Mounting prints that have a persistent stiff curl

[Alaska]

Yes there are issues with a number of materials.  But considering the cost and the need to not make it archival the choice is towards less costly materials.  I can understand the needs of some to make the print last for 500 years.  Some clients may desire to pay that extra cost.  Others do not, and will opt for being on the cheap side.

What is interesting is that if we look at the master painters I would bet none of them had any concern about the archival quality of their work.  Some paintings made it while others did not.  And here 300 to 700 years later we are now preoccupied with the archival qualities of prints and data.  And using water based colors on plaster walls - was that a good idea?  i.e. disaster is just one earthquake away.

For inkjet prints it is not a one of a kind print issue.  i.e. a real painting is one of one   If the inkpet print fades, or otherwise self destructs then just print another one and go on with life.  The client gets a new print and you are out five bucks worth of paper and ink.

In my case I charge under fifty bucks for a 17 x 24 print (not mounted) with no guaranties.  If they paid $250 for that then there would be a concern to use some other language that would specify and define what archival really is.  It would then be important to see if the paper and ink had any archival qualities and specify a remedy if there is a failure.

In general, some print makers will make an issue of archival, while other will not.  The choice, as I see it, is between the photographer, the client and their checkbook.

Jim

[Jim_H_WY]

That all makes good sense.

I suppose it comes down to "how" archival we're talking.

It would be cheap and easy to just cut a piece of Masonite and then use spray glue to mount one of these prints to it.  The result should look nice and be easy to hang, etc.  
So it's an attractive way to go.

But if the print turns to some ghastly color in six months, then it probably wasn't worth the effort.  If it lasts ten years, then it probably was.

It'd be nice to know approximately how long things would last, but there are so many materials, glues, and other variables that it's kind of hard to even guess sometimes

Jim H.

[Alaska]

That all makes good sense.

It'd be nice to know approximately how long things would last, but there are so many materials, glues, and other variables that it's kind of hard to even guess sometimes :)

Jim H.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are very correct.....

Even with a tested material one can never be sure as conditions the print is exposed to is beyond the control of the photographer.  

And we would all like to know if the 3M glue or the Walmart glue will last beyond the end of the day.  Groups do test, but in the long run those "tested" products will cost more.  And in many cases, a lot more just for the knowledge that it is a better product.  You and I can only make a best guess estimate and move forward.

As an example, did a quick test of IJA MC Luster with iPF5000 inks.  No issues with running water.  A 12 hour soak did make the ink soft and easy to rub off.  After drying (the paper is now warped) the ink is once again rub proof.  And have a sample in a south facing window for a month.  No color change from the covered to non covered side.  Good scientific controlled tests - not by a long shot!  But is good information to know in place of real scientific information.  Helpful, maybe!

Jim

[Let Biogons be Biogons]

For inkjet prints it is not a one of a kind print issue.  i.e. a real painting is one of one   If the inkpet print fades, or otherwise self destructs then just print another one and go on with life.  The client gets a new print and you are out five bucks worth of paper and ink.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that for museum quality prints and photographic collectors, you might want it to be "archival", which in this context usually means about 100 years -- this level of performance is what Canon and HP have been trying to catch up with Epson on over the past couple of years.   Alot of the quality paper and ink combinations these days reach that standard.  If I have made the effort to assure that the print is archival, then I am not going to mount it on something that is not and potentially ruin the print over time.  I'm not going to worry about another $1 or so if it ensures that the mount is archival.  Masonite is nice because it is nice and stiff, but if using is going to affect the print over time, I will look for something else (like quality foam core or mat board).