print mounting

[shaun]

Hi

There has been mention of de-rollers home made and otherwise. I have done some 24" print on sheet paper (Hahn photo rag) which lies flat on a table but when viewed behind glass from the side it can be seen that it doesn't lie perfectly flat. I haven't gone the whole way with the hinged method of mounting as I couldn't figure how the prints could possibly lie flat without some method of gluing. Is dry mounting an option for archival use to get perfectly flat prints or any other?

Shaun

[photographist]

Good day...

  Dry mounting by definition and by the nature of the processes defeat the goal of archival presentation.  One of the goals is to be able to remount the work of art at some point in the future without loss of image or material.    To de-curl, I usually simply allow the print to lay flat in a drawer (or covered) for 24/48 hours.  To mount, I've had success using a combination of T mount and archival corners (3") along with the sandwich matt technique.       The largest print I've used this approach on is 17x52.  I also used a couple of plastic "retainers" along the long edge to keep the print from swinging too much.  This print was shipped across the country and arrived in good shape.

Hope that helps!

Jeffrey  Van der Koon

[larryg]

I have been mounting with a vacu-mount press  (low temps)  which is definately flat.  But the more I have been thinking about how to present my images I believe the hinge mount would be best used (except exceptionaly large images)  for archival and longevity purposes.

I will mounting using the t-mount procedure and then use atg tape on the mattes to hold them tight together.  You can always pry the mattes apart and be able to remount the image without any damage.

[larryg]

I have been mounting with a vacu-mount press  (low temps)  which is definately flat.  But the more I have been thinking about how to present my images I believe the hinge mount would be best used (except exceptionaly large images)  for archival and longevity purposes.

I will mounting using the t-mount procedure and then use atg tape on the mattes to hold them tight together.  You can always pry the mattes apart and be able to remount the image without any damage.


to flatten  I have been putting the image on a flat surface, cover with tissue paper then putting another matte or cardboard on top with some kind of weights on top.  24 hours usually works.

I am intrigued by the D-Roller and may give it a try   but am concerned with cracking or other damage to the image. (have only heard a few reports of such issues)

[framah]

Remember, do not hinge onto the back of the mat!! This technique opens the possibility of damaging the print as you lift the mat... especially if the mat is adhered to the backer.  Always hinge onto the back board.

[bill t.]

There is a nasty catch with hinge mounting.  Sooner or later, the piece will almost certainly warp and curl so noticeably that the owner will decide to have it dry mounted or glued or otherwise laid flat.  This happens a lot.  Maybe very small prints on 300+GSM paper are the exception, maybe not.  Personally I feel that wobbly prints degrade the image, or that somehow "archival" is so valued that presentation should be compromised.

I have been amused that "archival" does not seem to view sagging induced warping as objectionable.  I think it messes up prints more than it preserves them.

FWIW I've got quite a few prints dry mounted 50+ years ago, they still look great.

[whawn]

Dry mounting by definition and by the nature of the processes defeat the goal of archival presentation.  One of the goals is to be able to remount the work of art at some point in the future without loss of image or material.

I once, successfully, argued to a curator that the whole debate over mounting can be by-passed simply by redefining the 'work' as the printed image mounted on the substrate.  It does bring up the whole issue of whether the assemblage is 'archival' and so on, but he agreed that if the artist documents using recognized materials he could see the logic.  

And, such an idea makes 'remounting' very simple and easy, and it would let us use lighter weight papers.

Now, to get all the world to agree with the proposition....

[framah]

If a print is hinged properly, it does not sag. The procedure is to place the hinges about 1/4 of the way in from the corners of the print. This allows the paper to expand and contract with minimal "warping" or bowing out . Anytime a hinge is put at the corners, it forces all of the paper to expand in towards the center which accentuates the results and the paper will tend to sag as it isn't properly balanced.

To clarify a bit... a long print would likely need to have another hinge in the center as well.
For the majority of prints 2 are enough. Never tape along the whole top of the paper!! That will cause all sorts of ripples and make a pretty mess of things.

I also use corner pockets to hold stuff as well.  If you hinge the art, then the pockets at the bottom will help support it and also as sort of a backup in case the hinge fails.



As for this: "I have been amused that "archival" does not seem to view sagging induced warping as objectionable. I think it messes up prints more than it preserves them."

The term archival has to do with the integrity of the piece, not how it looks.  Plus the warping can be reversed and made flat so that would still make it archival. The idea of archival is to not do anything that would alter the physical or "chemical" makeup of the piece. Dry mounting does that but warping does not.

I think archival  is important when you are looking at a piece that has a high value on the secondary market.  If a piece is worth $10,000, then, yes I would use archival methods to mount it. If a piece is worth $50 and the customer wants me to mount it archivally, then by all means. Whatever the customer wants to pay for.

That said, I agree with you that a wavy print bothers me as well which is why all of my photos are dry mounted and as you say, look alot better for it.  Personally, i'm a little suspicious of someone touting about the archivalness of their work.  If your work sells for $1,000, you might think you are at the level where archival is important to the customer... but you really aren't.

Just a few thoughts from the field.

[bill t.]

Should also be mentioned that in regards to really expensive prints, museums view archival mounting as temporary only.  When not on display the print lays in a chemically inert box.  For that kind of stuff, not only do you keep the lights down low, but you also don't physically stress the piece with long term "archival" mounting.