How do you mount your prints?

[bdial]

I use archival photo corners, on a rag backing board and under a window mat cut to the image area. Partly because I don't own a press, don't have the space for one, partly because it is one of the truly archival methods.
I have a one of a kind print I did 25 years ago which is, regretfully, dry mounted, as the mount has suffered some, and it isn't rag board. Since it's dry mounted though, there's pretty much nothing to be done about the mount now. I certainly don't want to risk the print by trying to get it off.
Certainly the super flatness of a dry mounted print looks nice, but under a window mat, especially an 8-ply and in a frame it's hard to tell the difference.

 

[Travis Nunn]

What's wrong with permanent? You can always make more; the thing about photos is the fact that they can be mass produced. Preserving the negative makes more sense.

I don't make a living selling raw photos but I do sell them when someone wants to buy. Dry mounting is quick without the extra fuss, and I offer a guarantee because it's permanent. I'm not in the market to sell to museums - too finicky for me. But that's just me.

Paul

I never said anything was wrong with permanent. It's just not my preference. I've bought prints from numerous photographers. Some are dry mounted, some aren't. For my prints, however, I prefer to not dry mount. To each his/her own.

 

[DannL]

I use archival photo corners, on a rag backing board and under a window mat cut to the image area. Partly because I don't own a press, don't have the space for one, partly because it is one of the truly archival methods.
I have a one of a kind print I did 25 years ago which is, regretfully, dry mounted, as the mount has suffered some, and it isn't rag board. Since it's dry mounted though, there's pretty much nothing to be done about the mount now. I certainly don't want to risk the print by trying to get it off.
Certainly the super flatness of a dry mounted print looks nice, but under a window mat, especially an 8-ply and in a frame it's hard to tell the difference.

After some basis study on this subject, if dry mounting tissue is shellac based (thermoplastic) compound, would not reheating it break the bond?

 

[brian steinberger]

I just need to ask those who are not dry mounting and framing with corners and an over matting, where are you signing your photograph? I think signing on the over mat looks cheesy. I prefer to mount using colormount, and leave the image float with 1/4" sides and top and 5/8" on the bottom, then I can sign right under the mounted FB print on the mat that I mounted it on. Or are photographers now not signing?

 

[jeroldharter]

I dry mount prints on archival mat board from Light Impressions.

I make the window slightly larger than the print as outlined in the Ansel Adams technique book.

I sign the prints on the same piece of board on which the print is mounted.

I use aluminum frames and plexiglass from the local glass shop.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I have a dream...

To print with a wide white border and cold vacuum press them with wheat starch onto one or two ply mat board. This would give them some strength to be held in the hands and they (hopefully) won't ripple when hinge mounted with an over mat of 4 ply mat board and framed with a backing board. I won't be going bigger than 16x20. The plan is to sign them in the lower right below the image, on the white border of the paper itself. I'm also toying with the idea of applying dark cloth book binding tape to the white borders edge (which would be hidden by an over mat) so the edges don't get dirty from being picked up in the hands. They would be available either framed or in a custom folded paper envelope.

The theory I'm working on is that it's as archival as it can get (been done for centuries), is reversible by simply soaking in water, is crazy strong (ever taken off wallpaper?), the signature will never become detached from the art work, and they can be held in the hands for intimate viewing and not have to be isolated from the viewer behind glass.

Dare to dream

Murray

 

[wildbill]

[QUOTE I don't know any serious or well known photographers in the US or UK who sell dry mounted prints

Kenna, Horn, Sexton, Schwab, Bond...........


Jerry[/QUOTE]
Who?

apuggers Volquartz and Kosoff too

I'd rather have a print that's well presented and "permanent" than a wavy print with shadows from the overmat on top of it.

 

[c6h6o3]

As a museum preparator, I can tell you how we do it here:
typically we window matte photographs, and use one of two methods for mounting the image. If it's a loan and is therefore being returned to the lender, we use photo corners so there is nothing permanently affixed to the photograph. (These can be plastic or made from archival paper and linen tape.) If it is in the collection, we use a thin paper (mulberry paper) that is affixed to the photograph as hinges with wheat starch (or rice) paste. This allows us to make "hidden hinges" so that we can float the entire image in the window. It's also better than linen tape because linen tape hinges will often leave a dimple where they attach to the photo. Wheat starch paste is very easy to remove as well, but strong enough to hold the photo in place.

How do you assure absolute flatness?

 

[Steve Roberts]

I am interested in learning all the common accepted methods to mount a print. But, I am especially interested in how "you" mount your prints, both small and large prints, and prints that are sold. Thank you.

Of course, it depends on the print's intended use and permanence, flatness, archival qualities may all have varying degrees of importance for any particular application. I've often found myself contributing to what are relatively short-term displays on archaeology, history, etc. and have found Daler self adhesive board excellent for that, whether subsequently framed, matted or whatever.

Steve

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I spoke to the person responsible for mounting photographs at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. She was most informative and tole me almost exactly the same thing you do.

Her first reply to me was: "Whatever you do, don't EVER dry mount your photographs!" I took that to heart without questioning and have used linen tape to hinge the prints to a piece of rag board. Then I over-mat with a window mat cut about 1/2" wider than the edge of the print (which means I have to leave plenty of room on the paper when printing).

With prints that I have sold, I have printed a 7x7" print on 11x14 paper. The large 'hidden' area of the paper helps keep the part you can actually see completely flat.

- Thomas

As a museum preparator, I can tell you how we do it here:
typically we window matte photographs, and use one of two methods for mounting the image. If it's a loan and is therefore being returned to the lender, we use photo corners so there is nothing permanently affixed to the photograph. (These can be plastic or made from archival paper and linen tape.) If it is in the collection, we use a thin paper (mulberry paper) that is affixed to the photograph as hinges with wheat starch (or rice) paste. This allows us to make "hidden hinges" so that we can float the entire image in the window. It's also better than linen tape because linen tape hinges will often leave a dimple where they attach to the photo. Wheat starch paste is very easy to remove as well, but strong enough to hold the photo in place.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

How much does it matter? I have witnessed large collections of photographs of the masters. Believe me when I say that I did not pay much attention to how the print was mounted.
Presentation matters, but really - does a print have to be completely flat before it can be enjoyed?

- Thomas

How do you assure absolute flatness?

 

[DannL]

For a detailed history on dry mounting and it's properties, we found this interesting publication via Stanford on-line . . .

http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/bpg/annual/v12/bp12-15.html

and for more volumes of data related to paper . . .
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/bpg/annual/

 

[Tom Reardon]

Hinge mounting with linen tape and overmat. Haven't had a problem keeping things flat when they're framed, but then I don't do large prints - just 11x14 and smaller

 

[Ian Grant]

Like Tom I've never had a problem with the prints not remaining flat, just held with corner mounts, this is with my own work and photographs I own from well known photographers.

Some images have been framed and hung for over 20 years and there are still no problems, others have been exhibited in galleries and the hung in a marquee in a very damp field over a particularly wet & rainy week, again no problems with print flatness. A few of the images are 20"x30" size makes no difference.

Ian

 

[JBSmith]

Absolute flatness

Since we are only framing, we deal with the print the way it is. As someone else mentioned, once you get it in the window matte and put a backerboard behind it and use enough spring clips to hold it tight, there never seems to be a problem with a flat print. Basically it's flattened by the pressure of the backerboard. Whenever I've seen wavy prints in Neilson type (sectional) frames, it's because there weren't enough spring clips in the back and the backerboard can't hold it flat.

It is interesting to note that we've shown Adams, Weston and others, and their prints were a mix of dry-mounted and not. Also, regarding signatures, we see a lot of signatures on the backs of prints, backs of mattes, on the photo itself, just about anywhere you could think. Our current exhibit by Robbie McClaran has the title of the photo on the front bottom in silver pen.


Sorry to be so long-winded as a new member

How do you assure absolute flatness?

 

[Lee Shively]

I have prints from 20-30 years ago that I dry-mounted. They have not been in any museums, they've been in boxes or framed or just taken out and looked at over these years. The mounts have become dingy, the mount corners are banged up and generally they look like crap. The photos themselves look fine but the ugly mounts detract.

Of course, if anyone wants to buy my photos for ungodly high prices, I'll mount them on a piece of Melba toast if that's what they specify.

 

[declark]

I am sure this method is totally unacceptable, but it is what I do. I use a acid free adhesive spray on 3/16" or thicker foam core and roll my print flat with a piece of PVC pipe. I then cut the print and the foam core edges with a sharp utility knife. I slap a few self adhesive velcro tabs at the corners of the foam core and then slap the print up on my cubicle walls. They look great, no glass, lightweight, nice and flat, and have lasted a couple of years no problem. I've only done this with RC prints. It's a dirt cheap way of displaying lots of prints and hiding the ugly beige Herman Miller fabric of my home away from home.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well that's exactly the way I mount display prints for work purposes and it has its place, also Title boards and other info at exhibitions.

Ian

 

[brian steinberger]

What kind of backing board are you non-drymount guys using to keep the print flat under pressure in the frame? I use 3/16" acid free foamcore which to me is not strong enough to really flatten a FB print under pressure (assuming you've already properly flattened it as much as you can in a press first). Are you using thicker foamcore? Or something stronger.. like gator foam?

This thread is interesting to me. I've always dry mounted, but now I think I'm going to try and go without. I like the idea of taking prints in and out of frames and having them in the same state as they were the day after I printed them. But like the others that DO drymount, we do it becuase we like to see the print perfectly flat.

 

[Ian Grant]

Brian, I use the same acid free museum board as the window mount, then the frame itself has a hardboard backing board, it doesn't take very much pressure to keep everything flat. My current frame maker supplies almost all the museums and galleries in Birmingham UK, and that's standard.

Ian

 

[Mahler_one]

Interesting discussion. I use FB paper, and we all know about the ripples, waves, and curls. Do methods NOT using the dry mount technique allow the the print to be flat in the frame?

Ed

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes Ed, totally.

Ian

 

[panastasia]

Many people believe they're experts, but I think we need to wait another 100 years to know for sure what is best; 20 or 30 years just doesn't cut it, some of my own prints are older but not old enough to really know anything conclusive. If you must satisfy the demands of the purchaser or institution, then do so.

The next generation of photography - electronic imaging and related 'output' materials - has already staked the first claim about "archival' and "permanence": Pigment inks on watercolor paper are the most permanent. Next will be a new way of mounting art, and we can start all over again.

My first dry mounted prints look like the day I mounted them (about 45 years old), so I'm staying with that method based on my own experience. I say, as another poster said: each to his own choice. I don' dry mount color prints though, I use the other method for those.

We can beat this one to death, that's OK with me, but I'm sure we haven't heard the last word. The next generation of experts are coming along.

Paul

 

[Travis Nunn]

I use a drymount press to flatten my prints. Once I've done that, they're as flat as any RC print.

Like Ian, I use the same board for the backing board as I use for the window mount. I don't get ripples, waves or curls.

 

[jovo]

.....I think we need to wait another 100 years to know for sure what is best

Okay....I'll volunteer. Can you arrange for that please?