Dry mounting Epson Photo Quality Ink Jet paper

In article , wrote:

Do not dry mount anything you care about. Even if the process is
`perfect' it makes it impossible to to remove the work from the
backing if re-mounting is needed in the future.

That's simply not true. Modern archival mounting tissue can be removed
by simple reapplication of heat. Hinges and paste, or linen tape, often
must be trimmed from the print with a knife -- I have often been quite
amused to hear this slicing away of part of the print as evidence of a
"reversible" mounting process. Sure, you can _supposedly_ soak or steam
rice paste away (_supposedly_ without damaging the gelatin emulsion that's
sitting right next to it -- ha!) which I consider about as likely as
reversing a dry-mounting job done with traditional (not modern "archival")
tissue: possible, but very difficult and failure-prone at best.

The only truly reversible "mounting" process is use of corners, whether
paper or intert plastic, with inert adhesive. The problem, of course,
is that these don't reliably hold large, heavy, highly flexible prints
in place, much less flat, over long periods of time; in other words, they
are reversible, but they aren't much by way of _mounting_. Meanwhile,
there is considerable evidence that modern dry mounting techniques,
coupled with modern archival boards, actually _protect_ prints from
contamination all too common in display environments by removing the
opportunity for contaiminants to reach 50% of the total surface area of
the print itself (the back).

I have come around to the point of view that prints that will be
displayed, then, should be dry-mounted; while prints for archival storage
should not be mounted _at all_. You just can't have it both ways.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud

"Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Do not dry mount anything you care about. Even if the process is
`perfect' it makes it impossible to to remove the work from the
backing if re-mounting is needed in the future.

That's simply not true. Modern archival mounting tissue can be removed
by simple reapplication of heat. Hinges and paste, or linen tape, often
must be trimmed from the print with a knife -- I have often been quite
amused to hear this slicing away of part of the print as evidence of a
"reversible" mounting process. Sure, you can _supposedly_ soak or steam
rice paste away (_supposedly_ without damaging the gelatin emulsion that's
sitting right next to it -- ha!) which I consider about as likely as
reversing a dry-mounting job done with traditional (not modern "archival")
tissue: possible, but very difficult and failure-prone at best.

The only truly reversible "mounting" process is use of corners, whether
paper or intert plastic, with inert adhesive. The problem, of course,
is that these don't reliably hold large, heavy, highly flexible prints
in place, much less flat, over long periods of time; in other words, they
are reversible, but they aren't much by way of _mounting_. Meanwhile,
there is considerable evidence that modern dry mounting techniques,
coupled with modern archival boards, actually _protect_ prints from
contamination all too common in display environments by removing the
opportunity for contaiminants to reach 50% of the total surface area of
the print itself (the back).

I have come around to the point of view that prints that will be
displayed, then, should be dry-mounted; while prints for archival storage
should not be mounted _at all_. You just can't have it both ways.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of
common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel!
You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud


Take a look at this.

http://www.pictureframingmagazine.co...ramingTalk.asp

--
Otzi