Here is a link as an example of my statements. Search for the words 'dry mount' about 2/3 or so of the way down the page.
I did not mean to set light to the fuse here, I just stated what I believed to be accurate information regarding dry mounting.
There is also the concern of total volume. I've gone to loose mounts, 2-ply, and smaller prints because storing big, mounted prints is driving me from my house. I know that some museums are concerned about this as well.
Also, I don;t really like the signature on the mount and not on the print. If the board fails and you separate the print, you separate the signature. I have some Oliver Gagliani prints that are mounted with corners and overmats. The prints are signed on the oversized margins, as well as the overmat.
Oversized margins help protect the print, too. It is the sharp corner of mounted or un-mounted prints that often get damaged first. Also, chemical residue is more likely at the edges than the center. It penetrates the cut edge more readily.
But, to make life more confusing, I do like dry-mounted prints. I especially like prints dry-mounted in a de-bossed well. I'm saving for an etching press.
After sending out some really really bad and badly mounted prints in a print exchange (my only excuse was inexperience), I decided I needed to learn how to mount without a press. I use a teflon coated iron (sold under the Sunbeam name) and I use it ONLY for mounting prints, nothing else. I set it at a medium heat without steam. I tack the centre of the dry mount tissue to the print. Then I turn it over and place the print onto the backboard. I press the iron down onto the centre of the print, leave it there for about 5 seconds, then LIFT it and place it into another spot just 1/2 way to one side of where I've already pressed. Overlapping a bit tends to eliminate air bubbles. If you slide the iron on the print you get scratches, so lifting it and placing it back down is essential. Too hot just tends to curl the print badly and a bit less heat combined with a little more time in each place pressed seems to work well.
Originally Posted by Daniel Lawton
Having drymounted with Seal tissue for years, I was really irritated that it is no longer being manufactured. So I've switched to a tissue that is supposed to be 1. applicable to both RC and FB paper. 2. Low temperature, i.e. 160 to 180 degrees F. and 3. Reversible by reheating to 200 degrees F. I've yet to try to reverse the process, but it does seem to work at the higher end of the temperature range with fiber based paper. If so, it would seem to be an ideal way to preserve flatness on the mount board while maintaining reversibility should the mount be damaged. (I've seen a lot of work that's quite "elderly" mounted on board that's cleary not aging well but that also preserves the photographer's notes, Lewis Hine in this instance, and is an inseperable part of the artwork. I am not impressed with the conservator's push to change the onus for making their work easier to the photographer and not to their own craft.)
As to getting a press...I bought mine on ebay at a very fair and reasonable price. It's a Bogen Model 560 and it's a tank. It also weighs enough to have kept Jimmy Hoffa asleep with the fishes for all these years had that been his fate. It's worth it if you can find one you can afford.
Dry mounting can be done in a somewhat reversible manner. The mounting boards and tissues are archival and, in fact, afford some protection to the print.
Originally Posted by reellis67
Why? Seems more like a belief system with a large heaping of arrogance. Dry mounting does not destroy a print but in many ways can be an integral part of the printing process. A dry mounted print IS for many of us the art work.
I can see the benefts of flat images and using various ways to mount to ensure longevity, but the current idea being taught is that dry mounting is bad.
Yes among many achivists and dealers--- THIS week--- dry mounted prints are out. So? Its fashion like all the archival tatoos I see on same.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If conservators (in my experience, mostly pretty sober types who work in libraries and museums) decide in a few years that there is an acceptable approach to drymounting, then it will be easy to drymount any hinge mounted images.
While you can release a drymounted image that uses a "reversible" tissue by putting it back in the press, sliding release paper under it, and repeating until you get it all the way off, it's a pain to have to do it often, and there's always some risk of damaging the print, and in 10 years, when the mount may be, say, discolored from humidity or some other storage or display condition, you or the owner of the print might not know what kind of tissue was used.
The APUG Traveling Portfolio is a non-scientific but interesting real world test of what can happen to prints when they are shipped 20 times in a Tenba Port-FedEx shipping case and handled at each stop. Just the vibration between two mats in shipping causes wear that is quite visible, and it isn't too unusual to ship prints this way. I don't know if the prints have ever been removed by a customs inspector, but I suspect they aren't wearing clean white cotton gloves. At my place, we all put on white gloves to handle the prints, but is that happening at every stop? Have you been in a gallery where you've seen patrons handling mounted prints by the mount with their bare hands? We're all people who care about the prints, and the prints usually hold up reasonably well, but not the mounts, so if I include a mounted print in the portfolio, I remount it when it comes back, because the print is likely to be suitable for display, but the mount won't be.
While it is talked about that dry mounting has fallen out of favor, I don't see it among the galleries I deal with, nor have I seen any problems with collectors concerning the process. In fact, I used to corner mount my images and ended-up getting a lot of concern from some of my collectors about waviness in the paper in humid conditions. I ended up going back to drymounting once again and I have had no complaints since. I also have had a fair amount of purchases for museum collections and have had no problem with curators or conservators concerning my methods.
As for being reversable, it was recommended to me by one conservator to use a low temperature, buffered paper and I have been using the Bielfang BufferMount marketed by Light Impressions as SEAL Buffer Mount. It claims to be completely reversable and after tests I've done, it seems to be true. Delicate work to be sure, but I've screwed up several times in mounting and have been able to save prints by removing the mount and paper. The drawback is the cost... 100 sheets are $140.00
Here is a link that might help which describes this tissue type:
Hope this helps.
Again with a suggestion. I print my images to a size of 8x8 on an 11 x 14 sheet of paper which leaves plenty of white space. My edition number and Signature go directly under the image on the silver print and I then mount the whole print, not just a trimmed version. When and if the print needs to be removed, the signature and edition number go with it.
Originally Posted by Loose Gravel
I dry mount all my stuff from 5x4" up to 40x30", and it really is the only way to keep FB prints looking good. Here in the north of England we have a climate that can warp a print under glass in a most un-predictable way, and you never know, when a print is displayed/bought it will not end up in a location where warping is extreme. About 5 years ago I gave an un-mounted, framed pic to a relative, I saw it the other day and felt bad! - the buckling of the print was way too much.
On the whole I've found museums more concerned with the mount/mat board than the dry mount tissue, and if a print is to be looked at and displayed throughout its life, and if hanging conditions are not 'museum standard' then dry mounting cant be beaten.
Has Seal discontinued one of its tissues? I use the Seal Colormount on my FB papers and it appears to be readily available. I am getting gunshy about dincontinued products.
Originally Posted by jovo