From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 04/27/02-11:11:42 PM Z
Bob,
You have a lot of knowledge on this subject and I really appreciate
your opinion. However, I have spent quite a bit of time researching
this issue, and in spite of the complexities of the problem and
competing concerns it is not all clear to me that those who know a
heck of a lot more about the this topic than me are in agreement that
the call is un-mounted. In fact, the opposite opinion appears to be
true.
I agree with Michael Smith's basic assessment, i.e. "dry mounting is
more archival than not dry mounting." The thickness of the mounting
board, and the barrier that the mounting cement provides to intrusion
from the rear, offer considerable protection to the print and makes
it almost certain that a mounted print is more archival than an
unmounted one.
The anecdotal information offered regarding having to remove prints
from damaged or dirty boards is interesting. I wonder, however, how
many unmounted prints of the same vintage survived at all??
It is, as you say, each photographer's call. I am personally
satisfied that in choosing to dry mount all of my carbon prints that
are made on fixed out single and double weight photo papers they will
be more archival than if left unmounted. And history is on my side
here, in spite of the opinions and concerns of various conservators
and much anecdotal information offered to the contrary.
Sandy King
>DEAR SANDY ET AL.,
> Using the new boards with ion receptors is great and using an ion
>receptor board as backing (UN-attached) as well as over matte (with window)
>is just fine. It isn't really about the boards or tissue...it is about the
>fact that once the print is mounted it is a REAL pain to remove when
>(because it is nearly a certainty) the board is damaged, dirty, or eaten by
>bugs. Archivists are very concerned about any irreversible (or nearly so)
>process like dry mounting.
> This is certainly the fourth or fifth time I have posted this story but
>my archivist friend Jose Orraca tells me he makes LOTS of money indulging in
>the tedious, time consuming, costly, and dangerous (to the print) process of
>removing prints from damaged or dirty boards to which they have been dry
>mounted for collectors, museums, etc. He mentioned, along with many other
>famous names who made the DRASTIC mistake of mounting their prints, Ansel
>Adams.
> Yes, I read that VC article also.
> It is, of course, each photographer's call but my call is un-mounted as
>per instructions by those who know a heck of a lot more about this topic
>than I.
> CHEERS!
> BOB
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:31 AM Z CST