RE: Dry Mounting

Just a thought, the Getty Institute may be a reliable source of information
covering this issue.

Don Bryant

-----Original Message-----
From: Liam Lawless [mailto:lawless@bulldoghome.com]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:09 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: RE: Dry Mounting

Jon,

I'm aware that dry mounting can be controversial, but, if you followed the
links in my original message, it *appears* that modern tissues might confer
some benefits. Did you look at the images at the end of the Smith article?
I'm thinking mainly about silver-gelatine prints myself.

Obviously conservators know a great deal more than I do and I'm not saying
they have nothing to teach me, but they can be too, um, conservative for my
liking. For example, I'm sometimes asked if I can clean up stained platinum
prints and yes, usually I can. Not recommended now, I know, but
chloramine-T does a very good job on iron and water stains; conservators
argue that this bleach may cause damage to the structure of the paper in the
long term and that prints should rather be placed in a stable enclosure and
stored in a cool, dark place until such time as a safe cure is available,
but cannot give an answer to when this time might arrive, or what progress
is being made in this direction. Their advice might be valid if a print is
an appreciating asset whose owner regards it primarily as an investment, but
is of no use to those who wish to enjoy their art and for whom its value is
not an issue.

Acidity is a common problem with old platinum prints and chloramine-T, as
well as bleaching stains, has the advantage of raising the paper's pH.
Maybe the paper fibres will suffer in the long run, but some of the prints I
have dealt with have been mounted on rigid supports and those that aren't
could be if eventual weakening of the paper is anticipated. If I'm asked to
perform remedial action on a print, therefore, I'll explain to the client
that there's always an element of risk and that all the effective methods
are frowned upon by those in the know, but I'm happy to do it if that's
their decision. So far, they've all put the appearance of their prints
above other considerations and I haven't had a disaster yet. And in the
several years since I first used chloramine, I haven't become aware of any
ill effects caused by it.

So my disagreement is with the attitude of the conservators I've
encountered, not their science. Nevertheless, I'm grateful for your
opinions, Jon, as I am for other responses to this question.

Liam

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Bailey [mailto:jon@jonathan-bailey.com]
Sent: 03 June 2006 02:19
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: RE: Dry Mounting

Liam,

You wrote:
> I'm not too bothered about the views of conservators who, in my
experience, are opposed to almost EVERYTHING <snip>

You are a serious guy doing serious work. I'd like to make a few
observations. FWIW - I'm very happy to take my cues from the people who've
had to deal with the decisions photographers and artists have made (good and
bad) over the years. They have some useful observations! And what I've
almost universally heard is complaints about drymounted prints - regardless
of what Ansel opined.

Joachim wrote:
> For single weight papers, such as AZO, it's ideal <snip>

OK. Perhaps.

But, for the alt-process community the choice seems to me to be obvious. You
are, by and large, working with papers with significant physical strength.
It seems to me drymounting is neither necessary nor desirable. And, for
those of us still using gelatin silver: single weight papers are not in wide
use - even within the limited practice of gelatin silver! Most of us are
using double or triple (museum) weight papers - which also have significant
physical strength. Flattening prints (in a heated press) and tipping them
underneath overmats seems to me a very good option.

Dry mounting *limits* the choices collectors have in the future - it does
not enhance the options.

The other issue I'll bring forward here now is the "Ansel Adams School" of
thought which has us sign prints directly under the image and having the
signature remain in full view. Or, even worse, signing the mat board to
which the print is mounted. Sooner or later that print and mount board
*will* be separated. And, there goes the signature - and value. (But really
folks, what are the chances your prints - or mine - will be sought after 50
or 100 years from now? PRETTY DARN SLIM!)

And further, if it's "the work" to which we are truly committed then let's
sign our name someplace out of view and not offer them as a distraction!

In my opinion, by tipping the print into a mat, the artist is able to sign
the print on the back (or anywhere their heart pleases), and also note any
other information they might deem worth recording. FWIW, my prints are
signed, titled and dated on the back of the print (with the dates the print
was made as well as that of the negative - which is in lieu of the
*printmaker's* habit of editioning.)

But, let's not get started with *that* discussion!

OK. I'm done....

Jon

www.jonathan-bailey.com
Tenants Harbor, Maine
Received on 06/02/06-09:13:25 PM Z