From: Phillip Murphy (pmurf@bellsouth.net)
Date: 03/21/02-08:14:00 PM Z
Hello Sandy,
Have you considered a wet-mounting method? In his book "The Albumen and
Salted Paper Book", James Reilly documents a method of wet-mounting prints
that was developed by David Kolody. The method utilizes a wheat starch
paste. Although an excellent method, there still exists the entomological
problem.
http://albumen.stanford.edu/library/monographs/reilly/chap10.html
This method was modified and improved upon later at the Palladio Company
Inc. as a mounting method for Albumen prints. The adhesive used by them was
methyl cellulose. The material isn't a food source like wheat starch. It's
been years since I spoke with Sura Steinberg of the Palladio Company
regarding this, however, there was a time when I experimented with this
method for Carbon prints and it worked very well. One advantage of this
method of mounting is that it is easily removed in cool water. Sorry that I
cannot offer a more detailed account of methyl cel wet mounting. There is a
good introductory article on wet mounting by Chris Paschke at
http://www.pictureframingmagazine.com/pdfs/mastermount/wetmount.pdf
all the best,
Phillip
Sandy King wrote:
> Kerik,
>
> Remember, I am only considering mounting the carbon prints on
> photographic fiber papers, not those I do on art papers. In this case
> the permanence of the board can not be an issue since one can obtain
> mounting board of better quality than the photographic paper itself.
>
> The issue is then primarily one of the glue. Now, reasonable and
> informed people can and do differ on many things. However, the bottom
> line of this issue is long term survival. And with all due respect to
> the museum conservators, if I were to bet on which of two prints is
> most likely to survive for a hundred years, one made on single weight
> photographic paper and not mounted, or one made on photographic paper
> and dry mounted on a 2-ply or 3-ply board, I would tend place my
> money on the mounted print. Yes, it is a trade-off in terms of
> long-term risks but my instinct comes down on the side of the mounted
> piece.
>
> Sandy King
>
> >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 : 04/10/02-09:28:55 AM Z CST