From: clay (wcharmon@wt.net)
Date: 03/20/02-06:07:28 PM Z
----------
From: clay <wcharmon@wt.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:03:53 -0600
To: Ed Buffaloe <EdBuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com>
Subject: Re: Archival matters
Ed and Sandy:
I think the gist of the Michael Smith article was that dry mounting seemed
to forestall the chemical degradation of the silver b&w prints and the
dye-based color prints by serving as a no-pass zone on the back of the print
for pollutants and other image destroying compounds. Both carbon and
platinum are supposedly as archival as the paper they are printed on, so it
seems the main issue is whether dry-mounting makes some future
restorationist happy or sad when faced with the task of repairing a damaged
print. Personally, I just hope someone cares enough in the distant future to
bother with repairing any of my stuff.
Clay
> From: Ed Buffaloe <EdBuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com>
> Reply-To: Ed Buffaloe <EdBuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com>
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:12:04 -0600
> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Archival matters
> Resent-From: alt-photo-process-error@skyway.usask.ca
> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:15:59 -0600
>
> There is an article by Michael A. Smith in the November/December 2000 issue
> of VIEW CAMERA entitled "Advances in Archival Mounting and Storage". The
> article is about mounting silver and color prints, and touts a new ArtCare
> mounting board which sequesters pollutants and prevents them from combining
> with ionic silver. However, toward the end of the article the following
> statement is made: "Curiously, the dry-mounted photographs, for both the
> black-and-white and color prints, fared far better than those that were
> hinged. This would indicate that no matter what type of board is used,
> dry-mounted prints are better protected than those only hinged or affixed
> with photo corners. The dry-mount tissue acts as an additional barrier."
>
> I don't think a definitive study of the archival stability of dry-mount
> products has ever been attempted, even though the process originated in
> 1901. The only document I've been able to locate about it is entitled "The
> Origins and Development of Dry Mounting," which can be found at
> http://aic.stanford.edu/conspec/bpg/annual/v12/bp12-15.html. It does not
> speculate as to archival stability, but the history is interesting
> nonetheless. The article is by Stephanie Watkins, who is currently the
> paper conservator for the Humanities Research Center Library at the
> University of Texas in Austin.
>
> Ed Buffaloe
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:48 PM
> Subject: Archival matters
>
>
>> Advice sought on the following matter.
>>
>> Most of my carbon prints are on sized watercolor papers. However,
>> with these papers the relief or dimensional appearance that many
>> people associate with the carbon process, is either lost or
>> diminished when compared to the same image on fixed out photographic
>> papers, especially on mat surfaces. For that reason I have lately
>> been using fixed out photographic papers for many of my prints.
>> However, I am uncomfortable with the fragility of these supports,
>> especially single weight papers, and am considering the possibility
>> of dry mounting my prints on photographic papers to a 2-ply or 4-ply
>> mat board, or perhaps even to an art paper. I am convinced from
>> reading about the issue that dry mounted prints will have better long
>> term permanence but wonder about other archival considerations.
>>
>> Thoughts on this matter would be appreciated, as would be sites on
>> the web that may deal with the issue.
>>
>> Sandy King
>> --
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST