Dry mounting

[stephen_vaughan3]

It is quite difficult for me to get access to a dry mounting press.

Can you reccommend any clever DIY ways to dry mount prints? I've heard

that a clothes iron can work.....is this true? As in previous

question, archival quality is required.

My prints are usually 10x8.

Thank

[doug_paramore]

Stephen: A clothes iron will work. Don't overdo the heat and take

your time. You need to use a piece of mount board between the iron

and print to even out the heat. Keep the iron moving. I suggest the

Seal Colormount tissue, as it requires less heat. You may be able to

find a used drymount press fairly cheap as I did.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[jeff_schraeder1]

Stephen

I use a clothes iron with limited success. It is really hard to get

everything flat. If I don't clean the iron surface each time I use it

I get marks on the print. I use release paper between the iron and

the print. I like the idea of using a piece of mat board to not only

even out the heat but also to even out the pressure. I'm going to

try it on my next mount. I set the temperature at a very low

setting. Using the mat may require a higher temperature setting.

Jeff

[jnorman2]

dry mounting is not considered an archival process. also, in my

HABS/HAER work, toning is not allowed. for archival mounting, we use

linen tape hinges.

[james_chinn]

Before getting a press I used an iron on occaision. What worked best

for me was to place a clean matboard over the print and on top of

that an 1/8th inch piece of aluminum slightly bigger than the print

size. This helps even out the heat and holds the heat better than

the mat board alone. I got very good at mounting up to 11x14.

Anything larger I had mounted at a framing shop.

[michael_alpert1]

Stephen, using a clothes iron will probably lead you to ruin good

prints, with heat damage perhaps not immediately apparent. I have a

question or two for jnorman: (1) Is dry mounting not considered

archival in your HABS/HAER work (what do these letters stand for?)

because of acidity problems (which are avoidable) or because the

process is nonreversible? (2) Why is toning not allowed? I would think

that properly done selenium or gold toning would be acceptable. (3) I

also would think that good plastic or folded-paper corners would be

better than linen tape attached directly to the print; do you agree?

[dk_thompson]

Michael, if the NPS site ever gets back online, you can check out the

HABS/HAER specs yourslef...it's the "Historic American Building

Survey/Historic Architectural Engineering Record" project or something

similar to that...a preservation prograpm run by the Fed gov't...using

contract photographers mostly, or the 2 staffers they have, or with

staffers working for various state gov't agencies...usually they're

linked into a Dept. of Transportation agency or an Archives....in my

agency, they work out of the Dept. of Cultural Resources Historic

Preservation branch.....

 

<p>

 

I can't speak for Mr. Norman, but I'm just guessing he goofed up

typing that response, because toning is considered part of the final

printing process, and could be considered a step in the preservation

negs as well. However, I can say that in an archive or museum, dry

mounting is considered to be about the worst thig that you can do to a

print or a piece of textual material, or anything on paper....to be

"archival", anything done must be reversible....dry mounting tissues

also have problems with the adhesives used, and with some the actual

material used in the tissue part...is close to glasseine, which is

pretty bad as well. I'm not talking "fine art" here, but for an

archivist or a conservator's point of view, to dry mouny something is

close to ruining it....as always, my opinions only here.

[dhananjay_n]

I don't know - I've seen a lot of conflicting accounts. Museums and

conservationists have typically preferred linen hinges. However a

recent article in View Camera (see

http://www.superiorarchivalmats.com/Article.html for the article)

argued that this was insufficient and the use of a special mat board

called ArtCare was actually better as it trapped pollutants and

prevented them from reaching the artwork). The article makes

interesting reading.

 

<p>

 

And yes, my understanding is that toning is necessary for archival

considerations. Nishimura's work concluded that it needed toning to

completion - for example, incomplete toning in seleium to enhance

Dmax was not as archival as complete toning.

 

<p>

 

Cheers, DJ.

[michael_alpert1]

DK Thompson, thank you for your response. As I am sure you are aware,

many photographers, including well-known ones, wreck any possiblilty

that their work will endure by improper processing, printing, and

storage. If the HABS/HAER specs are available for cut and paste (i.e.,

not too long) could you post them, perhaps as a new thread, in this

forum? If they are too extensive to post, could you post the print-

version publication number and title? I think many photographers would

find the guidelines challenging and useful.

[dk_thompson]

Sorry for my horrendous spelling up there...I feel like the moleman,

I've been confined to the darkroom for a couple of weeks....the Thomas

Duplex is about as bright as my world gets...

 

<p>

 

Uh, the NPS site is down temporarily I think, but there's some vendor

type specs online for what they need, and there's a booklet they put

out as well...as far as I know (I don't do survey work), they're

really picky about just what they will accept....I know that a typical

state survey project is a little more lax in regards to the final

materials, but for the most part they tend to deal with negative based

archives over a print based one....the way I look at something like

HABS is akin to a reformatting project, but instead of books or

newspapers and microfilm, they work with buildings....fiber based

paper and

polyester based sheet films are sorta the "gold standard" for

long-term storage....in my line of work, we aim more for long-term

files of negs over all else...probably the majority of all the

archives & institutions in this country have the facility & means to

make an archival print, but the majority of the access prints are done

on RC papers, and now digital output....the master files are always

the negs....and b&w sheet films would be the choice....kind of the

opposite of what the fine-art world does....as for me, personally, I

have no problems with folks who want to dry mount...I do it myself

occasionally....but then I print on alot of RC too, lifes too short to

worry about making "master" prints all the time...when i die, I'd

rather leave my negs to a local historical society than anything else,

and I don't want to burden them with having to refile thousands of

negs out of lousy enclosures either....I have to deal with that enough

at work..

 

<p>

 

Oh yeah, "Artcare" boards are not exactly new...there's been a product

out for awhile now called "Microchamber" papers and box boards, that

Conservation Resources Int'l. has been carrying...it's a similar

concept that has a molecular trap type barrier in the paper, some

grades have a polyster sheet barrier as well...you can buy sheets, or

envelopes or storage folders & boxes made up of this material...they

also market the Lig free I & II papers as well....CRI has extensive

literature about this...I still think you'd be hard pressed to find a

conservator who'd back dry mounting though...the ones I work with are

adamant about this issue.....as always, my opinions only.

[dk_thompson]

Okay, in lieu of the NPS site or the Conserve-o-grams they put out as

well...here are some basic tutorial FAQ type links from a couplke of

institutions like the Library of Congress, NARA and the NEDCC....the

NEDCC is a good read with alot of resourceful links as well...same for

the LOC.

 

<p>

 

http://www.nedcc.org/p101cs/lesson7.htm#sec4

 

<p>

 

http://www.nara.gov/arch/faqs/aboutph.html#q3g

 

<p>

 

http://lcweb.loc.gov/preserv/careothr.html

 

<p>

 

that last one is for the "Caring for your Collections" from the

LOC...there's a how-to thing in there under the title "Preservation

Matting" that explains how you'd approach it from a non-dry mounting

perspective....

 

<p>

 

what I was trying to say above was, that in working in an archive type

environment, you get a different perspective on just what it really

takes to make something last for generations to come....basically, you

have to put it away forever and not use it, and still accept the fact

that _nothing_ lasts forever...I'd rather spend my own free time,

enjoying photography and making prints for myself, rather than fussing

abouth how many 100's of years they'll last.....for perspective,

polyester based sheet films will outlast probably all these materials

in the end.....

 

<p>

 

okay, the deep tank is calling my name....happy holidays you all, and

as always MY opinions only.

[jnorman2]

michael -

 

<p>

 

(1) Is dry mounting not considered archival in your HABS/HAER work

(what do these letters stand for?) because of acidity problems (which

are avoidable) or because the process is nonreversible?"

 

<p>

 

the library of congress maintains the collections of the historic

american building survey (HABS) and the historic american engineering

record (HAER), so everything i do must meet their standards for

archival quality. there is no adhesive that is considered archival,

so any mounting method which uses adhesives is verboten - they do not

accept any mounted materials and they do not accept any color

materials (though, oddly, they have begun aksing that i submit

certain color materials, but with very weird conditions). i only use

linen tape hinges for exhibition purposes, and for museum

collections. no museum curator i have worked with likes dry-mounted

photographs.

 

<p>

 

(2) Why is toning not allowed? I would think that properly done

selenium or gold toning would be acceptable.

 

<p>

 

i didnt say that toning was not archival - i just said the LOC will

not allow it. from my reading, some toning processes (selenium in

particular) can be more archival than even the best processed untoned

fiber-base prints, so i am not sure why the LOC doesnt like it, but i

did ask them a couple of years ago if i could submit toned prints,

and they said no.

 

<p>

 

(3) I also would think that good plastic or folded-paper corners

would be better than linen tape attached directly to the print; do

you agree?

 

<p>

 

no. corners are not typically strong enough to provide longterm

secure mounting, and again, the adhesive used is not archival. every

gallery and museum i have worked with prefers linen tape hinges.

[jay_wolfe]

FYI -- NPS site is down due to court order related to settlement of

the trust fund issue with Indians (aka Native Americans). NPS told

me it might me up as soon as this week.

[john_kasaian2]

Verrry interesting! A few nights ago I went through an old cardboard

box of photos, some dating from the 1890's but most from the 1920's

and 30's. The box was stored under the worse conditions possible--in

the rafters of a leaky garage for the last forty years and in a

basement before that. Attic temperatures reach 140 easily here in

the summertime. The photos, nearly all professionally shot and

printed, were in interesting shape. The ones scotch taped to albums

faired the worst. The photoalbum paper itself had discolored and

become very brittle. The photos in the best condition were mounted

and looked very similar to the drymount common today. In fact some

looked like they could have been printed last week. If you could

find what kind of process and materials they used back in the 1920's

you might have an answer to your question. By the way, there was a

stack of celluloid 8x10 negatives that had melted together and had

become highly unstable! Aside from that bit of excitement, it was an

interesting education seeing first hand what stuff like mucilage,

rubber cement and album corners can do to vintage photographs. The

mounted photos were the best preserved,but who knows how they did it?

[dk_thompson]

See, that's just the thing there....what you just described is the

typical scenario you'd find if you worked in a museum or an archive,

and had potential patrons hauling in stuff from their attics and

basements...you get to see it_all_....I wasn't always the cynic that

I've become about "archival" printing and materials...but in typical

employee fashion, I have become a cynic....so forgive

me...

 

<p>

 

But, old films, sheet films on acetate bases and nitrate bases, and

glass plates...these are all problems in collections...nitrate used to

be the big problem, only now they've figured out that if you get it

cold & keep it there, well it's manageable. The big problem now is

acetate based films....they will all break down & decay in time...even

the triacetate roll films everybody shoots now...like Tri-X

etc....BUT, the polyester based films are very stable...so, yeah, I

see from time to time old negs all globbed together, I do alot of

copywork of old prints on bad mounts, discolored and brittle....old

photo albums, prints stuck to PVC pages...the whole shebang...in a

museum you're not going to remove that stuff, you just try to

"preserve it" as is.....

 

<p>

 

BUT, you can scream bloody murder, point to this & that in your attic

or hanging on Ansel Adam's wall or whatever, and it won't matter to

the institutional community..they are entrenched in their own set of

rules and standards....when they talk of "archival" (okay, they don't

even use that word...the word is LE: life expectancy...they

acknowledge that _nothing_ lasts forever)...when they say an archival

print, they mean something that will remain in storage forever...it

will not be shown. It will sit in a vault or storage room under 70

degrees and within a rh range of like 30% or so, maybe even a cold

storage vault...it will not be handled without gloves on, it will

remain in the dark....the minute it goes out on display, the clock

starts ticking on it's life...the lux levels will be set just so for

the lights etc....it will be rotated out of display on

schedules....it's a different world, and a different way of

thinking....it could be some snapshot that was carried in a plastic

wallet for 30 yrs., now it's an "artifact" and nobody will ever see it

or touch it again. All these places will look at print and film

materials as records and access media....it's not about fine-art,

although I'm not saying that some of the architectural photos aren't

that, but it's about choosing the best media for the record...but all

these places will make RC prints, they'll use digital files for

access, etc...it's just that nobody would claim them to be

"archival"....I'm always skeptical in a way, when I see that term

used...because it's so vague and hard to pin down...it's like when a

manufacturer calls a neg sleeve "archival" when nobody could ever

guarantee that....it's hard enough to store stuff in a controlled

environment with fancy vaults & enclosures...it's almost impossible

out in the real world....

 

<p>

 

aaargh...must be crabby today! You want to dry mount, go ahead & bust

loose!....only don't call it archival, because now it's just a dry

mounted fiber base print. End of rant & soapbox preaching.....happy

holidays you all...

 

<p>

 

Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my

agency

[michael_alpert1]

Many thanks to previous contributors for the information, opinions, and

links. There are storage and use issues here that are obviously not

fully resolvable. When it comes to longevity vs display, most artists

want it both ways; so it is important that photographers have good

information in order to make choices with open eyes, so to speak. My

solution is to print multiple copies of images. Some prints are kept in

proper storage and designated for some unspecified future destination,

and others are designated for near-term exhibition, with much care put

into the selection of materials and procedures so that these display

and handling prints will also have a reasonable chance for survival. My

negatives are stored in "archival" paper envelopes and boxes, though I

have mixed feelings about the survival of my many negatives, if only

because I realize that no one else could select and make prints from

them with the original photographer's vision in mind.

[dk_thompson]

Michael, that's a solid strategy and well thought out...better than

just blindly believing that any fiber print will last forever....over

the years my outlook has changed a bit, since having to print so

_many_ negs shot by other people....I learned that in regards to my

own images-- that tastes change...you're always evolving as a printer

in a darkroom, the more experience you get,you just don't go

backwards....I'm a good printer, but I'm not the best...who is? I

dunno, maybe some guy working in a historical institution 100 yrs.

from now printing my negs.....it's all about interpetation, and

printing old negs is like the ultimate time machine for a

photographer...

 

<p>

 

So, sorry to sound like such a harda**, but I find alot of times,

people seem to blindly believe what someone calls "archival"....there

are quite a few products on the market now, that are called

"archival", that are anything but really....and there's nothing

sinister with that, because it's just this big, catch-all word...with

no standard to match it against & define it...and as manufacturer,

you'd be stupid to actually warranty that...because so much can go

wrong over time. You're better off storing your negs in paper, and

even better off if that product passes the PAT, and is designed for

neg storage. Good luck with your archive...

 

<p>

 

Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my

agency.

[michael_alpert1]

DK, thank you again. Yes, all my storage materials pass the PAT test

and are used correctly. This has been a very valuable conversation from

my point of view, but I am wondering what the original questioner

Stephen Vaughan thinks of this discussion. I realize we have expanded

his question greatly. Stephen, I hope this thread has been helpful.

[michael_a._smith1]

Tesing for permanence I have had done shows that dry mounting

photographs on ArtCare materials is a more archival process than not

dry mounting them, despite what most curators believe. Also, of the

many museums where my photographs have been collected, only one

institution (less than 1%) requested that the photographs they

purchased not be dry mounted. So by all means, dry mount your

photographs--but do use a dry mount press. It is likely that you'll end

up damaging your photographs if you use an iron.

 

<p>

 

Michael A. Smith

[andre_noble4]

Mr. Thompson, just curious, which sheet films in general are shot on

acetate these days, and which on polyester?

[bill_glickman]

There was a very intersting article about 2 years ago in framing

Magazine. It was all about longevity of framed prints. What I found

interesting was that these "acid free" backboards and mats actually

faired worse in testing with certain type prints vs. the acid type

mats and boards. Although there is a small vairance in ph between

acid free and non acid free, the key to success seemed to lie in

matching the print ph with the mat and back board ph. This prevents

the materials of one to seep into the other. I picked up this copy

of the magazine at the Jan. 2000 framing show in Vegas. Anyone

really intersted in this subject may want to track down that issue.

[hans_berkhout]

A bit aside but relevant to the discussion: how "archival" is fiber

based printing paper, what fiber are we talking about?

[michael_alpert1]

Hans, your question is important. I suggest that you ask it as a new

question so people who are not paying attention to this thread can have

a chance to answer it. I worked in book arts for many years, and I must

say that the qualities of fiber-based photographic paper (low tear and

folding strength, but very high resistance to dissolution when bathed

in water) are not what most paper-makers normally try to achieve. The

availability of alpha cellulose is better today than in the past, and

its cost is lower. I assume that good photographic paper is made from

alpha cellulose or equivalent material. Anyway, we all need more

complete information. Please ask your question to the whole forum.

[dk_thompson]

Hans, yeah...that's a good question...I'd think a paper conservator or

a photo conservator could give some sort of opinion on that....but

just like anything-- how long it will last, depends on how it's stored

&

displayed...and I'm not really sure that you can draw conclusions from

accelerated tests anyways, they can guide you in making a purchase of

materials, but nothing really beats seeing something up close...that's

one reason why it's so hard to figure this stuff out...because look at

the age of photography...it's nothing compared to other print

forms....manuscripts, records etc...

Dry mounting is maybe 50-60 yrs.

old. To a conservator, "archival" means reversible...I don't think any

photographer will ever convince them otherwise, even if the product is

advertised as removable with heat....collections people are "hands-

off" when it comes to objects and materials...like I was saying--a

different world & mindset. It's hard to say 100 yrs. from now which

would be worse with a print, heat it up to remove the "archival" dry

mount adhesive and risk damaging the print in the

process or just have the thing mounted to a board forever & risk any

damage from that in the form of poor storage & handling....if you're

going to do it, pick good boards & do it right,

and _save_ your negs.

 

<p>

 

And you know, all bets are off once you start displaying this

stuff...I doubt you could get a guarantee from anyone...unless you

were in an institutional agreement over lending objects to other

institutions...I don't know if you've ever seen the amount of

paperwork & security deposits and on-site control that goes into

traveling exhibits out of larger institutions...but every little

detail is looked into...from the envrionment to handling to everything

else...and then insured to a high degree...once something has become a

part of a collection, it's cared for in a way beyond the print hanging

on your living room wall, or the local coffee shop...

 

<p>

 

Andre, just check out the film specs....Kodak uses the word ESTAR for

their polyester films. Some other trade names are used as

well....triacetate is the youngest form of acetate based films....most

b&w (not all) sheets are on polyester...the color neg & trans are

kinda 50/50 on triacetate and polyester...but then color isn't

considered to be a long term material anyways.

 

<p>

 

Remember what I was saying: I'm not talking fine art here.....fine art

to me is anything goes....do what you want & enjoy the process...I

work in the bowels os history museum...when I move on, the negs I

shoot have to stay in the storage enclosures & do their job for

however long the institution lasts...they're records. We've hit our

100 yr. mark, so I have the benefit of seeing some materials used in

the past that haven't fared so well, only they probably were

"accepted" at the time....

 

<p>

 

Well, I may be on vacation, but nonetheless these are MY opnions only

as always...

[andre_noble4]

Gotcha!