Re: Dry Mounting

From: Jonathan Bailey <jon@jonathan-bailey.com>
Subject: RE: Dry Mounting
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 21:19:14 -0400

> 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!)

I don't care about the chance of my prints sought after 100 years. But
what's wrong with signing the print and hide it with the overmat, but
sign the overmat again?

I personally don't see a good reason to cut the window to fit
something other than the "image" (for my personal preference anyway)
so I tend to do what I described above. If people of your opinion feel
better, I wouldn't mind signing at all sides of the print margin :-),
but those will still be under the matte board, on which I sign again.
Is this a bad practice???

From: Liam Lawless <lawless@bulldoghome.com>
Subject: RE: Dry Mounting
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 04:09:26 +0100

> 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.

That article does not describe what condition was used to test (it
simply says "high concentrations of pollutants were then blown through
the back of the mount board.") and while I don't doubt that the dry
mount tissue is acting as a pollutant barrier in that test, I don't
find it a compelling reason to use dry mounting method.

First of all, dry mounted b&w print was not free of deterioration. The
center part may be only lightly browned, but the edges look faded and
more heavily yellowed. It's expected that the barrier from dry
mounting is only a small part of the equation. Without knowing what
"pollutants" they used at what concentration, along with RH and
temperature of testing, I shouldn't say much but it is very likely
that a very light polysulfide toning could prevent any visible
deterioration in the same condition, even if the print was hinge
mounted. Toned prints have a very effective protection mechanism
"built-in" to the image.

I personally use ArtCare 8-ply board (expensive!) when framing my work
but I would not consider framing anything that's untoned.

If you are so into the concept of "additional barrier" then you could
also look into corrugated polyester board. You could use one of these
as the backing board. They are also great as a general construction
material when you need to make a custom camera case, custom gift box,
etc. and I've also made a custom light diffusers for studio flashes
with them. I've never used them as the backing board but it is at
least archival and I don't see why it won't work for this purpose.

> 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.

I understand your frustration but it's a misunderstanding of what
scientists do and what they should do. Indeed, current trend in
conservation strongly tends to emphasize passive approach and it is
usually very discouraged to apply any wet treatment to old
materials. So, the part "until such time as a safe cure is available,
..." is very unlikely to happen ever, if you follow conservator's
recommendation.

However, I agree with your point about current viewing vs long term
asset.

> So my disagreement is with the attitude of the conservators I've
> encountered, not their science.

I wouldn't take it as an attitude issue, because it's their main focus
and their job to study, practice and recommend techniques that give
rise to very long life expectancy. If your goal is not there, you
might want to choose other techniques as well. Those techniques may or
may not coexist in the same work, but you can certainly make some
things highly archival and other things in the reverse way.
Received on 06/03/06-01:24:13 AM Z