Mounting prints on tissue or not?

[Casey Kidwell]

Of course it is an issue -- otherwise museums would not worry about replacing the matting eventually to deal with atmospheric acidification/pollutants. There is some mat board that actively fights contamination -- buffering and such -- which might need replacing less often..

But granted it is a rather minor issue. And we are talking storage beyond our lifespans here, too.

And I am pretty much 100% with Ralph on the finishing work and display of our prints. I am not just an image-maker, but also a print-maker. It is what I find rewarding.

Vaughn

If you use the proper mount to begin with, it's NOT an issue. That was my point. Museum board or specifically rag will last as long as the print image or longer.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Does anybody remember "Archival" mount tissue? I got some while I was in college and the tissue releases after a certain temperature is reached. I guess this would allow you to remove the photo when the mount board is damaged. Tried it once and never bought anymore.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If you use the proper mount to begin with, it's NOT an issue. That was my point. Museum board or specifically rag will last as long as the print image or longer.

Casey

I'm afraid, you're missing Vaughn's point. He's talking extrinsic sources of image attack.

From the instant of its creation, a silver-based image faces attack from a variety of sources. Some are internal and essential to the materials photographic papers are designed and manufactured with. They come in the form of chemicals, inherent or added to the paper, the emulsion or the coating.

Other sources of attack are of external origin. Nevertheless, some are intrinsic to the photographic process and can be minimized but not completely avoided. Most processing chemicals fall into this category. In the very beginning of a print’s life, and only for a few minutes, we need them to be present to complete their designated tasks. Beyond that point, we like to rid the print of them quickly and entirely. Fortunately, these sources of image deterioration are under our control, but no matter how attentive our work might be, unavoidable traces of them will remain in the print forever, and given the right environmental conditions, they will have an opportunity to attack the very image they helped to create.

The remaining extrinsic sources of image attack are hiding patiently in our environment, ready to start their destructive work as soon as the print is processed and dry. They can broadly be separated into reducing and oxidizing agents. Roughly until the introduction of the automobile, reducing agents were the most common sources of image deterioration. Then, oxidizing agents like aldehyde, peroxide and ozone took over. Their presence peaked in the Western World around 1990 and fortunately began to decline since.

In conclusion, Vaughn is correct, the mounting tissue will protect the print from extrinsic sources to some degree. Alternatively, people have used plastic barrier sheets behind the mounting board, but this creates other issues, such as trapped moisture. As Vaughn said, I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but it is a benefit of drymounting.

 

[StigHagen]

Freestyle Photo has some inexpensive Arista tissues from a nice provider. Even these are archival and image can be removed from mat board by reheating. Check the pdf on this page:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/55114-Arista-Dry-Mount-Tissue-11x14-100-sheets?cat_id=2301

Do anybody have experience with reheating and changing matboards with drymounting, does it work well?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Ralph, in your second last paragraph, this rings a bell to me: it was described (oxides of nitrogen from environmental pollution) as REDOX attack (red oxide "rust" in mono prints, typically resin-coated papers, much less so with fibre-base). Several of my early resin-based framed prints were tarnished by REDOX around the same time you mentioned a decline in the incidence was noticed (1990 onward, to say around 1995). It was an exasperating period of many ruined prints living, as I did, right on a main heavy traffic road. But the jury was always out whether this was a contributor or something else. Selenium toning was cited as a reasonable safeguard against REDOX, but never a guarantee. Mono prints I've had produced on RC paper since 1997 and given MGCF treatment have been entirely free of any malaise.

I think some dry mount tapes have removal-grade adhesive; my framer has on occasion disassembled frames and backing and removed prints to realign them in the mat (a fault of rushed jobbing at that time). Nowadays I don't see any dry mount taping. All I get is fancy stuff...

 

[OldBikerPete]

Withdrawn

 

[Michael A. Smith]

I was recently alerted to this thread--almost a year late.

from fdi: "Drymounting makes the image a permanent part of the mounting board so if you do this you want to make sure the mounting board is archival if you want the print to last. Drymounting is very popular because it is the easiest way to ensure the print will remain flat.

"High end collectors actually appreciate a little curl and wave in the paper since it indicate the image is not permanently mounted. The average consumer on the other hand views the curl or wave as a poor mounting job. It is usually cost effective if you understand your market and meet their desires."

I do not know where this information comes from or how many prints you have sold to how many high-end collectors. I have sold thousands of black and white prints to over 500 high-end collectors (a collector can be defined as someone who has at least one more photograph then they can hang on their walls0)and to over 130 art museums, and in my 45 years of doing this I have only had one collector and one museum ask for unmounted prints--which I happily gave the, as less work is involved.

If one uses ArtCare board for mounts, overmats, and slipsheets then the board will last far longer than the paper the photograph is printed on. Photo paper itself is not acid-free.

For platinum prints I use methyl cellulose glue. It is fully removable. And for inkjet prints I use paper corners that I make up from ArtCare one-ply.

But for black and white prints made in a darkroom, dry mounting is the only way to go. The print is protected from pollutants but also from physical damage.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Michael A. Smith]

I forgot to add that everything Ralph Lambrecht wrote about the artist being fully responsible for the presentation of his or her work is right on.

Michael A. Smith

 

[fdi]

I do not know where this information comes from or how many prints you have sold to how many high-end collectors. I have sold thousands of black and white prints to over 500 high-end collectors (a collector can be defined as someone who has at least one more photograph then they can hang on their walls0)and to over 130 art museums, and in my 45 years of doing this I have only had one collector and one museum ask for unmounted prints--which I happily gave the, as less work is involved.

Michael, I am sorry I gave the impression that collectors will insist on unmounted prints. That was not my intention. The point I was trying to make was that high end collectors, especially museums are more likely to understand the different mounting methods and the advantages and disadvantages. I agree it is up to the photographer to decide what works for them and dry mounting is very popular (perhaps most but I dont have those stats).

Cheers,
Mark

 

[ROL]

Well, since this thread was dragged from the grave, here is the preamble to my article on Dry Mounting:

The arguments against dry mounting fine art photographs are based upon the fact that the photograph is more or less permanently affixed to the supporting mount, and cannot easily be removed. This notion is promulgated primarily by art galleries and museums, who prefer loose prints per their own display preferences and storage requirements. All I can say, is that if a gallery's concern over your art trumps your own artistic bent, you are either in a position of not needing to read this article or are willing to subjugate your aesthetic principles to others.​

...and I'm not even selling anything or offering workshops

 

[Bill Burk]

The dark side of dry mounting.

..."if the mat gets broken the image is ruined"...

It's not immediately ruined, it takes time...

Scenario: Picture falls from wall, frame separates at the corner, glass shatters...

A. Dry mounted? rather than deal with it, pick out the broken glass, throw the rest in the garage against a stack of other art to deal with tomorrow... tomorrow never comes.

B. Taped/hinged? Unhinge and put print back in portfolio case to be displayed another day. Trash the broken frame/mat mess.

I have two pieces in my garage in state A. They are actually doing alright because I wrapped them. But I wished they could be stored in a flat file.

I have a lovely '70s vintage Larry Ulrich hanging by my desk (Summer Snowstorm. Lost Creek, Lassen National Forest Calif). I say lovely sarcastically because the aesthetic was dry-mount on deep olive matboard pressed right up to the glass of a chunky walnut-stained softwood frame. Still beautiful in a direct-from-the-artist kind of way. But I wish I could have a choice about presentation.

I don't mean to come across as voting that dry-mounting is bad. Just that it _can_ be bad.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . I don't mean to come across as voting that dry-mounting is bad. Just that it _can_ be bad.

Yes, indeed. Over a dozen of my B&W silver prints dry mounted years ago have a slight yellowing on the mat boards around the edges of the floating photos. Unfortunately, at this late date I don't remember exactly which mounting tissue was used. The rag mount board was from Light Impressions. Oh well, I can recycle the frames and glass. Much worse, a Cole Weston print bought about 32 years ago has the same problem. I now print on oversize paper and hang the prints on the mount board. They don't look as good as dry mounted prints, but can always be dry mounted later.