Digital BW, The Print

In my microscopic experience about signing and/or mounting 
techniques.  

Historians are looking for consistency and changes.
It helps them date pieces.

>It never occurred to me that anyone was still dry mounting images 
>because of the conservation problems that might occur.

I drymount certain formats, especially contact prints and will 
continue to do so.  

This "not dry mounting" thing is absolutely the equivalent in 
argument to archival inks.  It's the archivists pre-occupation.  I 
know personally of a museum curator suggesting removing a silver 
image from a dry mount.  To do so would have DESTROYED the value of 
the artwork from an investment standpoint.  This was an educated 
individual in conservation, NOT in the particular PHOTOGRAPHERS 
habits.  The particulars are more important in the long run.

Edward Weston's work is a good example.  He used a variety of backing 
boards which, therefore, are in various states.  However the shellac 
used to drymount turns out to have been THE BEST barrier from that 
era, so prints can be in fantastic condition and just need the 
attention of a good framer.

A note on signing...again consitency and changes are what becomes 
noted.  Atget rarely, if ever, signed things.  He was not an artist.  
Weston signed front and/or back.  Frederick Sommer for years didn't 
sign images (never on the front, it distracts) until they were to 
leave the house - therefore something unsigned gets further 
examination since his copy prints were so beautiful and were more 
often kept than returned (much to his dissatisfaction).

Cleavis