How do you mount your prints?

[panastasia]

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....

...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.

John,
My thoughts exactly! Thanks for doing some research.

"lignin free", those were the words I was trying to remember. I called it "lignite free" in a previous post, which I now know would mean: doesn't contain any compressed peat moss (when I was a power plant piping analyst in the 70's and 80's one of our projects was an electricity generating plant in Texas that burned lignite for fuel, it was built on top of a large lignite deposit. I'm surprised that memory didn't ring a bell). I think I was close though, it still relates to woody material. I learn allot from this forum.

Paul

 

[Bruce Osgood]

SNIP/snip
But, the current mat material I've just described obviates the need to avoid dry mounting I think.

Excuse me John, it's not clear to me, are you saying the material you've described does not make it necessary to avoid dry mounting, ergo: It is permissable and acceptable to dry mount using those described materials? Or have I got backwards again?

 

[panastasia]

I got what he said - there's no need to avoid using todays materials. "Dry mounting to such excellent material... obviates (counters) the need to avoid dry mounting..." Sounds correct!

I just learned a new word!
two actually. Thank you John.

 

[RobC]

This question comes up time and time again. I guess the reason is that there is no definitive answer so speculation is rife. Here's my take.

If the mount board material is of similar quality to the photo paper then they should last the same time. Right? NO thats not right. Why? Because the mount board and overmat are there to not only present the photo nicely, but to also protect it. What that means is that any airborne pollutants wanting to get to the photo have to go via the mount board or mat. The mount board and / or mat act as a big sponge soaking up the pollutants before they reach the print. At least in a glass framed print they do. When the mount board and mat reach load limit, they no longer protect the print. Infact they serve as a highly concentrated reservoir of pollutants in close proximity to the print as some of what is being absorbed is surely going to seep out and attack the print. This is regardless of whether it has inert drymount between it and the mount board. The pollutants will go round the dry mount.
It is for the above reasons that all professional framers will recommend replacing barrier boards, mount boards and over mats at regular intervals during the life of the print. That way the build up of a reservoir of pollutants is prevented.

So what is the definition of archival. Does it mean the materials are archival or does it mean the materials give archival protection to the print. The former is important but only provides short term protection. Short term meaning maybe 50 to 100 years. But even then, those figures can be wildly different if the environmental conditions in which the print are kept are not good or perhaps they are perfect so times could be much shorter or much longer. But eventually the mat board sponge will need to be replaced and that is when the major problems will occur because the cost of removing hundreds, thousands or even millions of dry mounted silver gelatin prints from mount board will prevent it from being done. Only a tiny handful will be valuable enough for it to be worth while.

So if you want perfect display aesthetics then you should dry mount with the understanding that are you reducing the potential life of the print. If you think your work is really destined for museum care over hundreds of years, then don't dry mount.

Also note that one of the big reasons museums don't like dry mount is because the mount board is bigger and a lot thicker than the print and requires a lot more storage space than a print alone.

The british fine art guild recommends inspection for possible changing mount board and / or over mat every five years.

So you tell me, what does archival really mean....

 

[Sparky]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones
"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.

I dare say that when they come knocking at your door - they'll be following YOUR preferences...!

 

[patrickjames]

I am really surprised that no one has factored in the size of the print. I use photo corners because I think dry mounting is a pain, but I also usually print small. On larger prints I would bite the bullet and dry mount to keep the print in place. I would probably start dry mounting after say 16x20, but that depends too on the size of the print margin. If you are concerned with using photo corners and resulting print flatness you needn't be as long as you don't make the photo corners tight against the image. There should be a little play.

Patrick

 

[panastasia]

"This question comes up time and time again. I guess the reason is that there is no definitive answer so speculation is rife. Here's my take".

"The mount board and / or mat act as a big sponge soaking up the pollutants before they reach the print. At least in a glass framed print they do".

This is strange logic. Why do you think frames are sealed?

"It is for the above reasons that all professional framers will recommend replacing barrier boards, mount boards and over mats at regular intervals during the life of the print. That way the build up of a reservoir of pollutants is prevented".

This is like the motor oil companies telling us to have an oil change every 2 or 3 thousand miles - they want to sell oil.


"So you tell me, what does archival really mean...."

By now that question has been answered by many. I suggest that you trust your own logic and change your mat board every 3 years, just to be safe; especially, if you believe that "all professional framers" are in agreement - again, some, of course, will tell you that - they want to sell mat board.

 

[RobC]

frames are not sealed airtight. The tape reduces airflow and is to stop those little creepy crawlies that inhabit your house from taking up residence in your art work and muching their way through it and crapping all over it.

If you can't see the simple logic and reason of regularly changing mat boards, then that's not my problem. Regularly meaning between 5 and 20 years depending of the environmental conditions in which the print is kept.

 

[panastasia]

frames are not sealed airtight. The tape reduces airflow and is to stop those little creepy crawlies that inhabit your house from taking up residence in your art work and muching their way through it and crapping all over it.

If you can't see the simple logic and reason of regularly changing mat boards, then that's not my problem. Regularly meaning between 5 and 20 years depending of the environmental conditions in which the print is kept.

As I said in another post, some of my own matted prints are more than 40 years old and I can see no change due to pollution and what not. I base my logic on that fact. I don't have a problem with your "logic and reason"! It's just not mine.

Your reason tells me that you live in a very polluted environment, and if that was actually true for me, then I would be more concerned about my health condition. In Japan people walk around on the streets wearing face masks, so you're not alone in that regard.

Please understand I'm not trying to be a wise-guy, I'm only responding to you're rather extreme concern about how paper absorbs pollution from the air. By all means, change your mat board on a regular basis as I suggested, and no problem!

 

[Mahler_one]

I can't speak for others with more experience then I, but I have found this thread full of very useful and thoughtful advice. Well done, and thanks so very much to everyone who has ventured an opinion! I hope that in 100 years we will reconvene, compare our prints to see which have lasted well, and drink some vinatge red wine. However, being a retired MD closing in on 70, experience tells me that whatever method we use to mount our prints, such prints ( excepting those experiencing any natural or man made disasters of course ) will likely far out-live all of us on this thread! Those of us who aspire to greatness in photography should, I believe, seek the advice of the conservators at major museums, and then follow the advice offered. After all, it is prints made by that group that will be exhibited in whatever museums survive into the next millenium!

Bests to all, and God bless!

Edwin

 

[jovo]

Edwin

Either you're a painter, or: do sol do re mi fa sol...la ti do ti la sol me fa...so la ti la sol fa re mi.....fa sol la sol.....la ti do ti....do re me re..... Love that tune!

 

[PhilipRingler]

this is the thread i've been waiting for.
My question is: does the non- dry mounting acid free tape method work for large fiber mural prints?
I DO plan on selling to museums, but my work is so large I have been told that dry mounting is the best option to keep them flat. It seems like most of the discussion so far is based around 20x30 or smaller.
My work is 40"x60" on fiber paper and I am worried that the museum preference of simply taping the corners with a window matte would not keep a print so large flat, especially considering that there will be no glass over the frame. I was going to use archival dry mount sheet and 8 ply museum board then use a piece of 3/16 foam core for support with a dark wood frame around it. Is this going too much against the standard museum/gallery practices? My work may be too dark or unnerving for personal collections and more appropriate for museums and galleries. These are the thoughts that keep me up at night.

 

[removed account4]

4ply mat behind
linco photo corners
window cut 4ply ontop

i dry mounted things for 1 class as a student
and now 20 years later the wax/adhesive has puckered.
i wouldn't want people to buy things that "lifed" from the board
down the road ...

i also bind things in books. sometimes i use wheat or rice paste
and afix the top 1/2" of the print to ragg/acid free paper
which i then stack and stitch between 2 covers ...
other times i stitch the photo paper itself as the pages of the book...

john

 

[removed account4]

As I said in another post, some of my own matted prints are more than 40 years old and I can see no change due to pollution and what not. I base my logic on that fact. I don't have a problem with your "logic and reason"! It's just not mine.

Your reason tells me that you live in a very polluted environment, and if that was actually true for me, then I would be more concerned about my health condition. In Japan people walk around on the streets wearing face masks, so you're not alone in that regard.

Please understand I'm not trying to be a wise-guy, I'm only responding to you're rather extreme concern about how paper absorbs pollution from the air. By all means, change your mat board on a regular basis as I suggested, and no problem!

hi paul

i have had my work hang in cafés and restaurants before,
and smoke and food smells and other stuff seeped into
the matts. it isn't just a polluted enviroment that things get
absorbed into the print & matboard.

john

 

[DannL]

this is the thread i've been waiting for.
My question is: does the non- dry mounting acid free tape method work for large fiber mural prints?
I DO plan on selling to museums, but my work is so large I have been told that dry mounting is the best option to keep them flat. It seems like most of the discussion so far is based around 20x30 or smaller.
My work is 40"x60" on fiber paper and I am worried that the museum preference of simply taping the corners with a window matte would not keep a print so large flat, especially considering that there will be no glass over the frame. I was going to use archival dry mount sheet and 8 ply museum board then use a piece of 3/16 foam core for support with a dark wood frame around it. Is this going too much against the standard museum/gallery practices? My work may be too dark or unnerving for personal collections and more appropriate for museums and galleries. These are the thoughts that keep me up at night.

I seems to me the in certain circumstances it would be more prudent to create a print with the full knowledge that it's lifespan was sacrified for the sake of presentation. In other words . . . creating multiple prints, some sacrified for presentation and others maintained as reference prints. I personally would have no trouble sacrificing prints for presentation, as long as I could bare the costs. But can you actually dry mount a 40"x60"?

 

[eclarke]

The title of the post is "How do you mount your prints?". More of a survey than a question about what is best...EC

 

[DannL]

The title of the post is "How do you mount your prints?". More of a survey than a question about what is best...EC

Yes, that is correct. The original question was intentionally presented as you have noted. As a survey of what is actually practiced in the field (all opinions welcome). I am most interested how photographers actually mount their prints. It seems to me that by presenting the question in this manner we have gained much, instead of having another thread tied up in endless feuds over which method is considered best. I am sure there are other members present that are interested in what procedures are actually practiced. I am pleased with the knowledge amassed thus far, and I will refer to this information often.

 

[panastasia]

hi paul

i have had my work hang in cafés and restaurants before,
and smoke and food smells and other stuff seeped into
the matts. it isn't just a polluted enviroment that things get
absorbed into the print & matboard.

john

I hear you John,

Veterans clubs have brown ceiling tiles in their lounges, they were originally white. If rob champagne gave such an example I would have kept my mouth shut - mat board would need to be changed very often in those places.

My apologies rob!

Paul

 

[removed account4]

as the ad for "topal toothpaste, the smoker's toothpaste" used to say:

see this ugly yellow stain ( after exhaling into a white cloth )
imagine what smoking a pack a day, every day, could do to your teeth

john

 

[RobC]

I hear you John,

Veterans clubs have brown ceiling tiles in their lounges, they were originally white. If rob champagne gave such an example I would have kept my mouth shut - mat board would need to be changed very often in those places.

My apologies rob!

Paul

Your welcome, sometimes the obvious goes un-noticed. For what its worth, I dry mount many of my images. The point I was making is that there is a trade off between the maximum possible print life against what is reasonably archival. In my book, reasonably archival is 70 years or more and dry mounting will provide that. BUT only if the image is kept in good environmental conditions.
Ironically, if a print is kept in museum conditions which are temperature, light, air filtered and humidity controlled for ever, then there is no reason why dry mounting wouldn't last as long as the print itself since there would be nothing to contaminate it. However, archivalists still don't like dry mounting. Probably because there is no guarantee that conditions will always be perfect and the storage space considerations.
In someones house which is prone to wild swings in humdity and temperature fluctuations through normal weather changes or perhaps proximity to a kitchen or bathroom, then the print may not stay flat for very long. But then again, with humidity and temp fluctuations it may well detach itself from the mount board eventually if it was dry mounted. You just can't win. There's pros and cons against each method...

 

[Sparky]

as the ad for "topal toothpaste, the smoker's toothpaste" used to say:

see this ugly yellow stain ( after exhaling into a white cloth )
imagine what smoking a pack a day, every day, could do to your teeth

john

Yeah - especially if they were made from cotton...!!

 

[dancqu]

For a detailed history on dry mounting and it's properties,...

For more info see www.pictureframingmagazine.com

Check the PDFs. The one on wheat paste should interest.
Well detailed. Articles; many PDFs. Dan

 

[Glenn M]

Maybe my system is just a touch different from most of the other methods I've seen noted above:

Prints run on very heavy paper (310gsm or thicker) with at least one inch extra paper on top.
Prints mounted on archival white foamcore using archivable linen T-hinges on the top.
Signature/number written on the print with archivable pens (Prismacolor).
Double or triple window matboards cut using Bainbridge archivable matboards.
Matboards tape hinged on the top using archivable linen T-hinges and taped together using Scapa archivable double tape.
Displayed images all mounted in frames (wood... black or mahogany) using TruView UV Non-Glare Glass... top end products using Museum TruView.
Images sold matted but unframed sealed in Mylar.

Never have had a problem with flatness of images, at least using heavy photo paper, but can see where some thinner papers could feasibly pose a problem... especially since they are more prone to dimpling than heavy-weight papers.

 

[dancqu]

Window Matted. That's all I read.
Do none size for the frame? Why
over mat? The convention? Dan

 

[DannL]

For more info see www.pictureframingmagazine.com

Check the PDFs. The one on wheat paste should interest.
Well detailed. Articles; many PDFs. Dan

I looked around for this article on "wheat paste", but I guess I need a little assistance in locating it.