How do you mount your prints?

[panastasia]

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

Yes, I suppose, see me in the next life.

 

[Ian Grant]

The expert advice is in numerous publications, is taught in workshops, and practised by the best professional framers. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use dry mounting, provided archival materials are used, rather that it isn't recommended as the optimal method for conservation purposes

Ilford recommend the following:

MOUNTING FOR MUSEUM OR GALLERY DISPLAY
ILFORD ILFOBROM and MULTIGRADE FB prints are often displayed in galleries and museums, and are also used for long-term storage. Many archivists and curators feel that permanent mounting of the print is not advisable because it can not be reversed without damaging the print. For museum or gallery display, most photographers prefer the use of museum mounting corners (acid free “corners” hand made or purchased from suppliers of archival materials) to affix the print to the substrate. Archival mounting strips can also be used. Check with companies specialising in archival products for details. Mounting corners or strips hold the print to the backing board, allowing the print to be removable, which is a requirement of many galleries and museums.

Ian

 

[DannL]

I hope to hear from "anyone" that mounts a print. I am not the sole beneficiary here. As Paul put it: "The next generation of experts are coming along." Many of these "tricks of the trade" may be lost, so please chime in. Spread the wealth of your hard learnin'. I have learned enough by everyone's participation here, I may finally be able to create a photographic presentation fit for public viewing.

 

[brian steinberger]

Ian,

What kind of material is the hardboard backing board that you're describing? Is it stiff, like a piece of wood? If so, I could understand total flatness. I'm just wondering where I can purchase it.

Brian

 

[Ian Grant]

Brian, it's a type of hardboard, but it differs from conventional hardboard because it's pressed on both sides. Yes it's type of wood, made with wood fibre. You may call this type of board something else in the US.

Ian

 

[panastasia]

.... Many archivists and curators feel that permanent mounting of the print is not advisable because it can not be reversed without damaging the print...

Ian

Ian,

I've heard you say this many times now, and I don't disagree. To be honest, I never needed to reverse a prosses. I just make a new one; that's the great thing about making photos.

You collect photographs, I don't collect things, I get rid of them - I'm enjoying my life as a minimalist - Simplify, simplify, and life is good. That's my new experience. I don't get rid of my photo gear, though.

Take care,

Paul

 

[panastasia]

Talking about backing boards. Foamcore and similar corrugated boards are not paper - lignite free; wont absorb moisture - and should be the most archival. I don't like using petroleum (plastic) products.

 

[Trevor Crone]

Print attached to backing board, for this I use clear photo corners. Then window over matt is hinged to the backing board using linen tape.

The over matt window is slightly larger then the print so you can see the prints white boarder. I title and sign on the prints lower boarder.

All products are archival.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think this highlights a lot of why the discussion occurs. For my own purposes I don't really care how the print is matted and mounted.
But if it's a print I sell I want the buyer to be able to remount the print if something happens to it. A spill, or a contamination of some kind, perhaps it hangs in a house where people smoke, etc... And if you are big-headed enough, like me, to think that perhaps someone out there might want to enjoy your work a hundred years from now, the mat board would need to be replaced probably several times in that time period.
If we believe that any of our work will, at some point or another, have any historical value, then we need to consider the consequences of mounting the print permanently.
If you don't believe that, then it's a different story. The 'making a new one' part bothers me to some extent. You will not be around forever to make a new one. Perhaps that doesn't matter, but it just seems a bit arbitrary to me.

Anyway, I'm prepared to just agree that we all feel we have different needs with this and move right along...

- Thomas

Ian,

I've heard you say this many times now, and I don't disagree. To be honest, I never needed to reverse a prosses. I just make a new one; that's the great thing about making photos.

You collect photographs, I don't collect things, I get rid of them - I'm enjoying my life as a minimalist - Simplify, simplify, and life is good. That's my new experience. I don't get rid of my photo gear, though.

Take care,

Paul

 

[Ian Grant]

Thomas, your points are quite correct.

A disaster 20 years ago reinforced my conviction that dry mounting wasn't the way to go. 3 days before hanging an exhibition I returned from working away to find all the boxed framed exhibition prints, (about 24) sitting on a wet carpet, a radiator had burst. All the frames were water damaged and all the window mounts, but luckily only one print.

The following morning my frame-maker wanted a week to make a new set, so I went elsewhere and had a new set by the same evening, then cut a fresh set of window mounts and re-framed the prints. If the images had been dry-mounted the whole set would have been ruined.

Luckily the costs were covered by insurance, and with a little work all the frames were restored and eventually used

Ian

 

[panastasia]

I think this highlights a lot of why the discussion occurs. For my own purposes I don't really care how the print is matted and mounted....
The 'making a new one' part bothers me to some extent. You will not be around forever to make a new one.... - Thomas

Thomas,

"You" wont be around to fix a damaged one either! That would be left to others, but I get your point.

It's been an interesting (educational) discussion. It does seems like a good time to move on.

Regards,
Paul

 

[DannL]

I think I'm missing something small. (Yep, it finally fell off.) After all of the replies to the original question, I have been left with the impression that most prints are not behind glass. Is that the general practice? I have seen both "open air" display of photographs and then others enclosed behind glass. I suspect this again is an individual preference, but it seems to me that encased would be the logical method. Especially to prevent SG fiber prints from atmospheric contaminants such as sulfur.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Brian, it's a type of hardboard, but it differs from conventional hardboard because it's pressed on both sides. Yes it's type of wood, made with wood fibre. You may call this type of board something else in the US.

Ian

What you describe sounds like what in Germany is called MDF-Platte (Medium Density Flat Board - yes, it's called by an english term).

Ulrich

 

[Travis Nunn]

I think I'm missing something small. (Yep, it finally fell off.) After all of the replies to the original question, I have been left with the impression that most prints are not behind glass. Is that the general practice? I have seen both "open air" display of photographs and then others enclosed behind glass. I suspect this again is an individual preference, but it seems to me that encased would be the logical method. Especially to prevent SG fiber prints from atmospheric contaminants such as sulfur.

If my prints are on the wall, yes, they are behind glass. If they are not on the wall and simply in storage, then I store them in those archival resealable bags

 

[Trevor Crone]

I think I'm missing something small. (Yep, it finally fell off.) After all of the replies to the original question, I have been left with the impression that most prints are not behind glass. Is that the general practice? I have seen both "open air" display of photographs and then others enclosed behind glass. I suspect this again is an individual preference, but it seems to me that encased would be the logical method. Especially to prevent SG fiber prints from atmospheric contaminants such as sulfur.

If I'm exhibiting then behind glass otherwise prints are stored in portfolio cases.

 

[RobertP]

For my platinum prints I corner mount with archival corners from Light Impressions. Or hinge mounted with linen tape. All prints are window matted. All frames are backed with foam core and then the frame backs are sealed with 70# acid free and buffered frame-backing paper. As far as what type of glass...As we all know a print is best viewed with out any glass what-so-ever. But for a show display or for a person purchasing a framed print, most want it glazed. Mainly for long term protection from the elements. I have tried just about ever option out there from museum glass to acrylic. I have found that just normal framing glass, without any of the coatings that are hyped so much, works best for my paltinum prints. Especially if the lighting is done properly. The newer acrylics are probably better but more expensive and easily scratched. I will offer that option to a buyer if they prefer it.

 

[RobertP]

I've been meaning to ask Light Impressions if any tests have been conducted on their acrylite op-3 glazing for outgassing. Just curious.

 

[panastasia]

Standard window glass has a slight greenish tinge, but it's good for most frame fitting; for fine art work I recommend picture frame glass which is clear and thinner, but not as durable.

For backer boards you can buy:
gray acid free corrugated cardboard (1/8" thick).
white acid free corrugated cardboard (thickness unknown), more expensive - overkill, IMO.
corrugated polypropylene sheets (5/32" thick)

All these are thinner than foamcore.

You can also buy large rolls of acid free dust cover paper (blue/gray color).

I purchase all these materials, wholesale, from companies that supply to the picture framing industry because I manufacture exotic wood frames for my own work. Peruvian walnut will match many print tones and looks beautiful with Strathmore Museum Board colors. One of my trade secrets.

I will also mention that one of the reasons I drymount is to prevent insects from boring tiny holes and tracks in the backs of cotton fiber prints (happened more than once). This is a good reason to seal the frames, front and back.

Regards,
Paul

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's exactly my point. If you can replace the mat board, the print stands a better chance of surviving a disaster. Permanently fixed to the mat board - forget it. That's bad news for the person / institution owning your print.

But I realize it comes down to personal preference and probably should have kept my mouth shut...

- Thomas

Thomas,

"You" wont be around to fix a damaged one either! That would be left to others, but I get your point.

It's been an interesting (educational) discussion. It does seems like a good time to move on.

Regards,
Paul

 

[jgjbowen]

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.

Ditto...except I use glass instead of plexiglass

 

[Chuck_P]

For my unsophisticated and low dollar market, archivally dry mounted. When upscale galleries come knocking at my door, I'll follow their preferences.

After looking a all the posts, I agree with Mr. Jones on this topic.

 

[panastasia]

That's exactly my point. If you can replace the mat board, the print stands a better chance of surviving a disaster. Permanently fixed to the mat board - forget it. That's bad news for the person / institution owning your print.

But I realize it comes down to personal preference and probably should have kept my mouth shut...

- Thomas

Your point is well taken, Thomas, but there's also preventative measures to avoid such things as staining through the back of the print. I have a limited edition print of a watercolor painting that was ruined beyond repair in this way, but I wouldn't consider dry mounting it, so what to do? Your absolutely right, it's personal preference for whatever reasons we can come up with.

I only sell prints in sealed wooden frames to protect from future damage - I do the complete job. I don't do business with museums, because I'm not famous. I serve the general public because they're not so demanding and they just want something nice to hang on their wall; I like providing for them, it gives me great satifaction to see their joy. The aluminum gallery type frames are hardly ever requested because they're hard to incorporate into the home decor - too sterile and cold - "they appear to belong in an office environment" I've been told, often. Old photos, restored and hand colored, are very much in demand, also.

Regards,
paul

 

[KenM]

Depends who you want to sell to. Most collectors & galleries won't buy dry mounted prints, and I don't know any serious or well known photographers in the US or UK who sell dry mounted prints - it's never even an option.

I collect photographs and there is no way I'd ever buy a dry mounted print.

Ian

Bruce Barnbaum, Ray McSavaney, John Sexton, Don Kirby, to name a few US photographers. They all dry mount their prints. In fact, it's the only way they mount their prints. It's never even an option

Personally, I dislike how hinge mounted prints look - with changes in humidity, they can go wavy. Sure, they'll be flat some of the time, but I prefer a flat image.

 

[jovo]

From some recent reading I've done on the history of mat board, I've concluded that the use of acid and lignin free 100% cotton rag mat board is a whole different world than the materials used even 50 years ago. Dry mounting to such excellent material, and the prudent storage and display in a framer's tape sealed frame makes the whole package about as archival as the photograph itself. There is just no excuse for buying or selling a photograph that's been made to an archival standard and then mounted to a lesser mat by any technique...dry mount, or otherwise. Museums that deal with vintage photographs of yesteryear have to deal with all manner of mat deterioation which is exacerbated by dry mounting. But, the current mat material I've just described obviates the need to avoid dry mounting I think.

 

[DannL]

. . .
I will also mention that one of the reasons I drymount is to prevent insects from boring tiny holes and tracks in the backs of cotton fiber prints (happened more than once). This is a good reason to seal the frames, front and back.

Regards,
Paul

I recently recovered a large print of the Lone Cypress at Pebble Beach circa 1930 from unprotected storage. It was under glass and not dry mounted. Considering it had been in storage more than 60 years the photograph image area survived fairly well. But, the menace was the silverfish. Overtime they ate and bored the edges of the photograph to where it looked like swiss cheese.