Dry mounting??

[DREW WILEY]

Bob - the problem with aluminum is where you display it. If it's on a perimeter wall of a poorly insulated building, or even on an interior wall with dramatic day/night temp or humidity shifts, then aluminum is a poor insulator and could lead to condensation and mildew in the frame sandwich. You really need to frame things for the specific climate it's going to as well as the micro-climate on the room itself. Of course, it's also wise to have some fome-core behind the aluminum to act as insulation, as well as plexi in front, and not real glass, because the latter is also a poor thermal insulator. Doing a true hermetic frame job is pretty expensive and requires some special tricks.

 

[RobC]

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

Like I said earlier in the topic, it comes down to whether you are really interested in maxing out "Archival potential" or whether you're really only interested in maxing out "Presentation Quality" for the short to medium term.

Hell, someone paid several million for Gursky C-Print which will last 20 years at the most so do the affluent really give a monkeys about print longevity and are we being totally anal over achival finishing.

I rekon most are just paying lip service to archival finishing as a sales gimmick regarless of what they claim.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You don't quite seem to get it,Rob. Drymounting is a plus when it comes to archival considerations, as well as a presentation method. How someone might conserve an antique photograph is a more involved topic. You have to know the specific print medium. There are also storage constraints in museums regarding sheer surface area. As if anyone a century or two is going to give a damn about most of our work anyway. But drymounting does have an excellent track record, longer than most of us have even been alive. When it comes to huge C-prints or inkjets like those of Gursky and certain others, there is simply no way to archive them. They're going to end up suffering under a lot of UV - either sunlight or some kind of display lighting with a lot of UV. These kinds of things are better classified as installations or decor. Anyone who can afford to throw out a fifty grand sofa every fifteen years can afford to throw out one of these conspicuous-consumption pieces too, when it fades around the same time. Different problem. But I've seen entire collections ruined by "expert" art
conservators who didn't specifically understand photographs. Like many other things, it helps to get a second opinion at times.

 

[tkamiya]

I think, the best method of conserving prints is to NOT mount it to anything and NOT display it. But keep it in humidity and temperature controlled, dark room and in an acid free box. Anything else is a compromise. Truly priceless works of arts are rarely displayed. When they are, in hermetically sealed box under subdued light and for limited time.

I have no illusion that what I make is a piece of art. I like them and my friends like them. After my demise, they will likely be thrown away. I do my best with best material available and I can afford, and make it look its best.

For me, that means dry mounted to a museum board and use all archival processes and materials. For prints I really like, I keep few prints in a file and store it away from light.

If a museum or a collector is to call me and ask for my prints, I'll be happy to do it anyway they specify. Or, they can do it themselves.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Library of Congress already knows how to do things best. You put your prints in a stainless steel crate, suck the humidity out, solder it
shut, then bury it in an abandoned salt mine shaft. Of course, nobody will ever see it. That's pretty much what the ancient Egyptians did; but not much of that survived unblemished either. I don't think Lego sells full-sized pyramid kits yet. Even the Sphinx of Egypt wasn't exactly archival. For those of you who think your own importance in history is as significant as a Pharaoh, you can try perpetuating yourself that way. I'd rather have people enjoy at least some of my images, even if that means they won't last more than a few decades. The black and white prints should last quite a bit longer, provided they all don't end up in a dumpster six weeks after I pass away. At least the bums will have something better to gnaw on than the average discarded pizza crust.

 

[MattKing]

Clearly, we should offer for sale two copies of every print - one dry-mounted and framed, complete with tasteful lighting, and the other stored in a way that will guarantee centuries of life, as long as no-one looks at it.

 

[tkamiya]

I am in process of recovering prints for my girlfriend's mother who will be 90 next months. Many prints are from her younger days. There is even a print of her grand mother holding her mother. This photograph is, by our best estimate, 120+ years old. These prints were likely made in back of store of a drug store by a kid. They were carelessly stored in a cardboard box for decades.

MOST of them fared pretty well. Some were badly faded I was able to recover meaningful image. (method not to be discussed on APUG) Everyone handled them carelessly with bare hands. We enjoyed them by passing them around.

I think we obsess a bit too much on this.

 

[RobC]

You don't quite seem to get it,Rob. Drymounting is a plus when it comes to archival considerations, as well as a presentation method. How someone might conserve an antique photograph is a more involved topic. You have to know the specific print medium. There are also storage constraints in museums regarding sheer surface area. As if anyone a century or two is going to give a damn about most of our work anyway. But drymounting does have an excellent track record, longer than most of us have even been alive. When it comes to huge C-prints or inkjets like those of Gursky and certain others, there is simply no way to archive them. They're going to end up suffering under a lot of UV - either sunlight or some kind of display lighting with a lot of UV. These kinds of things are better classified as installations or decor. Anyone who can afford to throw out a fifty grand sofa every fifteen years can afford to throw out one of these conspicuous-consumption pieces too, when it fades around the same time. Different problem. But I've seen entire collections ruined by "expert" art
conservators who didn't specifically understand photographs. Like many other things, it helps to get a second opinion at times.

No, you don't get it. For ultimate long term print life dry mounting is not the way to go. For ultimate print presentation for people who can't dry their prints properly, dry mounting is the the only escape route for them.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You must be remarkably old to make an authoritative statement like that Rob, and must also know a helluva lot more than everyone else in
the industry combined. So your alternative is... thumbtacks? Or are prints made simply so they can never be seen?

 

[RobC]

You must be remarkably old to make an authoritative statement like that Rob, and must also know a helluva lot more than everyone else in
the industry combined. So your alternative is... thumbtacks? Or are prints made simply so they can never be seen?

It seems you are stating that dry mounting is an archival process which is at odds with the conservation industry. Let me offer you you the gift of a clue so that you have one. The conservation industry says dry mounting is bad, not me. I take their word for it. You don't. On the contrary you are making the authorative statement that the conservation industry doesn't know what its talking about. That puts you into your own little fastasy world.

 

[DREW WILEY]

So YOU speak for the conservation industry? That's laughable. Do your homework first.

 

[RobC]

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

I've been looking at aluminium mounts boards which seemed like a good idea. Only thing which stands out against them for me at the moment is their expansion. If its different to print paper which it will be, the print is going to be stretched/contracted with aluminium board which over the long term can't be good for the print. Another reason why not attaching a print to something is the best option for long term life.
But again I say, it comes down to whether you are looking for best display quality for the short to medium term or whether you want the longest possible print life. If its the latter then don't dry mount.

 

[Maris]

Like I said earlier in the topic, it comes down to whether you are really interested in maxing out "Archival potential" or whether you're really only interested in maxing out "Presentation Quality" for the short to medium term.....

RobC has it true here. A while ago I was talking to a very senior curator at a major gallery in Australia. She had convinced the Trustees to release a heap of money to acquire a bunch of significant (?) Type C photographs from internationally acclaimed artists. When I suggested that the works will be severely degraded in mere decades, either stored or displayed, she said (paraphrasing) "I don't care a damn about this aspect. That's not a curator's worry, that's a conservators problem, and they draw salary to fix these challenges. If you want to talk to them their offices are down the hall."

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is a dead giveaway in discussions like these is that the unfounded notion that conservators themselves have consistent opinions, standardized practices, or are even all equally competent. I've run into situation where this or that world-reknowned "expert" ruined entire
priceless collections because they thought one shoe size fits everything. The role of the conservator stands somewhere between a restorer at times, and an archivist, who has to evaluate the relevant priorities and parameters before making any diecast decision. But in this era of
Wiki-Experts, someone who know how to click a mouse a couple of times thinks they can be instantly expert themselves. Customs even tend to differ country to country. Certain institutions have standardized rules, others do not. For the rest of us, there are known reliable
solutions. And then, as Maris has illustrated in his anecdote, sometimes internal politics and gaming is a factor too. Let someone else take
the blame when the damn thing does irreversibly fade!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

RobC has it true here. A while ago I was talking to a very senior curator at a major gallery in Australia. She had convinced the Trustees to release a heap of money to acquire a bunch of significant (?) Type C photographs from internationally acclaimed artists. When I suggested that the works will be severely degraded in mere decades, either stored or displayed, she said (paraphrasing) "I don't care a damn about this aspect. That's not a curator's worry, that's a conservators problem, and they draw salary to fix these challenges. If you want to talk to them their offices are down the hall."

I agree and I won't any body dictate how my photographs are presented.I want it done the way I like it and that is dry mounted on large mount boards and black frames just the way AA did t!Customers and galleries have to live with it.It's part of my artistic expression period!

 

[Old_Dick]

Maris,

Did you take a walk down hall?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah... It doesn't impress me when you walk into an alleged gallery and someone wants your cash for something tacked to the wall. I learned to dress my prints in "a proper suite and tie" from the work go, and it sure made a difference in credibility. Too many "artistes" are more concerned about their own tatoos, nose rings, and green hair to have time to learn effective image presentation. And what kind of professionalism does a gallery itself represent when it rolls your purchase into a little cardboard tube and then tells you to go find someone
on your own who actually knows how to frame it. That might be fine for poster sales; but I cut my teeth on Cibachromes, which could be
ruined in a heartbeat by mishandling. Then when I took up black and white printing later, there was absolutely no question whether to drymount it or not. It's not like selling used tires.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yeah... It doesn't impress me when you walk into an alleged gallery and someone wants your cash for something tacked to the wall. I learned to dress my prints in "a proper suite and tie" from the work go, and it sure made a difference in credibility. Too many "artistes" are more concerned about their own tatoos, nose rings, and green hair to have time to learn effective image presentation. And what kind of professionalism does a gallery itself represent when it rolls your purchase into a little cardboard tube and then tells you to go find someone
on your own who actually knows how to frame it. That might be fine for poster sales; but I cut my teeth on Cibachromes, which could be
ruined in a heartbeat by mishandling. Then when I took up black and white printing later, there was absolutely no question whether to drymount it or not. It's not like selling used tires.

100%correct

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I must be old, but I've been to some galleries that display huge inkjet prints held up with a push pin and a binder clip. Some images are absolutely beautiful. It's like cooking a fine dish and serving it on a paper plate and you're gonna eat it with plastic forks and spoons.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I must be old, but I've been to some galleries that display huge inkjet prints held up with a push pin and a binder clip. Some images are absolutely beautiful. It's like cooking a fine dish and serving it on a paper plate and you're gonna eat it with plastic forks and spoons.

the chain is as strong as its weakest link.too bad when a good photograph is let down by a poor presentation;it's so easy to do it right.

 

[Doc W]

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.

I was 20 when I first got into photography and I still have a few of my prints from that wonderful summer. I am now 65 so these dry-mounted prints having been hanging around in a brutal climate for a very long time. It is extremely dry indoors in the winter (I got a proper humidifier for the house only recently) and stinking hot and humid in the summer, yet none of these prints shows any sign of deterioration, other than scratches on the surface from my mishandling of them over the years. I recall that the paper was Agfa fibre-base, probably grade 2 or 3, but can't remember what the mounting materials were. I don't even know if they acid-free, but there is no discolouration whatsoever. I do recall my teacher (the mother of a friend) insisting that prints be well-washed before mounting.

I have tried methods of mounting without mat board but every summer, the prints curl in the humid climate. I suppose if everyone lived in a climate-controlled house all year, that method might be ok, but I am one of those old cranks who still leaves the windows open in summer so I can hear and feel the breeze.

Most importantly, when I move on to new realms, not a lot of people are going to wail and moan about my prints being non-archival. Just for the record, I worked in an archive for most of my working career so I am not unaware of the issues.

 

[RobC]

Everyones environmental conditions for their prints will vary. What you are saying is that because yours vary between dry and humid you need to dry mount to keep the print flat. i.e. its about presentation for you.
The laws of physics and entropy are going to degrade all prints over time. Its just a question of how fast.
And so far no one has said that their prints degraded because they weren't dry mounted. All we've heard is that some have badly affected mountboard but the print has been saved by the drymount tissue/barrier. That doesn't imply the prints would have been worse if the boards had been replaced every five years or so which is what I suggested. It implies their environmental conditions are bad and/or their board is sub standard. But people always seem to want to infer what is not shown by what they say.
I would have thought that if your boards are deteriorating then common sense says change them. Apparently some people think it would be better to have them glued to the back of their print in that condition.
Everyones experience will be different according to environmenatl conditions.

The only point I have been trying to make is that by not dry mounting and looking after your print by changing boards regularly, your print will last longer than if you dry mount it. So far NO ONE has given an example of where that is not true.

If they want to belive their print will last longer because they've dry mounted it, they are free to think so. I just happen to believe they are deluded.

 

[Tom Taylor]

All we've heard is that some have badly affected mountboard but the print has been saved by the drymount tissue/barrier. That doesn't imply the prints would have been worse if the boards had been replaced every five years or so which is what I suggested. It implies their environmental conditions are bad and/or their board is sub standard.

Pick-up a sheet of double-weight fiber paper with your right hand and with the left a sheet of 4-ply museum board. Everything being equal which do you suppose will outlast the other: the paper or the board?

Thomas

 

[RobC]

Pick-up a sheet of double-weight fiber paper with your right hand and with the left a sheet of 4-ply museum board. Everything being equal which do you suppose will outlast the other: the paper or the board?

Thomas

If everything is equal then equal. I rekon they'll both outlast you and me unless you're immortal, but that will depend on the environmental conditions they are kept in which I don't know and neither do you.

 

[RobC]

And let me ask you all, if you wanted to preserve your prints for all eternity, would you dry mount them?