I have read everything I could find on the dry mount v. corner mount debate and have found that there are good arguments relating to "archival qualities" of both approaches. To me, it boils down to personal preference and your working methods.
I quit dry mounting prints about a year ago and moved to corner mounts behind window matts. The reasons: 1. Over the years I have ruined several dry mounted prints by dropping the mounted prints on their edge. The edge of the matt got banged up and looked terrible. A new window matt hides the flaw in a frame, but I could never sell the photo or show it out of a frame. I had to reprint the photographs and re-mount.
2. The matts tend to get dirty over time when they are handled. I like to replace the matts every so often, particularly for workshop prints or prints I show loose.
With corner mounting, if I mess up or the matt gets soiled, I just removed the photo from the matt and mount on new boards
I personally hinge mount. Just make sure you don't store the print upside down.
I used to dry mount my prints but have switched to corner mounts. I like the ability to remove prints easily and mount differently if I choose to do so. Even though the "archival" drymount tissue is supposed to allow you to un-mount the print, I haven't had much luck in doing so.
Searching my way to perplexion
13 April 2006
I do not know if this is the right fourm to ask this, but here I go. Has anyone considered the 3M Positional Mounting Adhesive (PMA, adhesive #568). I have had tremendous luck with it holding a print flat, and after a little pressing it is a "permanent" mount. (It could be disolved using a mild organic solvent if necessary.) It is easy to use, and does not require a large press to work well. Iti is available from Light Impressions.
There is an old saying that "a tattoo is something that you regret ten years later." The same can be said about a drymounted print. I know, I have some and I regret now mounting them that way.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Does anyone know if it is considered archival?
Originally Posted by drpsilver
Seems to me when this discussion gets around to what the galleries or whoever "requires" in a print, the tail is beginning to wag the dog. Has anyone been denied representation in a gallery, purchase by a collector or inclusion in an exibition because of the way they mount their print?
As far as I know PMA is not archival and 3M never claimed that it was.
I participate in a lot of Art and Art and Craft Shows (most of my income comes from these) and though I may be in a minority I archivally mount. After traveling particularly with framed photos for thousands of miles, I found that a T hinge works better than corners with mounting strips (they bunched up as they were pounded down by riding on the highway).
Archival mounting is what is recommended for photos of value and by Museums, Galleries, and Frame shops. As pointed out, though they can and often develop a wave, they are much easier to remount.
As to your selection of 2 ply mat boards for backing and for the window mats, I would definitely say that at least for the window mat that 2 ply is too thin. Personally I use 4 ply for backing and for double matting the window (for my editions and keeps more airspace from the glass). Some prefer a double mat, personally I think that it looks more elegant but, others do not like the appearance. Others use an 8 ply mat to maintain the air space between the photo and the glass.
Be aware, I do not believe that you can get a very good beveled 45 degree cut with 2 ply mats. Beveled cuts should look much better with a 4 or 8 ply mat.
After seeing Scott Killian's and Joe Freeman's prints last week with 4 ply overmats, I'm going to switch. I might still use 2 ply for the mount because I have a lot of it, but the thicker overmat makes quite a difference.
Originally Posted by disfromage
That's what I suspected. Thanks.
Originally Posted by naturephoto1