Dry mounting a photography exhibition and sales

[Kirk Gittings]

There are a ton of discussions on this forum about this over the years. Do a search.

I would worry about the copyright stamp, even on the back, bleeding through.

As per not mounting for museums and collections. A myth. I have nearly 200 prints in museum collections and everyone one is dry mounted. They never even ask. What about artists like Gursky? Are those huge prints not mounted? Of course they are. Or what about all the Westons, Strands, Adams etc.? I wouldn't worry about that aspect personally. Merg Ross here has said the same.

[frankrizzo]

There was some discussion about having this 32"x96" print professionally mounted. Does anyone have ideas on what service to do it though? It's over $300 worth of materials so I want to make sure it is done right the first time.

[Darin Boville]

As per not mounting for museums and collections. A myth. I have nearly 200 prints in museum collections and everyone one is dry mounted. They never even ask. What about artists like Gursky? Are those huge prints not mounted? Of course they are. Or what about all the Westons, Strands, Adams etc.? I wouldn't worry about that aspect personally. Merg Ross here has said the same.

Kirk is no doubt right. I think photographer's have been suckered for years on this topic.
Given all the crazy stuff Museums collect and the materials they are made with I would suspect that the wrong buffering on mats is probably well on the "easy to deal with" end of the scale....

--Darin

[John Brady]

I cold mount all of my images with a Daige roller press and Coda Cold Mount 1 adhesive. I just acquired a 55 inch coda press but have not put it into service yet.

You can also buy pre coated boards from Coda but you will still need someone with a press and experience. Coda is 100% archival.

My understanding is heat and inkjet aren't compatible.

www.timeandlight.com

[Greg Blank]

What sort of temperature? I have had excellent results heat mounting inkjet prints - standard old Epson Ultra Premium paper. I use release paper against the print surface, a board under that, and mount the print with the heat facing the back of the board and the back of the print. No probems with low temperature tissues and 100 percent rag board.

My understanding is heat and inkjet aren't compatible.

www.timeandlight.com

[Merg Ross]

I'm having some difficulty deciding what adhesive to use for mounting my fine art photography prints. All prints are 20"x30" and 16"x24" printed on Kodak Professional Endura metallic VC digital paper. The exhibition is my first and is set to be displayed in multiple venues. Forty-five images all limited edition prints (15 or less per image.)

On one hand I think I should use Bienfang BufferMount for preservation reasons. Some of the archival stuff I have read suggests not to dry mount. Specifically noted by one source "Prints in museum and archive collections should not be dry mounted. Likewise, valuable prints purchased by private collectors should not be dry mounted."

From this resource: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/..._HiRes_v1a.pdf

So my question is for exhibition purposes is Bienfang buffermount the answer or the permanent Bienfang colormount?

And looking beyond exhibition purposes to print value/sales, archives, and collection which is suitable? I'm worried the buffermount might peal at the corners and/or not have a long lasting professionally smooth surface.

Additionally I am planning on stamping the images with a copyright stamp using Crown super marking ink. If I remember right it is an alcohol based ink intended for photographs. My concern now is if it will degrade the photograph over time. I've considered that instead of stamping the back of the print to stamp just the mounted surface - assuming I am using buffermount (non permanent mounting).

Ideally I'd like to stamp both the mounted surface and the back of the print and use buffermount to mount all my images (exhibition & sales). The fusion by Bienfang sounds like a pain and inappropriate for my purposes.

Any ideas are appreciated.

There is no correct answer to the archival properties of digital paper. If you ask on this forum, you may receive many well intentioned answers. However, this is new territory, yet to experience the ultimate test; simply the test of time. All that we know in this instance are accelerated tests in controlled situations and environments.

I can not help but equate this type of testing to that of my advertised fifty-year roof, which began disitegrating in five years due to a chemical reaction undetected in the accelerated testing process.

The issue of dry mounting silver gelatin prints has a track record in real time of at least 100 years. This seems acceptable when using the term archival. I have seen such prints, and have little confidence in curators and the like who advise against the practice.

However, your question is of digital paper, for which there is yet to be an answer. Check back in 100 years.

[paulr]

Museum conservators would generally prefer unmounted prints, but they don't have any say in the matter. If it were up to them, the curators wouldn't collect half the stuff that they do. Most art since world war 2 has been a torment to conservators, but we needn't fee bad; they get paid pretty well. Some of them might even enjoy the challenge.

[Drew Wiley]

As far as conventional silver-gelatin prints are concerned, drymounting onto a proper
substrate not only prevents the print itself from getting directly handled, but the mounting tissue itself acts as a barrier to the substrate and keeps pollutants from getting to the back the print, which isn't protected by even a gelatin overcoat like the front. As far as convservators "preferring" unmounted prints ... that kind of statement doesn't make any sense. They take what they get. And in a portfolio box or whatever, the more isolation between individual prints the better: 4-ply of rag between is a lot better than a thin slip of tissue. I don't know anyone who would even want to purchase unmounted prints.

[ROL]

There was some discussion about having this 32"x96" print professionally mounted. Does anyone have ideas on what service to do it though? It's over $300 worth of materials so I want to make sure it is done right the first time.

Thanks for reading and referencing my article!

Compared to dry mounting GSP's, which I would never recommend for color, this is so simple and (relatively) inexpensive, you may not believe it. Other than the cutting of a proper window for ovematting, no special tools are required.

I would hinge mount this with linen tape onto gatorboard (skinned with buffered paper if you prefer, depending on the photograph's substrate). I print up adhesive Avery labels exactly as the provenance labels you referenced, specifically for application directly to the backs of plastic (RC, etc.) color prints – as opposed to mini dry mounting to the back of the mount of a GSP. I would complete the presentation by overmatting the print (have the mat cut to your dimensions by a framer (i.e., Aaron Bros.). Ideally, the print would have sufficient margins to make it appear to the viewer as a "floated" presentation. Because the photo is not fiber – metallized RC? – it should hang straight if carefully assembled, although static electricity can build up between plastic photo and acrylic glazings which may pull the piece away from its mount. One of the most "archival" aspects of this type of presentation is that the photo may be easily and safely removed from its mount at any time.




Caveat: I just don't obsess over fully archival methods and materials for color (or digital anything) as I don't believe there is yet a verifiable track record of this type of photograph which is proven to be "archival" – whatever that means. And yes, I do know about Wilhelm.

[Drew Wiley]

Hinge mounting small prints from the corners or edges is more prone to wrinkling than
just an adhesive strip at top center, due to the way the print expands and contracts.
It's also important to dull the sharp edge of the overmat with a burnishing bone so the
expansion/contraction cycles won't cause the surface of the print itself to be cut into.
Gatorboard doesn't need a buffer, but does need to be sanded if you want adhesives to permanently adhere to it. But looks like you had a fun evening at Cathedral Lk.
Probably under a LOT of snow at the moment!