Nadeau still feels the same way in his 3rd revised edition because it makes
the print's life easier...
Most other alt-photo authors are silent on this issue (Shillea,
>Skopic(sp?) et al).
>
>Other photographers and authors endorse dry mounting (at least for silver
>prints) and practice what they preach (Ansel Adams, John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum
Speaking of Ansel. When in Rochester in the early 70s I remember viewing
one of his portfolios at the George Eastman House with a note from him to
the effect that "if parts of the prints come unmounted, take them to a
photographer who is experienced with a dry mounted press so he can reheat
the prints in a dry mounting press, etc. I guess Ansel was aware of
potential problems.
>et al). (Sudek exhibition prints are dry mounted as well).
>I have to admit that many of the dry mounted prints still look wonderful even
>after 50+ years of exposure to urban atmospheric pollution.
I did dry mount a lot of prints in the 70s and a number of them were kept
in an area that provided an excellent semi-accelerated aging test, i.e., it
was either pretty hot, dry, humid, etc., from one day or one season to the
next. Most of the prints showed air-pocket bubbles, etc., after a few years
>Interestingly, though, the Platinum prints that I have seen "in the flesh" so
>to speak, hanging on museum walls, appear to have been, for the most part dry
>mounted.
We all know that 5 million flies can't be wrong but...;-)
>Also, most of the prints were neatly trimmed so as to remove
>any hint of brush strokes. (I understand they were out of vogue in the 1930's).
>While, many contemporary, but not all, Platinum prints that I have seen show
>prominent brush strokes (e.g. Paul Caponegro).
This is strictly a question of taste, style, etc.
..
Luis Nadeau
awef6t@mi.net
Montreal, QC, Canada