Dry mounting??

From what I've read in re: best conservation practices for preservation of prints, most sources seem to favor mounting the photo with archival corners to mat board, also archival, then over mat and frame. Dry mounting seems not acceptable, if only by having not been mentioned.

And yet The Ansel Adams Gallery sells silver prints, fiber based, made from Adams' negatives, which are too dear for my blood. They are dry mounted on archival board, etc.

What's the consensus? Or is there one?

I know many galleries will not deal with dry mounted prints. Photo corners are also a no-no. The preferred method is to affix the print by a short piece of archival tape to the back of the mat. This allows the print to expand and contract without buckling. (The tape's only purpose is to prevent the print from sliding around in the frame and only a very short length is required.) Double matting is also preferred to prevent the photograph from ever touching the glass of the frame. The print does need to "breath" as the water content varies with ambient conditions. So the back of the frame should not be "hermetically" sealed. This is especially true for RC paper prints which can suffer "bronzing."

If you ask any museum conservator they will say "DO NOT DRY MOUNT". The only reaon to dry mount is to keep your prints flat during display.

However, what most people don't seem to realise is that framing a print is not just about presentation. By using a rear barrier board and then archival board behind the print and archival mat in front of the print, what you are doing is providing a large sponge which soaks up all the moisture and pollutants before they get to the print (or other artwork). Those sponges should be checked at least every five years and if they show any signs of discolouration they should be changed. And infact, it is good policy to change them every five years anyway.
So now you tell me how you are going to change the sponge you have glued to the back of your print so that when its full of pollutants in 5,10, or 15 years time, it acts as a reservoir of pollutants to help the rapid degradation of your print.

I dry-mount using 4-ply museum boards with a 3/18 to 1/4" acid free foam backer board and 1/8" museum acrylic front. I frame my prints using Nielsen metal frames inserting 2 or 3 metal clips in each of the sides. The result is a very tightly held package that allows no dust, etc., to enter and also minimizes if not entirely eliminating moisture from entering.

Thomas

the question is . . . what tissue are you using? what does "that tissue" do to your print over time,regardless of what substrate you use, . . . its still a dry mount tissue, which is garbage!!!!the tissues over time VERY MUCH DEGRADE your FB print.

If you don't have any plans on the work going into a museum or a gallery, dry mount it. If you do plan on it being in a gallery, the usual matting w/ 100% rag mat paper, mounted w/ a tape hinge, then framed w/ plexi or glass will have to do. Personally, I much prefer the look of a dry mounted print that does not have that infernal reflective glass or plexi over it, especially w/ fiber paper.

My way around all this is to simply hang one for showing in the gallery matted and framed, then sell an individual print just like it (signed and numbered) by itself unmounted and let the buyer do it their way. Cuts down on what they pay for the print too w/o all that pesky framing.

from my point of view, REGARDLESS of your "political standing" in the fine art world, regardless if you are ever going to show your work in a gallery, etc. .. . . You deserve - to honor your work, and quality of your work by your own definitions. "Just because" its just a print. . . . NO! it takes time and money, effort and years of knowledge and experience. YOU SHOULD NOT LET THAT BE UNDERMINED BY SHIITY DRYMOUNT TISSUE. thats all I'm gonna say about that.
well sort of . . . .. the good idea mentioned by momus, make mat openings for "your standard size" prints. Change you photographs out for different shows. Just use some P-90 filmoplast adhesive tape. its acid free and does not stain your paper yellow, unlike linen tape.

I've given up on dry mounting except for very rare occasions. It has caused discoloration around the edges of the print on too many of mine and one of Cole Weston's originals. Some adhesive tape has also failed. One way of avoiding problems with any adhesive is printing on paper the same size as the outside of the mat board. Then the frame holds the mat and image in registration with nothing but mat and mounting board touching the image. When I print on smaller paper, the paper still extends beyond the mat window. Two dabs of artist's acrylic medium spaced fairly close together under the top edge of the image and under the mat support the image. It can be removed with little damage. The mount board is backed with 3/16 archival foam core. This sandwich snugly fills the space between glass and the back of the frame in light unobtrusive aluminum section frames. Those spring clips needed in thicker frames can cause distortion with disparate mat and mounting boards.

Museums do not like dry mounting because they want things to last forever and museum conservation mounting allows for all of the components of the frame package including the mounting/backing board to be replaced with fresh ones periodically.

As long as you properly dry mount your photo to a high quality rag board then it is still very archival. If you are selling your work and your customer or gallery do not want it dry-mounted then don’t. Some customers, especially those living in humid coastal regions may complain about waves in the print if you don’t dry mount.

In the end, the consensus depends on who you ask. You have to determine what works for you and your customers.

fdi said:

. . . In the end, the consensus depends on who you ask. You have to determine what works for you and your customers.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. Ideally, when we set up the camera, we should visualize every step of the process through developing, printing, mounting, and hanging on a client's wall or printing in the client's publication. Lacking knowledge of the later steps in that process, we have to be as flexible as possible. Of course Ansel Adams could say, "This is the way it should be," and still sell photographs. The rest of us should be a little more accommodating.

Tom Taylor said:

I dry-mount using 4-ply museum boards with a 3/18 to 1/4" acid free foam backer board and 1/8" museum acrylic front. I frame my prints using Nielsen metal frames inserting 2 or 3 metal clips in each of the sides. The result is a very tightly held package that allows no dust, etc., to enter and also minimizes if not entirely eliminating moisture from entering.

Thomas

Click to expand...

You might think nothing can get in but I assure you that every home is full of micro organisms and little beasties which will find their way into your frame and munch their way through museum quality mountboard pooing as they go. Anyone serious about maximising the long term life of their prints would never dry mount them.

So it comes down to are you really serious about the long term life of your prints or do you just want to produce a very well presented product at the point of sale which will keep the customer happy for a few years before they begin to see the degradation of the mat, mountboard and maybe even the print.

Claiming archival permanence is not something that anyone should be doing since they can't control the conditions its going to be kept in.

This topic has been discussed for decades. Proper drymounting not only protects the print from direct handling, but also from contamination
through the back. Besides, silver gelatin prints just look better properly presented in this manner instead of all wavy. As far as "archival"
concerns go, it's utter nonsense that this is compromised by drymount tissue. If you've ever been around a lot of really valuable silver prints by "collectable" photographers, or ever been displayed in that kind of company yourself, you'd recognize that 99.9% of those prints routinely gets drymounted. You don't go to the prom wearing Bermuda shorts. Prints which are printed by alternative methods on things like watercolor papers sometimes benefit with a different kind of presentation, like hinging from behind just like a watercolor painting. Or sometimes very small silver prints can just be "tipped in" to a portfolio. But any sizable print with sheen or a degree of gloss just looks unfinished and sloppy if not mounted flat.

not if you dry it properly and that is the crux of it. Flattening it after drying in a press won't keep it flat for long. And that means using blotters or one of these http://www.macodirect.de/darkroom-mount-presses-maco-ecomat-professional-dreyer-p-593.html or one of these http://www.keyphoto.com/priceguide/?rm=details&pid=28918&back=1548

then it won't go wavy

As usual, this is one of those threads with a lot of nonsense hearsay posted on it. Museums are filled with drymounted prints. The older alternative was wet mounting with some kind of dextrin glue, still entirely feasible, but trickier than drymounting. And the more modern
alternative, high-tack acrylic adhesive foils commonly used for large color prints, requires specialized skills and equipment. Drymounting is comparatively easy and is highly predictable once you learn the basics. There are also proper ways to frame a print. There are mountains of experience out there, along with tutorials and books from both the people who market this kind of thing and various professional picture framer organizations. I have never seen a print rejected from a high-end venue because it was drymounted. I have seen the opposite, when
it wasn't!

I did a lot of art documenting work in a museum. I photographed hundreds of German master drawings. Some are hundreds of years old and I've never saw any of them dry mounted. All of the prints were mounted on tissue hinges or held down with print corners made of mylar. On that note, I've seen some Ansel Adams prints dry mounted. I still don't know which is the most archival. There are archival mount tissues that will release when heated to a certain temperature.
http://www.drytac.com/mounting-adhesives/dry-mount-tissues.html?mode=list

DREW WILEY said:

As usual, this is one of those threads with a lot of nonsense hearsay posted on it. Museums are filled with drymounted prints. The older alternative was wet mounting with some kind of dextrin glue, still entirely feasible, but trickier than drymounting. And the more modern
alternative, high-tack acrylic adhesive foils commonly used for large color prints, requires specialized skills and equipment. Drymounting is comparatively easy and is highly predictable once you learn the basics. There are also proper ways to frame a print. There are mountains of experience out there, along with tutorials and books from both the people who market this kind of thing and various professional picture framer organizations. I have never seen a print rejected from a high-end venue because it was drymounted. I have seen the opposite, when
it wasn't!

Click to expand...

Did the museums dry mount them or did they get them like that.

Dry mount tissue of the correct type is pefectly safe in itself. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the board its on WILL become contaminated with crap over long periods of time when a print is on display in a normal viewing environment and WILL need changing if you want to maximise the life of the print. Forget about what museums do or how they do it. Its not only the back of the print which can be attacked by, for example, fungus/mold in an overly humid environment. The board will need changing if that happens and the print cleaning. You CAN'T change the board if its glued to the back of the print. At least not without great difficulty and probably expert help.
It just seems common sense to me to change the boards every five years or so, especially if you have a valuable print.

Dear Mr. I'lltradeyoufiveofmyporchcatsforyouronebigone : Drawings and photographic prints are really two very different things when it comes to conservation customs, unless you are speaking of prints where the deckle edge of the media itself needs to look like a humidity-prone paper, as is the case with certain pt/pd prints on watercolor papers, and now some "giclee" work. And it isn't just AA that drymounted silver prints - it's just about everyone for several generations. The drymounting holds the print flat. It also tends to chemically isolate it from the background. The proper board can be discussed elsewhere, but every competent pro framer knows these things, or should. Many painters did not. And Rob - anyone who can't figure out how to keep a mat sandwich dry and clean over the long haul isn't even on first base yet. If THAT is going to get inevitably contaminated, being typically four-ply thick, what the heck do you think is going to
happen to a bare print under the same display conditions? A curly warped fiber print will want to stick to the glazing, right where is doesn't
belong. Bugs (corrodentia) might get behind it to eat the hinge glue, blah blah. Changing the board every five years means 1) you must be
rich, 2) the print is going to get a lot of unnecessary handling, 3) unless the print is small, it's going to look sloppy on display. There is no
need to change the mounting board unless you let a slob handle your work. That can happen. That's exactly why I turned down a couple of
galleries after I asked to examined their back room first. Expensive galleries aren't immune from hiring monkeys; but it isn't a very smart
way of staying in business. And museum staff are typically well trained to handle their collection appropriately. Then there's yet another aspect to this: if I as an artist choose to present my work in a particular manner, that's part of my compositional strategy. I want such and
such print border, such and such a specific shade of white on the board and overmat. That's not for someone else to decide, anymore than
it's for them to decide how much toning one of my images needs. Has this fact ever been a hindrance to something being potentially collectible. Never. Nor have I ever met another photographer who encountered this kind of problem. But I really really do my homework.
Although mounting silver gelatin prints has a widely accepted path via drymounting, I have done test after test on mounting color images,
displaying them in all kinds of abusive environments, you name it. Expensive and time consuming; and I've even kept a few of the failures
as examples of what can go wrong. Believe me, not all the facts are in Wilhelm, by any means. But drymounting has a long proven track
record. It just has to be done competently.

I should add that most of us who have been around the block a few times do NOT opt for removable (low temp) buffered drymount tissue.
For one thing, the buffering is redundant, and maybe not even desireable. For another thing, removable tissues sometimes fail if subject to
too much temp in transport, display etc - unreliable. I prefer Colormount, as many others do, but never for color prints per se.

DREW WILEY said:

This topic has been discussed for decades. Proper drymounting not only protects the print from direct handling, but also from contamination
through the back.....

Click to expand...

I reckon Drew is dead right on this point. Decades ago I drymounted some archival photographs on what I thought was good board but it was rubbish full of contamination and acid. Now today the photographs themselves are as bright and clear as the day they were made but the mountboards are brown, heavily foxed, and delaminating at the edges. The Kodak Drymounting Tissue Type 2 I used has unfailingly protected the back of the photographs from the nasty board.

I think Michael Smith is tooting the horn a bit too much about Artcare. It's an excellent product for some purposes. But there are plenty of other choices. I like Rising Museum Board for fiber-based silver prints. Buffering is not always a virtue. Some types of prints don't like alkalinity. Buffering is also sometimes used as a marketing ruse for otherwise mediocre board, just to get that "archival" label. The term
has become a barrage in recent years, mostly hype, esp with reference to anything inkjet. It takes time to learn the truth. Fortunately,
we have a pretty good understanding about basic black and white processes and how to protect these.

Maris said:

I reckon Drew is dead right on this point. Decades ago I drymounted some archival photographs on what I thought was good board but it was rubbish full of contamination and acid. Now today the photographs themselves are as bright and clear as the day they were made but the mountboards are brown, heavily foxed, and delaminating at the edges. The Kodak Drymounting Tissue Type 2 I used has unfailingly protected the back of the photographs from the nasty board.

Click to expand...

And the moral of this story is? Use quality board from reputable sources. And its another argument for changing the mountboard on a regular schedule because now you have print on bad board which will contaminate anything it comes into contact with such as an over mat.

saw those tests many years ago before everyone decided that accelerated ageing tests didn't prove anything accept that one test trumped another test which has nothing to do with real world life of a print.

I am now using aluminum as a support for my prints - how do you feel about aluminum backing prints... not much absorbing pollutants I would think?? Yes No

RobC said:

And the moral of this story is? Use quality board from reputable sources. And its another argument for changing the mountboard on a regular schedule because now you have print on bad board which will contaminate anything it comes into contact with such as an over mat.

Click to expand...

Bob Carnie said:

I am now using aluminum as a support for my prints - how do you feel about aluminum backing prints... not much absorbing pollutants I would think?? Yes No

Click to expand...

couldn't say, i've no knowledge of the pros or cons of using aluminum. Only thing I could imagine is oxidation of aluminium but I rekon that would be easy to wipe away so its probably OK if it passes the usual photo tests that conservators base their usage of storage/mounting materials on.

but having said that, by using aluminium you removing the sponge which soaks up th pollutants before the reach the print...

GRHazelton said:

From what I've read in re: best conservation practices for preservation of prints, most sources seem to favor mounting the photo with archival corners to mat board, also archival, then over mat and frame. Dry mounting seems not acceptable, if only by having not been mentioned.

And yet The Ansel Adams Gallery sells silver prints, fiber based, made from Adams' negatives, which are too dear for my blood. They are dry mounted on archival board, etc.

What's the consensus? Or is there one?

Click to expand...

I'm with AA on this;there is no better way to keep prints flat.I never had a gallery turn me down because of dry mounting,ever