Tape mounting prints

[greg_pratt4]

Domenico Foschi said -- "Since i only mount my prints with archival

tape , ( i found a way not to make even large prints buckle )"

 

Do tell. It may be off LF topic but picked up from the signing

thread. If you are happy to expound your hard earned secret, I for

one would love to know, especially regarding large prints.

 

Otzi

[david_goldfarb]

I hinge mount. Printing with a wide border reduces the waviness problem somewhat, at least until the humidity creeps in, but I take just accept the waves as part of the archival, post-drymount aesthetic. Eventually, perfect flatness will just be regarded as unprofessional.

[henry_friedman]

Prints hung from 'T' mounts seem to buckle less than those that are corner mounted only. It keeps the weight from sagging down onto the bottom corners.

[michael_a._smith1]

Eventually prints that do not stay flat will be regarded as

unprofessional and amateurish (in the worst sense of that term). After

all the trouble that is gone to to make prints, I cannot imagine why

anyone would not want them to be seen without reflections from

rippling and curling.

 

And besides, dry mounting provides more archival protection than

hinge-mounted prints. See my article on "Advances on Archival Mounting

and Storage that first appeared in View Camera magazine. It can be

found at www.michaelandpaula.com under "Writings."

 

Michael A

[philip_glass]

Despite ex-Cathedra instruction to the contrary, drymounting is not the method that separates "professionals" from "amateurs". Ask fine arts photography dealers what their customers prefer. The buyer is purchasing a print, not a print affixed to a piece of cardboard of questionable origin and durability (though it is true, according to Ctein, that a drymounted print under ideal conditions can resist degradation better than an indifferently stored loose print). If you frame your prints in a low-humidity environment you can reduce subsequent humidity-induced buckling by sealing the frame with a low permeability backing sheet and tape that against the back of the frame.

[david_goldfarb]

My comment about the future "unprofessionalism" of the drymounted print was a bit tongue-in-cheek in that I've certainly been raised on the drymounted print and have come to prefer it instinctively, and am aware of all the arguments in its favor, both in your article, Michael, and in what Ctein has written.

 

On the other hand, what Philip says is true. In the New York galleries, one rarely sees new prints drymounted, and I suspect that trend is going to continue as long as conservators (photographers be damned) continue to regard drymounting as the equivalent of throwing the print in the trash. Those of us who are accustomed the look of a smooth print may lament its demise, while those who become accustomed to the wavy print will just see that quality as a natural aspect of a handmade object and won't consider it a distraction.

[michael_a._smith1]

It was reported to me that the link to my article is dead. I checked

and indeed it is. I will get it fixed. The article can be viewed,

however, at www.superiorarchivalmats.com. The link is on the left near

the bottom of the first page.

 

Michael A. Sm

[bill_taylor2]

So I'm a hopeless savage by using spray adhesive to mount my RC prints to oversized foamcore? e.g. 11x14 RC print, Krylon Easy-Tac repositionable adhesive, and white 3/16 foam core board. I just did 14 of them for an exhibit, so this news is coming a bit late...

 

In the old days, I was told that good archival mounting involved two fix stages (for black and white), special care in washing, then strategic use of aluminum foil in separating the mount board from the frame and back board.

 

I'm hoping someone will fill in the real modern details for me and my fellow knuckledraggers.

 

Bill

[michael_a._smith1]

The two fix and washing still hold true. No aluminum foil needed if

you use the right board--which is what my article is about.

[lbi115l]

I dry mount, I trust dry mounted prints, that's what I'd buy.

 

Prints from the earliest days of photography hold up better dry mounted than with other mounting methods. Dry mounting worked well for Weston. I just saw an exhibit of 99 of his prints, they're still beautiful. Dry mounting worked for Adams, he liked it.

 

It's what I'll go with.

 

The art world moves in waves, just like with pictorialism and modernism. Now people don't want to buy "a print that's attached to a board". Twenty years from now, they'll realize that the board is there for a reason.

 

I photograph first and foremost for myself, not anyone else. And I use MY judgement, since it's MY work.

[david_goldfarb]

It's much easier to unmount a hinge mounted photo than a drymounted photo ten, twenty, or fifty years down the line, if the conservators decide that "reversability" is no longer a central principle of the profession or if a superior method comes along.

[mark__5]

"I photograph first and foremost for myself, not anyone else. And I use MY judgement, since it's MY work"

 

thank you, I feel the same way.

[janice_browne]

I too have struggled with this dilemma, and have found relief in the realization that I don't have to make a single decision for all of my photographs. As I prepare to mount each photo, I use T-hinges if I think its good enough to ever be considered "fine art" (and thus subject to gallery aversion to permanent mounts). Otherwise, I use spray adhesive, because I prefer the flatness.