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

[DennisD]

It seems the accepted practice for mounting pigment prints is not to dry mount,
but to leave a wide border around the print, attach to archival board with corners and then overmat.

What exactly are members doing in this regard ?
and
What are the specific reasons for not dry mounting ?
and
What effect does dry mounting have, if any, on the pigment print ?

Please share your knowledge based on specific experience or fact (rather than conjecture) !

Thanks very much !

[vinny]

HEAT

Use scotch pma instead if you want flat prints without warping later.

[Peter Mounier]

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.
Since inkjet prints don't curl, there's no reason to mount a print in that way, especially if archival permanence is desired.
Inkjet prints can be dry mounted with no problems if that's your preferred way.

[ROL]

...attach to archival board with corners...

Is that true? It is accepted practice to use corners rather than hinge mounting?

[Tyler Boley]

I didn't dry mount silver either, after I learned more about the issue. But I did make sure they were well flattened. Any reflective surface, when not flat, looks less than optimal, mounting always addressed that well. Fine art matte inkjet prints have no discernible reflective properties, therefore, there's no advantage to mount from that standpoint. Additionally, the ongoing discoveries with how inkjet coatings absorb and react to adhesives and anything that outgases has lead me to never mount a fine art matte inkjet print. I've overmatted and framed many prints on William Turner up to 30x40+ without mounting (adhering to the backing) with no problems whatsoever, and they look great. Also, since I provide prints to some rental galleries, being able to swap prints in and out of standardized matte and frame sizes is a plus. Others I print for have framed similarly with other matte papers, Photo Rag, Epson Hot and COld Press Natural, Canson Rag Photographique, Edition Etching, etc.. successfully.

Also the surface delicacy of these papers, I'd never risk subjecting to a press and the handling involved.

Tyler

[Tyler Boley]

Is that true? It is accepted practice to use corners rather than hinge mounting?

yes, and hinging with an archival tape. The only problem I've had is using some of the available corners, the adhesive slowly slipped because these thick cotton papers have weight. So I make my own corners out of thin acid free interleave paper and tape them down with a lot of filmoplast.. no problems.
Tyler

[Peter Mounier]

... Additionally, the ongoing discoveries with how inkjet coatings absorb and react to adhesives and anything that outgases has lead me to never mount a fine art matte inkjet print.

The outgassing of inkjet glycol is fairly well documented, especially when enclosed in a frame with glass, but I haven't heard anything about adhesives, in particular dry mount tissue, being absorbed and reacting with the coating. Do you have a reference for that.

[Tyler Boley]

this seems to remain somewhat quiet even though some of us have been dealing with it from the beginning of inkjet coated papers. It's not the normal paper outgassing you hear about. I'll find you links tomorrow from work. It's a definite problem, some evaporates combine with the coatings and convert invisible sulphur salts to yellow brown. It's not paper yellowing. It also bleaches out with UV exposure.. more later. Just put anything with rubber feet on a scrap of coated inkjet paper like HPR, like a stapler, and check it out in a few weeks... even Epson's vinyl coated spring to secure rolls will leave a yellow stain from outgassing vinyl if left long enough..
Also very wise to be aware of this when constructing custom portfolio boxes and the materials used.
Tyler

[Peter Mounier]

Thanks Tyler! Very much looking forward to learning more about this. I think I'll try the rubber feet test right now and see what happens in the coming weeks and months.

[Tyler Boley]

Here's an older thread about it from the LL list-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=39390.msg326174#msg326174

I had a long talk with Mark from Aardenberg about this as well, he's very aware of it but without controlled testing that requires time and money he will hesitate to make a definitive public statement. The above thread covers most of the bases. I'll see what I've in emails at work, we just had to deal with this again, I wish the manufacturers were more forthcoming abut it. I've not seen anything from Wilhelm about this either.

let me add, its been difficult to consistently force this result in testing, but water (humidity) seems to accelerate it.. and UV removes it. Of course hard exposure to UV is not the best idea for any art, but I know it works.
T

[neil poulsen]

I've been using corner tabs to mount 16x20 prints. But the prints are heavy enough that I need to use heavy duty tabs. Otherwise, the print cuts right through the bottom tabs.

I would be concerned about applying heat to inkjet prints.

[DennisD]

Thanks very much to Vinny, Peter and ROL for your contributions.

Tyler, special thanks for sharing your wealth of knowledge.

I know that the museum and collector community typically dislikes any form of permanent mounting... perhaps, even more so in recent years.

Having come from a tradition of darkroom printing and dry mounting, I prefer the finish and look dry mounting provides.

I have been dry mounting inkjet prints for a while with excellent results, but knowing and hearing of common practices, I'm questioning what I'm familiar with as it applies to current work and materials.

Thanks to everyone for sharing information, experience and advice.

[Tyler Boley]

I have talked to some people who handle collections in their work who take the view that mounted prints are far less likely to be bent or torn in handling when mounted, so there is no definitive consensus. If you prefer mounted prints, and can do it without damage and with materials that won't shorten life, I'd say go for it. Here is some more info we dug up a bit ago, the only acknowledgement from manufacturers I've run across-
http://www.stcuthbertsmill.com/st-cuthberts-mill-paper/somerset-photo/handling.asp
See the last bullet point under "after printing" and also click the link to Mitsubishi.

Everything else I found was re-iteration of what has already been posted. Vinnie, the 3M scotch PMA stuff was the main suspect in a recent problem project. I spent an hour on the phone with them, they would not tell me chemical contents, nor confirm the absence of materials we were concerned about. They kept handing me up the chain (actually quite helpful) and I finally got to someone who told me it was definitely NOT recommended for "fine art". You will also find in an older publication that Wilhelm recommends it NOT be used with fiber papers.. this was before inkjet.
Tyler

[Kirk Gittings]

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. OTOH I have a couple of hundred prints of all types in various museum collections (the vast majority purchased) and dry mounting has never even been once as an issue. As a matter of fact it has never been mentioned period.

[Andrew O'Neill]

It seems the accepted practice for mounting pigment prints is not to dry mount,
but to leave a wide border around the print, attach to archival board with corners and then overmat.

Sorry but, what's a pigment print?

[Peter Mounier]

Pigment print in this case is referring to pigment ink/inkjet printer prints.
Thanks for the info Tyler.

[paulr]

OTOH I have a couple of hundred prints of all types in various museum collections (the vast majority purchased) and dry mounting has never even been once as an issue. As a matter of fact it has never been mentioned period.

Seems like conservators work for the curators, not vice versa. I've never even been asked what kind of print something is (but they always figure it out).

As far as mounting vs. not mounting, I don't even think there's a standard anymore. If you look at what's hanging in museums and galleries, you see everything, including methods that look great but that probably cause handling and conservation headaches (face-mounting on acrylic). There are a lot of gigantic inkjet and lightjet prints out there ... I assume these are usually mounted onto some kind of board even if they're framed behind glass. When you get into prints that are measured in yards, is there another practical way to present them?

I haven't dealt with this yet. I have a body of work in progress that's probably going to be printed in ink, around 36" wide. Unless I can come up with a better idea, they'll be mounted. I fully understand why mounting poses some conservation problems, which is one reason I haven't done it in the past. But I'm going to be worried more about presentation than about a hypothetical conservation ideal.

[Drew Wiley]

First of all it's a bit misleading to label inkjet prints as pigment prints - that's a common marketing misnomer. The inks are composed of dyes, pigments, and lakes.
Second, despite all the rumors, I've never heard of ordinary photographic prints being considered less "archival" due to drymounting. In many ways it helps to protect
the print. I'd want to be certain all the glycols were outgassed first..... Now as per 3M repositionable transfer adhesive, that's a med tack acrylic with little bubbles
in it which pop under higher pressure to give a threshold of permanent mounting on small pieces. None of these mfgs of acrylic foils like overstating anything because many applications for them are commercial. PMA's biggest problem is simply bonding failure. It's designed for amateur use, since high-tack adhesives are tricky to work with. But acrylic foils are standard even in museum installations of color prints for commissioned work costing far more than any of us have expectations of getting for our typically smaller pieces. Usually "deckle-edge" float or hinged mounting is an esthetic choice reserved for papers which are intended to look like watercolor papers, typical of Pt/Pd prints etc. 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.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks Peter and Drew. I make carbon transfer prints, which are pigment prints, and requires a different approach when it comes to dry mounting.

[Tin Can]

Good to know and a simple answer. I dry mounted my first silver prints 15 years ago, and they are fine.

I will ponder this no more.


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. OTOH I have a couple of hundred prints of all types in various museum collections (the vast majority purchased) and dry mounting has never even been once as an issue. As a matter of fact it has never been mentioned period.

[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 (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/Fine%20Art%20Print%20Presentation), 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 (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/Fine%20Art%20Print%20Presentation), 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/picture_frame_mounting.html

http://www.designsinkart.com/library/D-DigitalsP1HowCanYouTell201105.htm

http://www.designsinkart.com/library/D-DigitalsP2NowThatYouKnow201106.htm

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

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/78527496/Heat-Tolerance-Testing-for-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.

[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...

[Tin Can]

Local conditions obviously vary. In Chicago with AC and heat, my 16X20 FB prints stay pretty darn flat after hot pressing them without mounting and storing them in flat stacks. Maybe the stack weight is a consideration.

[paulr]

My silver prints are almost all on 11x14 or smaller paper. The paper I used buckles and curls a lot, but those sizes are still small enough that I'm happy with temporary corner mounts. My black and white ink prints are in similar sizes and on matte-finish paper that hangs perfectly flat. These do really well with corner mounts.

Most of my color ink ink prints are much bigger than this, so I mount them. Exactly how depends on the body of work. My favorite material so far is aluminum dibond, which is perfectly flat and unaffected by temperature or humidity. The surface is pure aluminum. The core is polyethylene. The dry-mount adhesive is silicone-based. These materials have been considered safe for archival storage for a very long time. The adhesive cannot be removed, however.

But I don't think that there's any way you'd remove a truly big print that's wet-mounted with rice starch, without doing damage. The reversible mounting idea strikes me as awfully hypothetical.

[Kirk Gittings]

Local conditions obviously vary. In Chicago with AC and heat, my 16X20 FB prints stay pretty darn flat after hot pressing them without mounting and storing them in flat stacks. Maybe the stack weight is a consideration.

I can't get by with that here and I would think that Chicago would be worse-maybe not. More than once I have had to take a hinged print back from my rep, a buyer or a collector because the print warped when I didn't dry mount it. I wouldn't consider now selling a print un-matted (helps to insure they get presented the way I want them) or un-dry mounted at 16x20.

And for the person who asked above.....my method is identical whether silver or ink. Except in the old days I used the high temp stuff for silver prints. Now I use low temp for both silver and ink.

[Kirk Gittings]

Local conditions obviously vary. In Chicago with AC and heat, my 16X20 FB prints stay pretty darn flat after hot pressing them without mounting and storing them in flat stacks. Maybe the stack weight is a consideration.

I can't get by with that here and I would think that Chicago would be worse-maybe not. More than once I have had to take a hinged print back from my rep, a buyer or a collector because the print warped when I didn't dry mount it. I wouldn't consider now selling a print un-matted (helps to insure they get presented the way I want them) or un-dry mounted at 16x20.

And for the person who asked above.....my method is identical whether silver or ink. Except in the old days I used the high temp stuff for silver prints. Now I use low temp for both silver and ink. But I have used high temp for ink and they were fine too-just don't cook them longer than you have to.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

I bought a dry mount press locally for cheap and have been dry mounting ever since. I don't have inkjet prints to mount, so this may not pertain to the original question, but rather it may be of use to others. Once I worked out the issues with my method and materials on waste prints, my dry mounted prints all lay beautifully flat. I don't have an abundance of years to say whether or not it will last, but I use buffered "archival" materials like those recommended by people that have done this for many years. I see no reason my process should fail the test of time when I am using essentially the same method as Ansel and others.

[Tin Can]

Kirk, you are a Pro in a different league. I don't sell and I only need to satisfy myself. Your conditions must be a lot dryer than here. All it does is rain in Chicago anymore, 5" a day is becoming common. Winter is dry indoors, but I humidify.

I am going to start mounting large inkjet, RC and FB for the experience and so I can hang from a single point, right now I thumbtack 4 corners. I dislike glass or plastic on top of my prints.




I can't get by with that here and I would think that Chicago would be worse-maybe not. More than once I have had to take a hinged print back from my rep, a buyer or a collector because the print warped when I didn't dry mount it. I wouldn't consider now selling a print un-matted (helps to insure they get presented the way I want them) or un-dry mounted at 16x20.

And for the person who asked above.....my method is identical whether silver or ink. Except in the old days I used the high temp stuff for silver prints. Now I use low temp for both silver and ink. But I have used high temp for ink and they were fine too-just don't cook them longer than you have to.

[Drew Wiley]

For agreeable display circumstances an unmounted print probably won't pass muster. Which type of mounting all depends. But even in a portfolio box, a mounted
print just looks way better. It's another step and expense. My own custom is to drymount my best black and white prints, and just leave the duplicates of secondary ones in boxes. This allows me to precisely trim the composition more precisely than initially, in the masking easel. It gives a safe handling border, and also means the print is one step closer to framing, in the exact proportions and borders I intend. Color prints are a more complicated subject, and I'd hate to start throwing around generic answers, even when the topic is limited just to inkjets. Some inkjets attempt to simulate matte watercolor papers and are perhaps best mounted analogously, with a bit of deckle edge. Others are shiny and would look inappropriate warped. Some are even done on fabric and might be best presented stretched over a frame. ... but RC papers are probably not the best candidate for drymounting per se. You have to use such a low mounting temp that you either
risk bonding failure on a hot day, or will blemish the paper surface at a higher temp. I actually use "Colormount" for fiber-based black and white prints, never for
anything RC.