fix foam board to print mount

I've used "YES PASTE" for that, as well as some version of 3M spray adhesive. Both require caution to protect photo surface...YES is water soluble, spray adhesive means no ability to clean any overspray whatsoever.

 

I wouldn't glue the mount board to the foam board. Are the prints/mount board going to have a window cover mat and end up in frames ? If it is only for protection for shipping you could sandwich all between two foam boards or for more protection between to pieces of Masonite and be sure to have all in a water tight covering. You can use interleaving paper over the actual print surfaces as well.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

As I mentioned above I would not glue the mat/print to the foam board. Use a window mat and when framed a backing board can be placed behind the mat/print. I suspect that when the prints were dry mounted they were not placed under a cooling plate and/or weighted down while cooling. Although it is probably too late now consider 4 ply mat board for dry mounting especially with large prints. I have generally stopped dry mounting and rather use archival corners and 4 ply board. If the mat board is somehow damaged, so much for the print. Also, when you have a number of dry mounted prints more storage space is needed. A 16x20 print (IMO) usually looks best on a 20x24 board and many prints look really nice with an 8 ply window mat. If the prints are to be framed with aluminum section frames you need ones that will accommodate the backing board, mat board/print, window mat and glass.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

Mounting to foam board seems in conflict with archival worries, like all mounting...but it sounds like your first issue is repairing warp from mounting you've already done.

Masonite would serve, as was suggested. But that would make shipping very expensive. If you were starting fresh and felt you had to mount you might consider aluminum...that's often used in museum exhibits.

Yes paste is not invasive...you might want to try it for future reference. Graphic artists and exhibit designers use it.

 

I always try to stay well clear of any kind of adhesive. In my #15 Nielsen frame is sufficient space for the foam board,two mount boards and a sheet of window glass, keeping the package tight and flat.

 

I'll just mention that if "archival" or even longterm display is intended it's bad practice to allow the print surface to contact glass. An archival mat of some sort (most beautifully beveled) is the standard way to prevent that contact.

 

good point!

 

Spray adhesives are not only anti-archival with respect to what they outgas, but highly unhealthy to work with. And that is an understatement. If you wet-glue your mount to a backboard, unless it's quite thick and stiff, you'll need to counter-mount something comparable on the back of it too, to prevent it from warping. Both Daige and Seal (or the current marketer of Seal) offer excellent neutral water-based vacuum mounting glues which can easily applied with a CLOSED-CELL foam "weenie" roller IF both surfaces are porous paper. These are more convenient to work with than having to water-down Yes dextrin glue, and you can simply weight down the sandwich under a big sheet of glass or whatever while drying. A vacuum press isn't essential, but moderately low humidity is. Art store foam board is crappy stuff. There are certain pro products like Mighty Core which work better, though you usually have to buy a case at a time. But overall, unless you practice in advance, wet mounting is a good way to screw up a print. Masonite is one of the worst backings imaginable. I once sold thousands of pieces of it precut for certain temporary art venues (per their specification, certainly not mine!). They'd isolate the nasties in the Duoloux (the better grade of Masonite) using some Saran Wrap between it and the actual rag mounting board. Guess this was OK for the couple of weeks or perhaps a month of student-work exhibition; but it would make any museum curator cringe.

 

It sounds like you haven't mounted the prints yet. I was taught to preheat both the print and the mounting board first to remove residual moisture, and after dry-mounting to put the mounted print under a weight to keep it flat while it cools off. I have yet to have a mounted print warp when done this way. If you want the print mounted to something more substantial, 8-ply (3mm?) board is wonderful. I like to mount on 4-ply, then matte with 8-ply. 8-ply is a bear to cut, try to find a pro for that. I think there are frame shops that use lasers to cut 8-ply.

 

All it takes is a significant change in weather or climate to make a drymounted print warp. That's not likely to happen either held tight in a frame or compressed between other prints in a portfolio, but just laying around it certainly can. Or it can be due to not correctly pre-drying and weighting in the first place, which might also
lead to blisters or corner failures. Mats are not cut with lasers or you'd get a burn marks (or maybe a burnt-down frame shop!). Computerized cutters still use blades;
and thicker blades are available for manual professional mat cutters. 8-ply museum board won't cure warping. It's hydroscopic too. A thicker non-absorbent backing
board might, but there's are right ways and wrong way to go about it.

 

More web-surf nonsense. My uncle invented surgical lasers, my wife used them, and the company shop where I worked had a sign company within a sublet space that etched with lasers. I've seen lasers cut structural steel. None of that is related to mat cutting where you need a clean beveled edge. That's done with a knife or blade specially designed for automation. Try looking up relevant equipment that people in the picture framing trade actually use. If you Google "Computerized mat cutters"
you'll see plenty of examples. The framing trade has its own forums, publications, workshops, etc. A few years ago I sold
equipment to an outfit commissioned to make a big million dollar photo composed entirely of different shades of hardwood
plywood. They scanned and color-mapped the original color film portrait, then used a laser to lightly etch or burn the cut marks into all the respective types of wood (22 varieties, as I recall). This created a pattern just like a jigsaw puzzle. And, in
fact, specialized jigsaws had to be used to actually cut out every single piece - tens of thousands of them. It took four months.
Any deeper into the surface, and the laser would have either started a fire or at least have hopelessly discolored those small
pieces. Not just any material will work. And this particular mapping laser was something vastly beyond the budget of any
frame shop. CMC machines (computerized matcutters, indeed with software analogous to CNC) start at the low end used
for around 8K, and run to around 24K for better new machines.