Mounting PT/PD Prints

[Eric Jones]

I was wondering about some of the PT/PD printers views on mounting PT/PD prints. Are you dry mounting or pritning on oversized paper and using archival mount corners or possibly hinging? Any insights or opinions would be appreciated.

 

[Jeremy]

Oversized paper with hinging. William Blunt sent me a drymounted pd that looks fantastic!

 

[Joe Symchyshyn]

I've always printed on larger paper and used hinges for pt/pd. I don't print large enough that the paper gets too wavy during the hear... I do however mount all my fiber based silver prints...

Really, it's up to each person I think.

joe

 

[photobum]

I have read that you should not dry mount Pt/Pd prints. I have and they seem just fine. Ed Weston did, so need I say more? I do hope that someone from the do not mount club says why.

 

[colrehogan]

I don't, but that's because I don't have a dry mount press. I'm trying out some of the archival mount corners soon (don't ask me when 'soon' is).

 

[Jorge]

One of the reasons people dry mount is to keep their prints flat, IMO fibre based prints mounted with corners or hinges look like crap, all ripply and with glare. Pt/pd does not suffer from this problem with exception of prints made on very thin paper. From the conservation point of view is far easier to remove a print from corners or with hinges than it is to remove the mounting tissue.

I mont mine with T hinges and I am thanks full I have done it this way as there have been times when I needed to remove the print from the mat to place it on a better one that has not been ruined. I would not have been able to do this if I had dry mounted, it would have been a wasted print.

 

[Robert Hall]

I feel that the entire piece of art is the paper as well as the print on it. I hinge my prints when even using a full sheet of arches. I would never heat press my Pt prints.

I, however, heat press all my silver prints.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

I don't think mounting pt/pd prints is a good idea, but each person has to find their own balance in things like this.

I corner mount the print with the large archival mounts from Light Impressions. This makes it easy to remove the print if the mount board or overmat is damaged, and there is no adhesive or starch glue used on the print.

I used to T-mount with archival starch-based mounting tape. One time I needed to put a print into a new mount, and I was unable to get the tape off without it pulling the fibers of the paper. That was enough to convince me to look for another method. I have been completely satisfied with the corner mounts from LI.

Note, once most papers have been through a wet cycle, they will often not lay flat on their own. The best way to get a pt/pd print flat after this is to use a dry mount press for about 2 minutes at about 200 degrees F. They should come out flat, and unless they humidity were to drastically change, they should remain dimensionally stable and flat.


---Michael

 

[Kerik]

I have read that you should not dry mount Pt/Pd prints. I have and they seem just fine. Ed Weston did, so need I say more? I do hope that someone from the do not mount club says why.

I don't dry mount my prints, but you should do whatever you like. However, dry mounting simply because EW did is silly. I've seen vintage prints of his (and other photogs) dry mounted to board that has long since discolored and now looks like crap. Admittedly, our current materials are probably better and more 'archival' than those used in EW's day, but I still prefer to have my prints easily removable from their support. I've also had 2 photo conservators attend my workshops, and they shudder at the thought of dry-mounting because they frequently have to deal with removing valuable prints mounted to lousy board. I use the corner mount approach. Some of the prints I've done on vellum papers I've dry-mounted with archival tissue to a sheet of heavier paper like Stonehenge the same size as the print in order to keep them flat. I then corner mount the vellum/stonehenge sandwich to the matt board.

Kerik
www.kerik.com

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Wilhelm (possibly best known as the industry reference for 'giclee'/digital printing ink/substrate testing) has a book or e-book, chapters of which I found on the web recently. There is one (I'll see if I still have it downloaded) that discusses archival properties of photos, mostly commercial processes, including side effects of dry mounting. I seem to recall most of their beef was with shipping dry-mounted photos. They cite and exhibit some damaged large Ansel Adams drymounted pieces (apparently by him) that cracked in transit.

I too hate the look of dry-mounted photos, but sometimes it's a commercial practicality...not everyone accepts that non-mounted works on paper will exhibit some body and change over time.

PPFA (Professional Picture Framers' Association) told me regarding mounting corners vs. archival removeable hinges that their archival reference people believe there is a somewhat greater risk of print damage when a framed work falls off a wall if there are corners than if it's hinged. It's all in your degree of worry, I guess. Some people (museums) need to be concerned with hundreds of years or indefinite archival protection, and some of us have to draw practical limits.

We lean toward corners because it absolutely keeps ALL adhesives off the print (or other artwork). Traditionally, wheat starch paste and Japanese mulberry paper are preferred by many, but it's a PITA to cook your own (it spoils), and I have seen various papers cockle from humidity. Just because an adhesive is archival and removable doesn't mean there won't be some artifact, visible or otherwise from removing it. On the other hand, some papers aren't thick enough to support themselves with corners, and others are transparent enough that hinges show through.

If you use corners, leave a gap at top and sides (don't fit the top corners too tightly) so the paper can expand and contract without being constrained by the corners. Thsi can cause waviness in the artwork.

If you use hinges, the fewer the better...this comes with experience. The more constraints (areas that are bonded down by hinges), the more reaction there can be from expansion/contraction. Never tape a print all the way around...it'll be horribly bowed at some point in the near future if it can't go where it wants to.

T-hinges can also be poked thru a slit in the backer board for greater strength (heavy pieces need all the help they can get).

Regarding 'dry' mounting, the best appearance I have seen has been what a number of wedding photographers have been using, 3M or CODA or other brand pressure sensitive adhesive. I have never seen one of these arrive (short term) with textural issues (orange peel). I say it this way because I haven't seen them years from now, but have no reason to doubt it, compared to something that looks bad from the start.
One guy uses a polymer board. Others mount on crappy-looking paperboard that I doubt very much is archival...why use '100-year paper' and mount on acidic board?

Anyway, I'm probably WAY off topic, but hopefully some of this is useful.

Digital print mounting is another horrible nightmare. If you do your own, you probably know what process you used and what it's requirements are. Alot can go wrong with these materials and heat mounting.

Murray