Pros & Cons - Dry Mounting Pigment Ink Prints from (digital printer)

[Ashly85]

Archival methods include not dry mounting, so that if the mount gets damaged the print might still be saved. But wet darkroom fiber based prints pretty much require dry mounting due to curling and generally not drying flat.

[Kirk Gittings]

Archival methods include not dry mounting, so that if the mount gets damaged the print might still be saved. But wet darkroom fiber based prints pretty much require dry mounting due to curling and generally not drying flat.

Because of the print warping (which on a print that has thoroughly dried I believe is caused by temperature and/or humidity fluctuations) I always dry mount inkjet 11x14 or larger.

[uphereinmytree]

is there a thread for the best archival or safe method to dry mount inkjet prints? I have never tossed an inkjet print in a heat press, but I expect it to be a hideous mess.

[Tin Can]

I am starting to look for dry mount tissue bigger than 11x14, I noticed tonight that Adorama is selling a house brand 16x20 tissue they rate for all wet and dry photo materials. and it's 1/2 the price of Color Seal that is only for RC.

I guess I will try some for my 16x20 series.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Color Seal that is only for RC...

If you're referring to D&K Colormount, while it's marketed for RC, I use it all the time with fiber based prints. Apparently many others do too; it works very well for that application.

[mdarnton]

As far as I know, the only difference between "regular" and RC hot mounting tissue is the melting temp. When RC first came out, mounting with heat was working right at the margins of what the paper could take. It could be done, but every once in a while I'd melt a print. The RC stuff didn't (I use past tense because it's been a while since I did this) stick as well, and really preferred to be held under weight until it cooled.

Both are theoretically barriers between the paper and what's under it, but my portfolio from 40 years ago, which is archival prints mounted on non archival mounting board, are mostly fine, except that outside inch or two of all is stained from the toxic mounting board gassing in from the edges, I would guess. Which is the reason for not mounting at all--if I hadn't, the prints would still be as new, but now they're both ruined AND permanently attached to what ruined them.

On the digital issue, I have some B&W prints from supposedly-archival inks that have already started to change tone, and you know the limits of how old those are--not even 15 years. I no longer believe anyone who tells me that a material is permanent, and that would go for any mounting system or boards. Another reason not to do permanent mounting, if at all possible.

[Sal Santamaura]

my portfolio from 40 years ago, which is archival prints mounted on non archival mounting board, are mostly fine, except that outside inch or two of all is stained from the toxic mounting board gassing in from the edges, I would guess. Which is the reason for not mounting at all--if I hadn't, the prints would still be as new, but now they're both ruined AND permanently attached to what ruined them...

My conclusion would instead be that your experience provides a reason for mounting on appropriate, rather than "non archival," mat board.

...I no longer believe anyone who tells me that a material is permanent, and that would go for any mounting system or boards. Another reason not to do permanent mounting, if at all possible.

Nothing is permanent; it's all going to be gone in about five billion years when the sun burns out. However, I wonder why you'd accept life expectancy claims about anything, either mounting materials or printing systems themselves. If informed research about products and storage conditions isn't sufficient to allay concerns, why bother printing at all?

[Tin Can]

OK, how many are not mounting, whether it is inkjet, FB of RC?

Maybe I will just do what I used to do, store all prints unmounted in archival boxes with archival tissue between each one.

That seems to preserve them well...

[mdarnton]

However, I wonder why you'd accept life expectancy claims about anything, either mounting materials or printing systems themselves. If informed research about products and storage conditions isn't sufficient to allay concerns, why bother printing at all?

My point was not to prevent destruction. It was to limit potential for destruction by not doing unnecessary things. If mounting is not mandatory, why mount?

[Sal Santamaura]

My point was not to prevent destruction. It was to limit potential for destruction by not doing unnecessary things. If mounting is not mandatory, why mount?

At least two previous posts already answered that question:

FWIW I drymount all silver prints and any ink print larger than 11x14. Oddly enough in this dry environment there is a fair amount of moisture discrepancy (I am guessing) that leads to non-dry mounted prints warping even in museum shows, which is unacceptable...

...Done properly, it can protect the print...