From: Gregory W. Blank (gblank@bellatlantic.net)
Date: 04/27/02-01:43:46 PM Z
Sandy;
I read the article in VC and have spoken to Michael in person regarding his
views
on dry mounting, its been my practice all along to dry mount prints.
Michaels article bring up some interesting points (epecially the issue that
pollutants are more appt to get into the print
from the backside which is untoned and unmounted) therefore mounting is a
better practice by and large.
Michael's work is in the National Archives so I would boldly state that his
opinions have a good
deal of merit.
Best Regards
Greg
on 4/27/02 2:04 PM, Sandy King at sanking@clemson.edu wrote:
I saw this message on one of the newsgroups and given our recent thread on
dry mounting thought some of you might be interested in what Michael Smith
had to say on the subject.
I have been using MT5 for years and it is fully archival--just not as
reversible as is the "Archival" tissue. I see no real difference. By the
way,
dry mounting is more archival than not dry mounting. See my article,
"Advances
in Archival Materials." It is on our web site under "Writings."
Michael A. Smith
www.michaelandpaula.com
The article in question was first published in View Camera.
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:31 AM Z CST