Dry mount vs tape

[Herb Cunningham]

I did a search on this forum and did not see a discussion of the topic.

Some galleries do not want you to dry mount, saying it is a problem with buyers, the idea being it cannot be undone.

anybody have some wisdom on this? Michael Smith dry mounts, and I seem to remember Brett Weston also dry mounted.

Wazzup with this?

[D. Bryant]

I did a search on this forum and did not see a discussion of the topic.

Some galleries do not want you to dry mount, saying it is a problem with buyers, the idea being it cannot be undone.

anybody have some wisdom on this? Michael Smith dry mounts, and I seem to remember Brett Weston also dry mounted.

Wazzup with this?
This topic has been open to end less debate. In the end I think the photographer should choose how they present their work.

For me personally I prefer silver gelatin prints to be dry mounted. One reason that galleries don't want dry mounted prints is that they use more storage space.

[tim atherton]

the main reason is that most of the standards for archival storage (LoC, ANSI i think etc) don't consider dry mounting as acceptable

[Bruce Watson]

Some galleries do not want you to dry mount, saying it is a problem with buyers, the idea being it cannot be undone.

anybody have some wisdom on this?

Maybe, maybe not. I did a fair amount of research into this a few years back. What I remember is that it's a mixed bag.

The reason that galleries and museums don't like dry mounting is that you can't redily undo it. So if you dry mount to an art board that later has problems, you are sort of screwed. If you hinge mount you don't have this problem. Mostly. Sorta. Depends on what happened to the mount board you hinged to and if anything migrated from the mount board to the print.

But... you have other problems. Particularly with print flatness, which is a presentation issue. And with, ironically, archivability.

The arguements about "archivability" will go on for some time. But it seems to come down to this. Dry mounting has the interesting side effect of protecting the back of the print. If the print is fiber, this is actually meaningful and can extend the life of the print. It does this by providing a barrier that hold back atmosperic pollution, and often slows down acid attack of the print through it's buffering.

So even though you can't reverse a dry mount, it still protects the print and may increase the longevity of the print.

My take on it then is artists' choice. It's only the galleries' choice if you let them make it. Just like image size, paper choice, chemistry, toner, how you dodge/burn - it's your image; it's your choice.

[Tom Westbrook]

Wilhel Research has an interesting article on this with some recommendations: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_11_of_20_HiRes_v1a.pdf

[Tom Westbrook]

BTW, I dry mount because I assume no one will care a hundred years from now.

[Kirk Gittings]

Over the years I have sold around 150+ images to museums. All of the silver gelatin prints were dry mounted, none of the cibachromes, c prints or pigmet ink prints were.

[claudiocambon]

I don't dry-mount for the following reasons, correct or erroneous:

1. hard to undo
2. materials of different densities expand and contract at different rates with changes in humidity and temperature. I don't want to risk the emulsion of the image being stretched or otherwise stressed by being married to the mat board.

[Kirk Gittings]

Claudio, as per number 2. I have "visited' my prints all over the country and have had traveling exhibits that went all over, some of it was mounted 36 years ago. I have never seen this problem.

Nor, by the way all, have I ever got a single negative comment from a museum or collector about drymounting.

[claudiocambon]

I know, it's commitment-phobia on my part...:D

[Kirk Gittings]

I understand.

Too me dry mounting, though a pain in the a__, solves far more problems than it creates. For instance, I live in the SW. If I ship a hinged framed print to Chicago for a show in the summer, it will display distinct warping from the humidity change. Not so with a properly done dry mounted print (4 or 8 ply foam core backed with plenty of springs to keep it falt in the frame. I would have to ship the hinged print weeks earlier to climatise or ship it unframed or take it out of the frame for awhile once it arrives to let the humidity even out. Same problem when I get it back to NM.

[Stephen Willard]

Every print that I have taped has eventually separated and slipped down behind the matting. I have tried many different types of tapes, and they always separate. Every print that I have taped has buckled. If you use high gloss color papers, the buckling is extremely noticeable and has a huge negative impact on sales. The bigger the print the greater the buckling.

I have prints over 30 years old that were drymounted without any problems.

[Doug Howk]

My dry-mount press is only 12X15, so for anything larger I've started using self-adhesive mounting board. But for alt process prints usually float-mounted, mounting becomes trickier. Framing 4 Yourself (http://www.framing4yourself.com/tips/tips-07.htm) site recommends using tape suspended thru slit in back mat. I've also seen bookbinding tape (eg, FilmoPlast) used on very light paper.

[Turner Reich]

Even Edward Weston dry mounted.

[tim atherton]

Even Edward Weston dry mounted.

and I've seen a number of Westons with conservation problems complicated by the dry mounting.

I have prints over 30 years old that were drymounted without any problems.

Which isn't entirely relevant. The problems with the non-reversibility of dry mounting may not occur until after 75 or 100 years - which of course may not be a problem most of us think applies to our work... :) (though they could also occur after 5...)

The point being that considering whether something meets archival standards takes a much longer and broader view, taking all sorts of conditions and events and possibilities into consideration. It may be that at 95 years the dry mount board deterioration begins to accelerate while the print is fine. You have a problem. Also, disaster recovery is an important issue with archival standards - fire, flood etc. a pipe may burst or a river flood its banks (they are still fixing artifacts after the river Arno burst it's banks in Florence in 1966). Now, a tape mounted print may possibly be rewashed, cleaned and flattened - it's standard conservation work. One mounted to a wrinkled crud soaked board (or even just a damp board) may be toast.

Now, none of this may be of concern to someone who is only worried about their prints doing well for 30 or 50 years (and indeed, they may face no problems for much much longer than that - the operative word being may) or for someone who figures the buyer will keep the print up for one iteration of their current decor but wants the print to look its absolute best for that time. But that isn't what archival standards are concerned with.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree with Tim on this one.

Someone will no doubt point out that it is possible to unmount a print mounted with low-temperature drymount tissue, if necessary, but imagine you've got that hypothetical Weston on a moldy board and you don't know what kind of tissue he used, and maybe the paper is more brittle than it was when he mounted it. Are you ready to put it in the press, and slip release paper under a corner to get it off?

In any case, at the Weston show at Howard Greenberg a few years ago, most of the prints were corner mounted for the show. I assume they were originally loose prints.

[Stephen Willard]

Hmm...

Here is a data point for all of you.

35 years ago I made a color print using a cheap home color kit from a color negative. In those days chromegenic materials were very unstable and in there beginnings of development. Recently, I stumbled on that photograph framed in high acidic materials and drymounted. Back in those days I do not think you get acid free materials easily or affordably. The print has been in dark storage most of its life, but with no concern about a place that is dry and cool. It has lived in hot humid environments as well as dry environments. And guess what, it is perfect condition. The matting has turn slightly brown like an old newspaper does, but the print is perfect.

Perhaps this archival stuff is not as critical as everyone makes it out to be. Research shows that chromegenic materials do worse in dark storage then on display away from direct sunlight, yet 35 years later, the print is still pristine.

Go figure!

[Don Wallace]

BTW, I dry mount because I assume no one will care a hundred years from now.

Tom, maybe I should dry mount then, because no one cares about my stuff even now. Chuckle.

[tim atherton]

Originally Posted by Tom Westbrook
BTW, I dry mount because I assume no one will care a hundred years from now.

Tom, maybe I should dry mount then, because no one cares about my stuff even now. Chuckle.

which for many people is pretty much the point.

my post above is to try and show why those whose concerns go beyond this don't see dry-mounting as meeting international archival standards - those standards are concerned with a much broader range of issues than affect most of us. But that's what the (shorthand) "archival" means. It may indeed well be that such standards have no application to yours or my current practices.

[Ralph Barker]

How about a large rubber stamp - "dry mounted for convenience of display only" - that could be applied to the face of the print, like "Proof"? Then, keep a supply of unmounted prints in archival envelopes for collectors. ;)