FWIW I have over 200 prints in museum collections-most of them purchased from me-almost all of them dry mounted. Not once has any curator mentioned an issue with dry mounting. Not even a single word on the subject in 38 years. The same goes with sales to public art programs.Originally Posted by LabRat
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I have done work in museum services... Sometimes an issue has come up when they are faced with a print that can't be released from the decaying mount, that can't be exposed to the conventional release methods... (Like paste mounted dye-transfers with vermin eaten rotting mounts that can't be soaked off etc...) But true, most modern standard DWFB's heat mounted can be re-inserted into a press and "popped" off later, so less sweat... But some curators are aware that if an important work's mount has been damaged by the usual suspects, there are options they would rather not use (if possible)...
Steve K
If you are mounting fiber base prints then MT-5 would be fine but I would recommend you try Drytac Trimount. It is a solvent acrylic heat activated adhesive. Archivalmount is a polyethylene thermoplastic and only offers a mechanical bond which is not strong enough to hold the corners in many cases. The same is true with D&K which is a thermal plastic. The key is to find the temperature setting that activates the adhesive and sets quickly before the corners have a chance to pop. Thermal plastics have have a very short cooling off period and loose tack almost as soon as you remove them from the heat source. Solvent acrylics bond as they heat up and have a longer cooling off period during which they remain tacky enough to keep the corners bonded. But in either case we're talking about mere seconds and fractions of seconds. Never ever use release boards. They act like insulation and slow the drymounting process. Instead use cover sheets and release paper and place everything in the press at once as a sandwich. Hot cover sheets will begin the mounting process before you even close the press. Drymount press thermostats are notoriuously inaccurate for several reasons which is why testing is important. And it does not take much weight to keep your prints flat. A piece of 1/8" masonite or aluminum is enough. The important thig is to remove the print quickly and place it face down on a piece of clean release paper with your weight on top.
When you use this two-pass technique do you cool the first half under weight before heating the second half?
I use BufferMount, or whatever it's called now with great success. In 35 years I've had about three prints that have had problems and those got remounted.
Here's my technique FWIW:
First, I don't use weights; it takes too long to lay the print down and get weight on it. After the boards have been dried previously in the press, I tack the print to the board. The press is heated and has a 4-ply board and a sheet of cotton-rag 1-ply interleaving in it heating with it. The press gets opened, one hand lifts the interleaving sheet and the print slides in between the board and the 1-ply (with the one ply on top). The press is then closed. After the requisite time (do test for this), the print is removed together with the sandwich of board and cover sheet. It slides out quickly onto the flat counter top at which time I use my cotton-gloved hands to press the print to the board while it's cooling. I pay attention to the corners and edges. After about a minute of cooling, I give the mat board a twist in both directions. if the print pops off anywhere, it goes into the dry-mount press again and the process is repeated. After a while, you'll get the right technique down and not have to return any prints to the press. This works fine for two-pass mounting as well.
The advantage to using the removable tissue is that mistakes can be easily corrected. For example, if the print is improperly positioned or the board later gets damaged. I've removed and mounted several prints (largely due to my mounting mistakes, i.e., getting the borders wrong) with 100% success. The board the print is removed from is no longer usable (unless you can cut a window mat from it), but the print mounts fine with new tissue.
FWIW, I sign all my prints lightly with pencil on the reverse before mounting so that, in the event that they ever need remounting by the owner, the provenance will be clear.
I've never tried the DryTac Trimount product, but after a quick perusal of their website, find the product interesting but it doesn't seem to be removable. I think I'll stick with BufferMount just for that reason.
Hope this helps,
Doremus
I am on the fence and I see both points.
I prefer mounted prints any day of the week, I absolutely hate seeing wavy prints
But I just delivered a show of silver prints that were not mounted as per request of the Gallery , other than the two very large murals that needed to be mounted.
Today I give super wide borders on any silver image, and I mount to a 2 ply rag using current heat tissue. this seems to work well for my work.
I remember going to Light Impressions in the late 70's and seeing an Ansel Adams show where all the edges, or most were lifting or chipping, he cut the window matt around a flush mounted print for his signature.
That was enough for me to stop mounting and presenting work this way, in fact it was the standard method at my college to present work.
I simply don't like the look of unmounted prints overmatted at the edges. Plus, carbon prints usually have thicker gelatin than silver and they curl much more than anything else.
I have a Seal press that is smaller than my 8x20's. With the old style tissue I never had any problems mounting oversize prints by releasing the press, moving the print, reclamping etc. That technique doesn't work with this new 'archival' stuff. Even with prints that do fit in my press I do not like the way the new stuff works, I always feel it will release at some point in the future.
What is the mount tissue that is the closest in performance and workflow to the 'old' style mount tissue? It's fine if it's permanent - I don't care what curators think.
There are times when change is bad. This is one of them.
I haven't had a bonding failure in decades, nor a print ever damaged in the process. I have used Colormount the whole time (at least for typical fiber-based silver gelatin paper), museum board, and the same big 500T Seal press. I am familiar with the other tissue options as well as both wet mounting and various kinds of aggressive adhesive bonding, and know when to hypothetically use them. Drymounting is far easier. And I already stated why a buffered version or tissue is utterly redundant. My specific technique is a little different than most. I have demonstrated it in my lab to others, but could if necessary describe it. But pre-drying (without overdrying and making the emulsion brittle, or the board downright hot) is critical to any of these. There is a picture in Wilhelm of a cracked AA drymounted print due overdrying, along with careless transport. Well, badmouthing drymounting due to something like that is like telling people to never drive a BMW because someone once ran into a tree with one. The print would have been ruined regardless, due to crease marks at a minimum; and for
all I know, Ansel or one of his assistants might have been using a press with a bad thermostat. But for the record, he used Colormount too, and I've never heard
an instance a curator turned down an AA print for either display or collection because it happened to be drymounted!! ... or anyone else's prints for that reason.
There are certain photo media like Pt/Pt on rag paper which are more esthetically pleasing tipped-in or hinge-floated like a watercolor painting rather than
drymounted, as well as certain medium like albumen and dye transfer which are actually damaged by alkaline buffering. Nonbuffered board is made for these
too. Sometimes "archival" CaCO3 buffering is just a marketing trick for selling otherwise inferior matboard or mounting board.
I echo what Kirk said. Preheat the print and board. Living in the humid south can affect print adhering, so I run a dehumidifier when it is humid, and a humidifier in the winter. The helps too with print storage.
I use color mount also, and had done a time/temp study to find the proper settings. I have one of the older 220 presses that is silver, and no temperature gauge. Too high a temperature will affect the print. So test to get the right ratio.
I once spoke to somebody at Seal (when it was still Seal) and they said the newer presses did not heat evenly, and never trust the thermometer on the newer presses. When Seal/Bienfang was purchased by Elmers the mount tissue changed. I have heard from many people that the newer material does not work as well, and they have had to change to another tissue. I found that when I switched to the new color mount I had to increase the time. I have had the edges not adhere, but never been successful sticking the print back in and getting it to stick.
The other possible cause is the pressure that is applied. Is the pad fairly new, or an old one? I use 4 ply board and have one board on top of the print and two under the print to insure good pressure.
After mounting I quickly inspect the edges to see that they are stuck, and then place the print between two pieces of board then with a piece of birch plywood on top. I then use two 25 lb dumbbells on top of the board and let it cool.
Mike
The new Colormount is actually made in China, and yeah, given my well-founded suspicion of anything outsourced these days, I'll thoroughly test it on scrap prints
before using it for my good ones. It is branded D&K, along with Seal. I haven't heard any specific complaints yet; but I never trust anything I haven't personally
tested.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks