A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

mounting prints ...?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 24th 04, 06:43 PM
Art Reitsch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default mounting prints ...?

As I learned black and white darkroom photography I was shown how to
mount a finished print using mounting tissue, archival matt board, and a
heat press. So the print is permanently mounted to the board. Then the
overmatt is set away from the print rather than overlap it. A frame
shop guy said that any artwork should NEVER be permanently attached to
anything. A friend who does digital color prints said the same thing,
plus while it may be possible to heat press a color print on color
paper, it "can't" be done with plastic "paper". Can't? So I took one
of her throw-away prints on plastic and mounted it on a piece of matt
board, no problem (I did learn not to touch the print with anything
other than white gloves due to fingerprints).
Is there a standard acceptable way to mount prints, and does it depend
on whether it's b/w or color? Or is it just personal preference? I'm
staying with my method regardless, but we're doing a demo on print
mounting at my photo club and I'd like to present alternative methods
along with current opinion on each.
Art

  #2  
Old January 24th 04, 07:12 PM
Mark A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default mounting prints ...?

"Art Reitsch" wrote in message
...
As I learned black and white darkroom photography I was shown how to
mount a finished print using mounting tissue, archival matt board, and a
heat press. So the print is permanently mounted to the board. Then the
overmatt is set away from the print rather than overlap it. A frame
shop guy said that any artwork should NEVER be permanently attached to
anything. A friend who does digital color prints said the same thing,
plus while it may be possible to heat press a color print on color
paper, it "can't" be done with plastic "paper". Can't? So I took one
of her throw-away prints on plastic and mounted it on a piece of matt
board, no problem (I did learn not to touch the print with anything
other than white gloves due to fingerprints).
Is there a standard acceptable way to mount prints, and does it depend
on whether it's b/w or color? Or is it just personal preference? I'm
staying with my method regardless, but we're doing a demo on print
mounting at my photo club and I'd like to present alternative methods
along with current opinion on each.
Art

Museums and collectors, who have large number of prints that are mostly
stored unframed in vaults, and are frequently shipped to other museums,
started the wave against dry mounting. Pretentious photographers who think
their work may end up in a museum have been abandoning dry mounting in
droves. At this point, mounting is now considered a sign that your work is
not collectable as art.

I mount my own prints that I make for myself (that are displayed). If
someone wants a print unmounted, then I provide it that way, but since I
don't deal with museum or pretentious art galleries, I don't really care
what they think.

Color is admittedly somewhat different since the paper lies quite flat even
when not mounted.


  #3  
Old January 24th 04, 08:45 PM
Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default mounting prints ...?

There are 63 million Fine Art photographers whom no one has ever heard of,
myself included, who think that their work is so important it should only be
displayed in the most museum quality mounting imaginable so that posterity will
never miss out on their anonymity. I real life the best way to mount a print is
dependent upon the usage. The rest of us should have our work placed in
cryogenic dark storage and the map to the site destroyed. GRIN

Old museum pieces should never be mounted in such a way that they may be damaged
in an attempt to remount them. A print of which you have the negative? What
difference does it make.

--

Art Reitsch wrote:
As I learned black and white darkroom photography I was shown how to
mount a finished print using mounting tissue, archival matt board, and a
heat press. So the print is permanently mounted to the board. Then the
overmatt is set away from the print rather than overlap it. A frame
shop guy said that any artwork should NEVER be permanently attached to
anything. A friend who does digital color prints said the same thing,
plus while it may be possible to heat press a color print on color
paper, it "can't" be done with plastic "paper". Can't? So I took one
of her throw-away prints on plastic and mounted it on a piece of matt
board, no problem (I did learn not to touch the print with anything
other than white gloves due to fingerprints).
Is there a standard acceptable way to mount prints, and does it depend
on whether it's b/w or color? Or is it just personal preference? I'm
staying with my method regardless, but we're doing a demo on print
mounting at my photo club and I'd like to present alternative methods
along with current opinion on each.
Art


  #4  
Old January 24th 04, 09:09 PM
James Dunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default mounting prints ...?

Art
I was taught the same as you, but that was B&W. When color became more
popular I had to re-think the process because the heat used for dry
mounting was apt to cause the color dyes to shift color. Then Seal came
out with low temp mounting tissue, specifically to help with the temp
problem. Then Kodak raised the temp of the color prossing baths 75
degrees to 100 degrees, implying higher heat stability.

Now I do digital inkjet prints and the temperature problems surfaced
again. Most of the Glossy surfaced papers I have tried have their gloss
ruined by the dry mount process. The gelatin they use to get the gloss
doesn't like the temperature. So I have gone to wet mounting. Matte
surfaces are more stable and seem to hold up to the heat. However, the
latest research at Wilheim group is concerned with longevity. That seems
to be the buz word these days. So I wet mount all my inkjet prints.

I've tried several wet mount materials. The Museum crowd prefer "hinge
mounting" with archival adhesive strips so that the print can be removed
and re-mounted with little fuss. If you must solid mount the print, they
prefer rice or wheat based water soluable pastes. Those pastes are an
absolute mess to work with. You must boil them up from a powder- yech !!
When putting a print in a mat behind glass I hinge mount the print using
a Lineco archive tape. The frame holds it reasonably flat.

If you are not concerned with museum "archival" methods there are
several alternatives. Currently (I change my mind occassionally) I favor
using Yes! paste. That is a brand name. You can get it from
www.dickblick.com or other art supply outlets. It is acid free and is a
thick library type paste that can be applied with a squeege. I apply it
to the back of the print and then position the print on the mounting
board and roll it out. The biggest problem is keeping the adhesive from
the surface of the print. The print is ruined if you get any on the
face. The thinner adhesives run and get on the face very easily.

I mount some prints this way on GatorFoam board and then trim them thru
my table saw and mount them borderless and frameless. I glue (epoxy
usually) four small wooden blocks on the back of the GatorFoam Board &
use eyelets and wire to hang. This causes the borderless picture to
"float" about 3/4 inch away from the wall so that the room light creates
a naturel "drop shadow" on the wall. Everyone who has seen these really
like them. It allows the matte surfaces of some of the inkjet art papers
to really be seen, much better than behind glass.

James

www.ImagesByJamesDunn.com

  #5  
Old January 24th 04, 09:10 PM
Msherck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default mounting prints ...?

The rest of us should have our work placed in
cryogenic dark storage and the map to the site destroyed. GRIN


Well, well! That explains why my wife insists on "filing" my prints herself,
guaranteeing they're in a dark place, and won't tell me where it is. You broke
the code!

Mike


C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.


  #6  
Old January 24th 04, 09:21 PM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default mounting prints ...?

"Tom" tom@localhost wrote
Art Reitsch wrote:
As I learned black and white darkroom photography I was shown how to
mount a finished print using mounting tissue, archival matt board, and a
heat press. So the print is permanently mounted to the board. Then the
overmatt is set away from the print rather than overlap it. A frame
shop guy said that any artwork should NEVER be permanently attached to
anything. A friend who does digital color prints said the same thing,

There are 63 million Fine Art photographers whom no one has ever heard of,
myself included, who think that their work is so important it should only be
displayed in the most museum quality mounting imaginable so that posterity will
never miss out on their anonymity.


There is such a 'Archival Fetish' going on that I often feel like a rebellion
is called for.

It makes me wish to stamp a recycle symbol on the back of my prints; pulling
them from the fix and drying them directly without wasting the water
to wash them.

Though, if someone has paid me a good sum for a print then I confess I
process it as best I can so that it will last a long time if treated well.
I dry mount the print because I think photos look a whole lot better
when they are flat and I want them to stay flat - and that's my artistic
prerogative.

I view the mount board as an integral part of the finished print, just as the
emulsion is an integral part of the photographic paper. If the mount board
is damaged beyond all hope then I believe the chances are the print is ruined
too. I lose no sleep over the issue of separating ruined prints from ruined
mount boards. If the mount is damaged through handling, too bad, it was never
meant to be handled.

Dust to dust. Ashes to ashes.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
  #7  
Old January 25th 04, 02:31 AM
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default mounting prints ...?


"Art Reitsch" wrote in message
...
As I learned black and white darkroom photography I was

shown how to
mount a finished print using mounting tissue, archival

matt board, and a
heat press. So the print is permanently mounted to the

board. Then the
overmatt is set away from the print rather than overlap

it. A frame
shop guy said that any artwork should NEVER be permanently

attached to
anything. A friend who does digital color prints said

the same thing,
plus while it may be possible to heat press a color print

on color
paper, it "can't" be done with plastic "paper". Can't?

So I took one
of her throw-away prints on plastic and mounted it on a

piece of matt
board, no problem (I did learn not to touch the print with

anything
other than white gloves due to fingerprints).
Is there a standard acceptable way to mount prints, and

does it depend
on whether it's b/w or color? Or is it just personal

preference? I'm
staying with my method regardless, but we're doing a demo

on print
mounting at my photo club and I'd like to present

alternative methods
along with current opinion on each.
Art

As others have pointed out the trend away from dry
mounting is from gallery owners. There are both low
temperature mounting tissues quite suitable for RC and color
prints and tissue which allows relatively easy removal of
the print if necessary.
Dry mounting is archival in the sense that the mounting
tissue does not damage the print. For fiber paper it
probably provides some protection to the back of the print.
I think there is nothing else as satisfactory for
_display_ prints as dry mounting. If the print is going to
spend its life in dark storage in a refrigerated vault so
that it will still be here in 500 years, it really doesn't
need any mounting at all.
Currently, dry mounting materials are made by:
Light Impressions (the old Seal line)
http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com

And Hunt-Bienfang: http://www.hunt-corp.com/main.html


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #8  
Old January 25th 04, 03:17 PM
Louie Powell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default mounting prints ...?

Art Reitsch wrote in news:4012AEDF.4010005
@olympus.net:

Is there a standard acceptable way to mount prints, and does it depend
on whether it's b/w or color? Or is it just personal preference? I'm
staying with my method regardless, but we're doing a demo on print
mounting at my photo club and I'd like to present alternative methods
along with current opinion on each.
Art



Art -

This is an emotional issue with a lot of people. Those who are hyper
about archival treatment typically will insist on "floating" the print
between the mount and mat, using either corners or linen tape to hold the
print in position on the mount, and with the mat hinged to the mount. The
reasons for this include:

1. The print can be removed from the mount if the mount is ever damaged.
2. It is theoretically possible that the mount could, over time, release
chemicals that would attack the print. This form of mounting makes it
possible to separate the print from the mount to prevent this problem.
3. An unmounted print, stored in a polyethelene sleeve, requires much
less storage space than a mounted/matted print.

The opposing point of view is that dry mounting is the preferred approach.
Dry mounting can be accomplished either with a heat press and mounting
tissue, or with pressure-sensitive tissues such as those manufactured by
3M. In this approach, there is also a mat that is hinged to the mount.
There is a strong tradition in favor of drymounting - many of the "great"
photographers of the past dry mounted their work and I certainly wouldn't
refuse a gift of an original Ansel Adams print just because it's dry
mounting. The arguments for this approach include:

1. Dry mounting eliminates buckling and wrinkling - and flatter prints
are more visually appealing.
2. The dry mounting tissue provides an archival barrier between the print
and the mount that is not present with float mounting.
3. The mat covers both the mount and the print, and if either the mount
or mat are damaged, the appearance can be restored simply by replacing the
mat.

My experience is that it is possible to dry mount "plastic" prints -
either RC prints or Infochrome. The 3M products do not require heating
and are very easy to use. And there are thermal dry-mount tissues that
are designed for use with RC papers and that fuse at lower temperatures.

It is true that for all practical purposes, dry mounting is permanent. In
theory, you can disolve dry mounting adhesives by soaking the mounted
print in acetone. I don' think I would want to be bothered.

Bottom line: consider the options, and make a choice. There really are
no hard rules.

Louie
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanning prints to touch up and print Bob Williams Digital Photography 0 June 24th 04 08:22 AM
Not happy with prints from Kodak T400CN Phil Film & Labs 5 May 27th 04 03:25 PM
Where to get real (i.e. non-digital) color prints? David Nebenzahl In The Darkroom 8 May 14th 04 08:11 AM
QUESTION: DRY MOUNTING LARGE GLOSSY PRINTS Michael Bonnycastle In The Darkroom 6 April 2nd 04 04:00 PM
Question on morning setup prints in Noritsu 1801 Mike Film & Labs 0 December 16th 03 09:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.