damaged photographs

A few days ago I met a person who was a model for Imogen Cunningham back in the 60's. She has 15 or so dry mounted prints that Imogen gave her in that era, that were subsequently stored under poor conditions. I would add that an additional factor may simply be that Imogen was not all that dedicated to archival processing. At this point the prints have areas of discoloration and stains, according to the owner. I am assuming not much could be done for them at this stage, other than idealizing storage as much as possible. If they had been mounted with today's heat removable mounting tissue instead of permanent bonding tissues of the era maybe a professional conservator could remove the prints and refix and archivally tone and wash them to arrest further deterioration. But I would like to give her an answer more creditable than my assumptions, so I turn to those of you who likely know a whole lot more than I do about an issue like this. Of course, we are not asking for a digital copy solution--which she may also undertake and many websites offer/address. She is really interested in restoration of her original Cunningham prints. Thanks in advance for any information or advice you may be able to provide!

Not something I would recommend with irreplaceable prints, but I have heard that soaking in solvent like lacquer thinner would release the prints. Then again might create a big mess.

Jon

You may want to contact the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson. They may be able to point you in the right direction.

There is (or, probably, was) a product offered by Seal that was called "Unseal" or something like that. It is/was a solvent for the removal of the Seal mounting tissues, presumably but not necessarily including things like MT-5. I have a can of it that I have never used, so if I can find it I'll see what the label instructions say. I think that it was made after the advent of Material Safety Data Sheets, so it may be possible to find out what the ingredients were even if it is no longer available.

That having been said, consulting almost any professional conservator would seem to be the logical first step.

If they are signed, she should protect her investment by paying for professional evaluation and restoration. If unsigned she should do some homework on what her original ownership provenance can do to solidify them as originals but unsigned with provenance, and then decide on a course of action.

A bit of poking around with Google shows that Seal Unseal has been replaced by Bienfang Unstik. I couldn't find anything relevant to the older style dry mounting tissues, but presumably conservators would know about it.

According to the MSDS, Unstik is pure heptane, which is volatile and flammable (about the same as gasoline). Soaking a mounted print in a bath of it would would definitely not be a casual undertaking, even if the print in question were not an Imogen Cunningham original.

It seems to sell for something like a dollar per fluid ounce, so it must have something to recommend it :)

Working with a strong solvent is simply nuts. The cure might be worse than the
disease, and these kind of solvents are very unhealthy to breathe or touch. This is
a job for a professional conservator, and even in that case you need to do your
homework first, because I've known a few of them to ruin prints too. You'd want the
prints appraised and insured in advance, because there's not only risk involved, but the services of a competent restorer won't come cheap. And make those digital
copies in advance of the whole nine yards.

My guess is that the model owns gifted prints from Imogen, perhaps from a barter arrangement for posing. This was not an unusual way of working for Imogen, an artist of meager means.

The flawed condition of the prints is most likely the result of less than archival practices. Imogen was never considerd a geat darkroom technician. Her son, and assistant, Rondal wrote "her darkroom was in the basement, a miserable confined hell-hole. Her enlargers were a 5x7 Elwood and a 2x3 Eastman Kodak Professional that tended to cook the film."

The prints, most likely, will never be in better than their present state. They are what they are, and possibly not unique in their condition to other works produced over a long career. It might be worth a query to the Imogen Cunningham Trust.

Watch out, like many trusts, the ICT may try to take them from you claiming theft, debunk them as forgeries, or expect some co-ownership of them. For years a lady (who had been assistant to Norman Parkinson, given a load of stuff when he left the UK) had to fight to get recognition from his trust that her prints were originals, valuable, and worth her ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Watch out, like many trusts, the ICT may try to take them from you claiming theft, debunk them as forgeries, or expect some co-ownership of them. For years a lady (who had been assistant to Norman Parkinson, given a load of stuff when he left the UK) had to fight to get recognition from his trust that her prints were originals, valuable, and worth her ownership.

---

I would not have suggested the Trust if I did not know the individuals involved. However, your warning might apply in some cases.

I suggested the Trust because it includes Imogen's assistant who would be familiar with the materials used in the production of the prints; type of tissue, paper and other information helpful to the conservation process.

Before you try anything potentially damaging with solvents, emulsion transfer, etc, you might talk to a film archivist about refixing and rinsing the prints. Ineffective fixing and washing can cause any number of print problems, and sometimes the damage can be halted or otherwise reduced by rinsing those staining chemicals off the print.

Another tip might be the Oakland Museum. They have some of the biggest collections
of this vintage anywhere and could probably give a good conservator referral. I have
failed to keep up my contacts with the photo dept there, although sometimes still
interact with the display dept, so can't give you a specific name. But it's a first class
institution which knows how to care for stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

Another tip might be the Oakland Museum. They have some of the biggest collections
of this vintage anywhere and could probably give a good conservator referral. I have
failed to keep up my contacts with the photo dept there, although sometimes still
interact with the display dept, so can't give you a specific name. But it's a first class
institution which knows how to care for stuff.

---

This is a good idea. They have Imogen's work in their collection. Drew Johnson is the Curator of Photography and is in contact with the Trust. He may be able to give helpful advice.

Believe it or not -- years ago, the Kodak dry mount tissue was very sensitive to COLD.

If you vertically stand a print mounted with this material in a cold, dry area for a week or so, the prints just peal off all by themselves. Honest -- I had to remount a lot of prints back in the 60's because of this.

Also it is possible that the mounting paper could be wax based. It works very well: I have a box I use from time to time and I like better than the newer materials. Whether it is chemically archival or not, who knows, but it will melt off easily in heat.
Regards
Bill

Here is a rather nice site concerning older mounting issues with tissues.
http://cool.conservation-us.org/cool...2/bp12-15.html
Regards
bill

Working with a strong solvent is simply nuts.

Well, this sounds a little extreme; there are safe and effective ways to do most things.

This is a job for a professional conservator, and even in that case you need to do your homework first, because I've known a few of them to ruin prints too.

This, however, is right on the mark. Well said.

I'll do it

Hey Merg, no offence was intended by my comment. I'd hope the trust's members are good-willed individuals, but it's always good to take precautions as "YMMV"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Hey Merg, no offence was intended by my comment. I'd hope the trust's members are good-willed individuals, but it's always good to take precautions as "YMMV"

---

Ash, be assured, no offense taken! I think this group would be safe to approach, but you make a good point.

A friend of mine had a Moonrise extracted from museum board while Ansel was still alive. The board had turned pink. In advance, Ansel agreed to resign the print. Someone in the San Francisco area did the work, insured it first. It was done by heating the dry mount press to some high temperature and cooking the print. Once thoroughly melted, the print was taken from the press and quickly removed from the board. It was then remounted and signed. I realize there is no bringing Imogen back for a signing, but there is a way to remove them without chemicals.

"The prints, most likely, will never be in better than their present state. They are what they are, and possibly not unique in their condition to other works produced over a long career. It might be worth a query to the Imogen Cunningham Trust."

This, from Merg Ross, is probably a good insight into what she has, and since she knows Rondal, I'm sure she would be comfortable approaching the Cunningham Trust. The specific contact information for the Oakland Museum is also very helpful and seems a logical step to offer her. As a side-note, she was a good friend of Imogen as well as a model and as such told a few delightful stories of her recollections of Imogen, Brett Weston, Wynn Bullock and other luminaries of the era.

All of your insights and suggestions are greatly appreciated and will be passed along to her.

Thank you ALL very much!