Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,763   Posts: 1,516,211   Online: 1048
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    A positive effect of dry-mounting is that the dry-mount material forms a barrier between the mat board and the print -- no contamination can come into the print from behind.
    This isn't an issue with museum board mounting and matting.

  2. #22
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,344
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    It looks like you don't compromise when it comes to mounting and matting. You have high standards.
    Let me expand on that a bit. I hope it will explain why I do what I do.

    To me, the whole imaging and viewing process must become one to be truly successful. Some photographers never get into the darkroom or do the printing themselves. They capture the image and leave the rest to others.

    I just cannot do that. I would feel like missing 50% of the creative process. So, it must be image capture plus image manipulation. But why stop there?

    The mount, the mat and the frame highlight the print. They assure a proper 'environment' and eliminate surrounding 'noise'. That's part of the viewing experience. To me, it's part of the creative process. I want it to be part of my creative process. It cannot be left to others without potentially changing the appearance of the 'whole' print.

    I can take this further (and often do):

    1. What color and texture does the display wall have?
    It matters!
    2. Is it hung alone or as a panel? What's the arrangement?
    Some images work great on the right side of a panel but disturb the optical balance if shown on the left!
    3. Is sufficient lighting used? Is it too bright? Is glare reduced?
    Dim lighting makes for muddy images and dead shadows. Too much light is rare but it can kill midtones and highlights. Glare is a nuisance, and annoyed customers don't buy.

    Over the top? Maybe, but I can tell you, points 1 to 3 can make the difference between a mediocre and a successful display. And if that's the case, mounting, matting and framing will make a huge difference!

    Don't leave that to others, unless they can do it better than you can. If so, let them do it, but I would consider learning it is another step towards perfection.
    Last edited by RalphLambrecht; 11-02-2010 at 02:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  3. #23
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,620
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Casey Kidwell View Post
    This isn't an issue with museum board mounting and matting.
    Of course it is an issue -- otherwise museums would not worry about replacing the matting eventually to deal with atmospheric acidification/pollutants. There is some mat board that actively fights contamination -- buffering and such -- which might need replacing less often..

    But granted it is a rather minor issue. And we are talking storage beyond our lifespans here, too.

    And I am pretty much 100% with Ralph on the finishing work and display of our prints. I am not just an image-maker, but also a print-maker. It is what I find rewarding.

    Vaughn
    Last edited by Vaughn; 11-02-2010 at 02:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    138
    I don't agree with the opinion "if the mat gets broken the image is ruined". Does not the mat somehow protect the image, is it not more protected with it fixed to a strong surface, than the paper alone? Also the overmat and framing will hide faults damaged corners etc....if that should happen, but you should anyway treat your drymounted picture as carefully as your paper alone.

    You can also get mount tissues (from Seal/Bienfang) where you can remove the image from the matboard by heating, if needed. Though I have never tried this.

    For me a perfectly flat image, dry mounted, makes a big difference, and for baryt paper I would never consider another option.

  5. #25
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,620
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by StigHagen View Post
    I don't agree with the opinion "if the mat gets broken the image is ruined". Does not the mat somehow protect the image, is it not more protected with it fixed to a strong surface, than the paper alone? ...
    True to a certain extent, but in some cases the print itself is damaged or otherwise need TLC -- perhaps a chemical treatment and/or washing -- hard to do that when it is dry-mounted with non-reversable mount tissue.

    For example back in the good old days, some platinum prints were never fully cleared, and ways have been developed to treat these to preserve them from further damage...and even reverse some of the damage perhaps. This assumes of course that the print is worthy of the time and effort.
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    Of course it is an issue -- otherwise museums would not worry about replacing the matting eventually to deal with atmospheric acidification/pollutants. There is some mat board that actively fights contamination -- buffering and such -- which might need replacing less often..

    But granted it is a rather minor issue. And we are talking storage beyond our lifespans here, too.

    And I am pretty much 100% with Ralph on the finishing work and display of our prints. I am not just an image-maker, but also a print-maker. It is what I find rewarding.

    Vaughn
    If you use the proper mount to begin with, it's NOT an issue. That was my point. Museum board or specifically rag will last as long as the print image or longer.

  7. #27
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,885
    Images
    6
    Does anybody remember "Archival" mount tissue? I got some while I was in college and the tissue releases after a certain temperature is reached. I guess this would allow you to remove the photo when the mount board is damaged. Tried it once and never bought anymore.

  8. #28
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,344
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Casey Kidwell View Post
    If you use the proper mount to begin with, it's NOT an issue. That was my point. Museum board or specifically rag will last as long as the print image or longer.
    Casey

    I'm afraid, you're missing Vaughn's point. He's talking extrinsic sources of image attack.

    From the instant of its creation, a silver-based image faces attack from a variety of sources. Some are internal and essential to the materials photographic papers are designed and manufactured with. They come in the form of chemicals, inherent or added to the paper, the emulsion or the coating.

    Other sources of attack are of external origin. Nevertheless, some are intrinsic to the photographic process and can be minimized but not completely avoided. Most processing chemicals fall into this category. In the very beginning of a print’s life, and only for a few minutes, we need them to be present to complete their designated tasks. Beyond that point, we like to rid the print of them quickly and entirely. Fortunately, these sources of image deterioration are under our control, but no matter how attentive our work might be, unavoidable traces of them will remain in the print forever, and given the right environmental conditions, they will have an opportunity to attack the very image they helped to create.

    The remaining extrinsic sources of image attack are hiding patiently in our environment, ready to start their destructive work as soon as the print is processed and dry. They can broadly be separated into reducing and oxidizing agents. Roughly until the introduction of the automobile, reducing agents were the most common sources of image deterioration. Then, oxidizing agents like aldehyde, peroxide and ozone took over. Their presence peaked in the Western World around 1990 and fortunately began to decline since.

    In conclusion, Vaughn is correct, the mounting tissue will protect the print from extrinsic sources to some degree. Alternatively, people have used plastic barrier sheets behind the mounting board, but this creates other issues, such as trapped moisture. As Vaughn said, I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but it is a benefit of drymounting.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    138
    Freestyle Photo has some inexpensive Arista tissues from a nice provider. Even these are archival and image can be removed from mat board by reheating. Check the pdf on this page:

    http://www.freestylephoto.biz/55114-...ts?cat_id=2301

    Do anybody have experience with reheating and changing matboards with drymounting, does it work well?

  10. #30
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,494
    Images
    15
    Ralph, in your second last paragraph, this rings a bell to me: it was described (oxides of nitrogen from environmental pollution) as REDOX attack (red oxide "rust" in mono prints, typically resin-coated papers, much less so with fibre-base). Several of my early resin-based framed prints were tarnished by REDOX around the same time you mentioned a decline in the incidence was noticed (1990 onward, to say around 1995). It was an exasperating period of many ruined prints living, as I did, right on a main heavy traffic road. But the jury was always out whether this was a contributor or something else. Selenium toning was cited as a reasonable safeguard against REDOX, but never a guarantee. Mono prints I've had produced on RC paper since 1997 and given MGCF treatment have been entirely free of any malaise.

    I think some dry mount tapes have removal-grade adhesive; my framer has on occasion disassembled frames and backing and removed prints to realign them in the mat (a fault of rushed jobbing at that time). Nowadays I don't see any dry mount taping. All I get is fancy stuff...
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin