a long time to affect the print. But they will do so if not properly protected. Dry mounting adds an additional layer of protection. Period. There can be no dispute abut that.

Quote: "If a print is properly framed with sealed front of frame, i.e. glass to frame, and proper backing board, barrier board and mount board, then any contaminents have to pass through or by those to get at the print and they can be changed easily. So dry mount is not necessary."

Pre-acidic gasses will get through all backing boards, whether they are changed regularly or not, except for ArtCare board, which has its micro-chamber technology. Other 100% all-rag museum board does not provide protection from these gasses. I guess you could put the print between two pieces of glass. That would do it without dry mounting, but the weight and storage requirements would make that not very practical. Even hinging to ArtCare board will not protect the print, as the pre-acidic gasses can get between the board and the print, as the tests showed.

Quote: On the other hand if the print is subjected to all these bad environmental conditions, then its life will be vastly reduced anyway regardless of drymounting."

According to you, all environments except for an "archival environment" will deteriorate photographs. That may be so, but dry mounting will certainly prolong the life of a photograph. I believe the definition of "archival" for photographs is "x" years, not "forever." (I do not know the figure offhand). I guarantee my prints for 1,000 years. With a guarantee. There is a catch, however. The guarantee is non-transferable.

Quote" So once again, using archival materials does not make your print archival. They can only be claimed to be non detrimental over the short term. It is controlling environmental conditions which will preserve your print for the long term. i.e. hundreds of years instead of 50-70 years.

A properly processed silver photograph, dry mounted onto ArtCare board should easily last hundreds of years when stored in normal conditions--not an "archival" environment, but not in a heavily polluted one either.

I suggest you read my article. It contains an interview with the inventor of ArtCare board. He supplies board to the National Archives and the Library of Congress. And not all of their holdings are stored in "archival environments." There must be something to it.
 
Mike, do you receive any remuneration or other compensation or consideration from the makers of ArtCare board? Or do you just really like it?
 
I think most people who use corners themselves tend to overmat, rather than showing the corners, and print with that in mind.

Conservators tend to float with corners, because to them it is important to show the whole work out to the edge, unless they have concrete evidence (like historic exhibition photos) that a particular work was displayed otherwise. In libraries and museums I've sometimes seen items mounted with transparent corners for this purpose.
 
I have a hard time imagining that I'd print with overmatting in mind...I'd be printing with a white boarder and ovematting either onto the white...or just a hair into the print area.
 
Quote: "Mike, do you receive any remuneration or other compensation or consideration from the makers of ArtCare board? Or do you just really like it?"

No, I receive no remuneration or compensation from the makers of ArtCare board. I just like it. Not only do I believe that it is the "most archival," I also thing it is the handsomest board I ever every seen on which to mount photographs. That was a nice surprise when I first saw the board. And I like the "white" color.
 

Since you clearly hold store by the fact that these libraries and archives use these boards, perhaps you could tell us if they dry mount to these boards or whether they don't approve of dry mounting. That information would be far more pertinent to the discussion.
 

I have no idea what the policies are of the US Government in this matter.

My decision to use these boards and to dry mount to them had nothing to do with their use by the government, but was based on the testing of my prints and David Graham's pritns and by my knowledge of the materials.
 
I just returned from a trip to the Eastman House then to the National Archives in College Park and The Library of Congress in D.C. I had the pleasure of private viewings in all three places. I was able to glove-up and actually hold prints from many of the old Masters, including the original glass negatives by Brady and Gardner of Lincoln. I can assure you that in all three places that the prints and negatives are stored in the utmost archival conditions possible. The security at the Archives in College Park is a lot like walking into Fort Knox but only tighter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jstraw said:
I have a hard time imagining that I'd print with overmatting in mind...I'd be printing with a white boarder and ovematting either onto the white...or just a hair into the print area.
Click to expand...

I would call printing with a wide white border and overmatting onto the white as a way of printing with overmatting in mind. Depending on the environment, you'll still get some curl over time, but if the display lighting is good, it's not always a big problem.
 

It's an excellent way to go about it if you want flatness. I've generally tried to have the image use no more than 50% in one dimension along the paper - this keeps things nice and flat. Another thing I was thinking would work really well - which MAY resolve the problems some have with the tissue is to use tissue as hinge material - or to use thin strips at the image border to fuse it to the backing. This way, it's quite reversible - especially with a bit of heat (but even without, if you're careful)
 

Thanks, good to know. I just wanted to get clear on that. I'm interested in the board but worry about 32x40 shipping well and I'm not sure I could cut it down very well. Does anyone cut it down and ship 16x20?
 
Sparky said:
I've generally tried to have the image use no more than 50% in one dimension along the paper - this keeps things nice and flat.)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm following you. Sounds like you're using 16x20 paper for 8x10 prints but I must be reading you wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register