Digital BW, The Print

Randy,

thanks for an excellent, concise intro to archival framing!

Since you mentioned dry mounting and Adams prints....  I'd like to add
a bit of history:
First, as you say, the term archival isn't just about preventing
yellowing and such, it's also about mounting in a way that is
_reversible_.

Back in the 80's, when I was restoring some original Adams prints I
had to remove them from their dry-mounted board (because they had to
be drum-scanned for a book). I did so by reheating them in a dry mount
press and slowly separating the print from the board.
Not a job for the faint of heart, for sure - the print could have been
torn if the temperature fell below the melting point for the adhesive.
But the important issue here is that the mounting was indeed
"reversible" as well as archival in other ways.

Now, I have been out of the dry mounting business for a while (or of
the un-mounting business!) and don't know what is current. But back
then, Seal offered Fusion 4000 and perhaps other sheets that were made
up of just the adhesive itself (without a tissue to carry the
adhesive) and that adhesive was pH neutral (if memory serves) and
melted at relatively low temperatures. It was quite accepted practice
for silver prints to be dry mounted with such materials. I mention all
this to make the point that "dry mounting" is not monolithic - there
are important variables that can make or break its archival
characteristics.

With inkjet prints, of course, heat is an issue. Yet, I have seen
large B&W inkjets dry-mounted to aluminum and other substrates for
exhibition and sale in high-end galleries. Assuming proper care and
choice of adhesive, dry mounting seems a respectable (and necessary)
way to achieve print flatness in an archival presentation - at least
for those giant prints we seem to make so easily these days!

Antonis

 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Rancier"
<randy_rancier2004@...> wrote:
>
> You've made some good points, you are right though, dry mounting is
less desirable than 
> attaching prints with T-hinges, but if you want large prints to stay
flat and look their 
> "best", dry mounting with the proper materials and techniques is
probably the best 
> technique for me and "should" last as long as the print without
degrading the image.  I 
> believe is good way to go  and more desirable to me than the
alternative of wavy prints.
> 
> I tried to point out which of the techniques were archival and which
were not, obviously 
> any mounting method to anything other than an acid/lignin free Rag
or Alpha board isn't 
> archival.  Not all things need to be "Archival", which depends on
the intended purpose of 
> the image.
> 
> I do doubt that the yellowing of Weston's prints is due to actually
being dry mounted.  
> More than likely due to improper washing or the use of improper dry
mount materials i.e. 
> the board or the dry mount tissue wasn't acid/lignin free.  Could
even be due to the 
> photographic paper itself not being designed to archival standards,
I don't think much 
> thought was given to such things back in the 30's & 40's.  Today we
are blessed with 
> much better materials and research.