From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 03/20/02-08:01:26 PM Z
Kerik,
Remember, I am only considering mounting the carbon prints on
photographic fiber papers, not those I do on art papers. In this case
the permanence of the board can not be an issue since one can obtain
mounting board of better quality than the photographic paper itself.
The issue is then primarily one of the glue. Now, reasonable and
informed people can and do differ on many things. However, the bottom
line of this issue is long term survival. And with all due respect to
the museum conservators, if I were to bet on which of two prints is
most likely to survive for a hundred years, one made on single weight
photographic paper and not mounted, or one made on photographic paper
and dry mounted on a 2-ply or 3-ply board, I would tend place my
money on the mounted print. Yes, it is a trade-off in terms of
long-term risks but my instinct comes down on the side of the mounted
piece.
Sandy King
>Sandy,
>
>I see your point, but it assumes trust in the manufacturers that the
>tissue and board will stand the test of time. I've had two different
>museum conservators take my platinum workshops and the thought of dry
>mounting any photographs made them both shudder. Admitedly, their
>difficult experiences were mostly with very old dry mounted photos from
>a time when the term "archival" wasn't on the tip of everyone's tongue,
>and mounting materials were marginal at best. But they were both
>adamant that the artwork should always be easily removed from the
>support. We can all hope that today's archival mounting and matting
>materials will live up to the maufacturer's claims, but only our
>grandchildren will know for sure... I suggest anyone dry mounting their
>prints at least use a "reversible" tissue to make it easier on
>conservators in the next century.
>
>The only time I've dry mounted platinum prints is with a transluscent
>parchment paper that I use that wrinkles mercilously after it's been
>processed. I use Light Impressions Heat-Tac tissue for this purpose
>because it is very white rather than the yellowish tint of Seal
>products. The color of the tissue and support is imortant with
>translucent papers, of course... I dry-mount these prints to a more
>substantial paper like Rising Stonehenge. The cream color Stonehenge
>gives a very nice hue to a platinum print on transluscent paper. I like
>using paper for this purpose rather than mattboard because the print
>still feels like a print in my hands. Another reason I don't like prints
>dry mounted to mattboard is that I love the feel of a loose alt-process
>print. The tactile qualities of the paper are important to me, even if
>the print may spend most of it's life in a matt and frame.
>
>Just my opinion...
>Kerik
>www.Kerik.com
>
>Sandy King wrote:
>>
>> Kerik,
>>
>> Assuming that the dry mounting tissue is safe for the print and mat
>> support, and that the mat is of good quality, the board itself will
>> an extra protection by its mere physical presence and is not
>> otherwise harmful to the print. This would seem self-evident as
>> bigger, heavier things are almost always harder to damage or destroy
>> than smaller, lighter things.
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST