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

[ROL]

Sorry but, what's a pigment print?

Pigment = Inkjet, as decreed by labs and suppliers who have a (financial) stake in promoting and sustaining the legitimacy of their offerings. It's really just that simple. Make of it what you will. Tilt against that windmill. Hold back that tide.

Along that line, there has been a huge backlash against dry mounting over the last decade or so. Some concerns are appropriate, especially since, by many accounts, it appears to be somewhat difficult to pull off well. Done properly, it can protect the print. IMO, much of this resentment about this "permanent" mounting technique, now comes directly from digital process promoters.

[bob carnie]

I use inkjet Cannon with lucia 12 ink set - I do not call them pigment prints , but rather I call them inkjet prints..
I have been making separation silver negatives and either printing with pigments in the tri colour gum process, and as well using the silver negatives and making polymer plates and doing intaglio prints with inks loaded with pigment.


I would like some experts here describe the pigment load issues of inkjet printers vs the older methods that I just described.. I am not looking to start a flame war, but rather gather informed information about what level of pigment load is capable of going through any inkjet machine whether it being the inks I use vs piezo inks that many here use.
What exactly is the difference?? Will the full pigment load of a intaglio print have a greater chance of longevity than that of any ink jet print... I personally think so.

From my view point and its really a layman point of view, the nozzles on inkjet printers of any manufacture cannot put through a heavy pigment load, but in fact minimal, but since there is some pigment going through- people will call them pigment prints and confuse those who do the other processes , like carbon ( think Sandy King, Andrew, Jim) gum ( think Keith Taylor) or tri colour carbon think (John Bently, Todd Gangler).

There are those who have invested in their brand of printmaking and will defend it to death , for me I use a lot of end processes and would like some kind of definitive answer as to the longevity of the materials I am using. This does interest me , and some here do not feel that need and I respect that .



Regarding the mounting of prints- I have been doing this since day one and will mount any print that is used for display, due to different humidity levels, I will of course not mount if the client requests.

We mount inkjet prints here hot and cold, the main issue for us is letting an inkjet print out gas for a period of time before mounting and encapsulating in a frame housing.
Silver prints can only be hot mounted but do work well on rag paper to aluminum and we do both.

Pigment = Inkjet, as decreed by labs and suppliers who have a (financial) stake in promoting and sustaining the legitimacy of their offerings. It's really just that simple. Make of it what you will. Tilt against that windmill. Hold back that tide.

Along that line, there has been a huge backlash against dry mounting over the last decade or so. Some concerns are appropriate, especially since, by many accounts, it appears to be somewhat difficult to pull off well. Done properly, it can protect the print. IMO, much of this resentment about this "permanent" mounting technique, now comes directly from digital process promoters.

[Mark Sawyer]

My own philosophy is that the mounting (and often framing too) is an esthetic decision controlled by the artist (me), and I have yet to see either a collector or curator question that. But I am aware of realistic archival considerations.

I think that pretty much nails it. If you have a real preference for the presentation, go with it. Better a temporary work that is what you want it to be than an eternal compromise. But these discussions are necessary for informed decisions.

What's really sad is how much archivally-prepared work ends up at Goodwill stores or in the dumpster 20 years later...

[Kirk Gittings]

What's really sad is how much archivally-prepared work ends up at Goodwill stores or in the dumpster 20 years later...

Which is why I try and emphasize with serious but very young or new photographers. Pay attention to proper processing etc. but worry more about your imagery. Put your hard earned cash and time into making images and worry about your legacy later.

[Drew Wiley]

No... Inkjet print are NOT true pigment prints whatsoever. Just look up any number of the patents for what goes into the inks (I'm referring to color inkjet technology,
not monochrome). There are plenty of dyes involved as well as lakes (dyed inert pigment particles). The priority with these systems is first of all, getting colorants
fine enough to pass thru the tiny jets to begin with, which inherently disqualifies many true pigments, and second, keeping the inks from drying out, which involves
glycols. "Ink" is just an expression of vehicle, and can even be based exclusively on dyes, as is the case with certain printers. Calling other cases "pigment prints" in
distinction, when only partial components are in fact pigments, might be clever marketing, but it is also somewhat misleading. A true pigment printer only needs four
basic process colors and can (hypothetically) select all four from very stable classes, without the same compromises needed for inkjet nozzles and program foibles.
Aardenburg has done some interesting tests showing how the alleged permanence of inkjet images is really a function of which colorants are dominant, and how
various components will fade are rather different rates, not equally. It's a lot more complicated in this one respect alone than what manufacturers sometimes imply.
Nice to know that permanence is squarely on their radar, but once we get a few steps beyond that, things start getting real complicated real fast, and there is
very little real track record with this kind of imaging technology. Extrapolations are not real world historical results, over the implied generations of display and viewing. Nor are dyes sitting on the surface of the paper apt to be dramatically better than the same dyes soaked into a print by older methods. Lakes per se are
a more complicated subject in general. But marketing and truth have never danced very well together.

[Drew Wiley]

... but Ben, I'm deliberately hesitant to state anything about monochrome inkjet inks because I have not researched it, and am well aware that people are capable
of customizing monochrome inks in manners that are not realistically possible in full-color printing except at an industrial R&D level. But if in doubt, read the patents.

[paulr]

I'd like to hear what Jon Cone has to say on the topic. He's cloned Epson's inks so well you can substitute his versions without reprofiling. He admits that his inks fall a bit short of Epsons in extended lightfastness testing, but not by much. They're still imressively fade resistant.

As far as the limits of extrapolating, keep in mind it's all we've ever done. To think your silver print will last as long as a 100 year-old one in the museum is to assume to assume your particular materials, chemicals, and processes are functionally identical. Which is a dubious proposition. It's also worth noting that many 100 year-old silver prints faded or stained terribly, and conservators only sometimes figure out why. We can base our assumptions on dubious comparisons to old versions of the materials, or on accelerated tests (peroxide fumes, sulfides, UV light). Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. Both are probably better than nothing. And both lead to conversations that make sane people's eyes roll back in their heads.

[DennisD]

Chris A. Paschke, CPF GCF

Below are a few links to information from the Author of THE MOUNTING AND LAMINATING HANDBOOK. She is a custom framer and serves on industry boards such as those that test and determine mount material suitability for art work.

http://www.framedestination.com/pict..._mounting.html

http://www.designsinkart.com/library...Tell201105.htm

http://www.designsinkart.com/library...Know201106.htm

http://www.designsinkart.com/articles-title.html

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/78527496...Digital-Photos

Thanks, Dakotah Jackson, for some most informative articles about appropriate mounting practices for a wide variety of print types. I found this series very interesting and helpful with respect to my original question.

Much appreciated !

Thanks, also, to many others who've added their insight.

Dennis

[Drew Wiley]

Paul - various types of silver prints have been around almost two centuries and we've had a chance to witness a lot of pros and cons of environmental conditions
etc. In color, various types of true pigment prints have been around a hundred years or more, dye transfer and dye-destruction prints more than 75 years, and the
gradual evolution of chromogenic prints over half a century. So in these cases there's quite a historical precedent for discussing pros and cons. With inkjet that simply is not the case yet. Testing inks per se in lab conditions is not the same as actually observing how prints, on all kinds of whatever papers, survive in the long haul. Probably a lot of stuff currently in vogue even with museums right now might not be worth ten cents to a future generation anyway. I just try to do my best with the integrity of my own work. Even the Sphinx of Egypt was not "archival", and its current condition would probably horrify its original architects.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I have been dry mounting inkjet prints for a while with excellent results...

What paper/ink combination are your prints made with? What dry mounting tissue / press temperature are you using? What do you have in contact with the printed surface (release paper? mat board?) when the sandwich is in your press? Thanks in advance.