Digital BW, The Print

> I've used it for years for presentations, but not for  archival 
> prints . If 
> it IS archival - someone -  please let us know, because it's so 
> easy and always 
> perfect.  No waste, and no machinery or tools needed except the 
little 
> plastic squegee included in the box. If it IS archival, it will 
> save a lot of money 
> & time.
>             Arlene
> www.arlenelove.com

Wilhelm lists it as the preferred method for permanent cold mounting 
polyester based prints (as well as RC based prints) in his standard 
text on colour photographic materials (he also recommends against dry 
mounting for colour and other materials for museum and archive 
collections)

Most Conservators would advise against most forms of dry mounting for 
any kind of photogrpahic (or inkjet) prints for the long term. Aside 
from the general lack of data about the long term effects of the 
adhesives as well as the effectiveness of the adhesives over time, 
the differentials of joining the two surfaces is problematic.

I once saw a lovely Ansel Adams print at the National Gallery of 
Canada which had been kept in non-archival conditions for the first 
part of it's life. Flexing over the years and differential expansion 
and contraction between the print base and the backing mount has led 
to small ripples in it. Even though it was mounted with "standard" 
mounting tissue it proved virtually impossible to repair.

Basically, for long term "archival" storage, just don't dry mount. If 
you dry mount then it isn't "archival" (whatever the manufacturers 
claims might be). Most texts from conservation institutes will advise 
against it. If you are dry mounting for display then it isn't meant 
for long term "archival" storage.