From: Kerik Kouklis (kerik@kerik.com)
Date: 03/20/02-06:28:49 PM Z
Sandy,
I see your point, but it assumes trust in the manufacturers that the
tissue and board will stand the test of time. I've had two different
museum conservators take my platinum workshops and the thought of dry
mounting any photographs made them both shudder. Admitedly, their
difficult experiences were mostly with very old dry mounted photos from
a time when the term "archival" wasn't on the tip of everyone's tongue,
and mounting materials were marginal at best. But they were both
adamant that the artwork should always be easily removed from the
support. We can all hope that today's archival mounting and matting
materials will live up to the maufacturer's claims, but only our
grandchildren will know for sure... I suggest anyone dry mounting their
prints at least use a "reversible" tissue to make it easier on
conservators in the next century.
The only time I've dry mounted platinum prints is with a transluscent
parchment paper that I use that wrinkles mercilously after it's been
processed. I use Light Impressions Heat-Tac tissue for this purpose
because it is very white rather than the yellowish tint of Seal
products. The color of the tissue and support is imortant with
translucent papers, of course... I dry-mount these prints to a more
substantial paper like Rising Stonehenge. The cream color Stonehenge
gives a very nice hue to a platinum print on transluscent paper. I like
using paper for this purpose rather than mattboard because the print
still feels like a print in my hands. Another reason I don't like prints
dry mounted to mattboard is that I love the feel of a loose alt-process
print. The tactile qualities of the paper are important to me, even if
the print may spend most of it's life in a matt and frame.
Just my opinion...
Kerik
www.Kerik.com
Sandy King wrote:
>
> Kerik,
>
> Assuming that the dry mounting tissue is safe for the print and mat
> support, and that the mat is of good quality, the board itself will
> an extra protection by its mere physical presence and is not
> otherwise harmful to the print. This would seem self-evident as
> bigger, heavier things are almost always harder to damage or destroy
> than smaller, lighter things.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST