3M 568 adhesive

[dwood]

I've been mounting my prints with t-hinges but seem to have varying degrees of success with this method, especially on larger prints (waves, ripples etc.). I've never used 3M 568 but on paper, (pardon the pun) it looks like it may be worth trying. Anyone here using this stuff? Like it? Hate it?

- Doug

[Gemmtech]

Looks like a nice product, I use 3M 77, no room for error, but I love it, I rarely if ever make a mistake with it and it stays forever.

[Colorwave]

Looks like a nice product, I use 3M 77, no room for error, but I love it, I rarely if ever make a mistake with it and it stays forever.

Not my experience in using 77 for many years for display purposes.  I think that it is the best aerosol spray adhesive on the market, but like all spray adhesives available in a can, susceptible to drying out and getting brittle, as well as vulnerable to heat.  It begins to soften and loose it's bond when the temperature gets up into the 80's (probably more so when fresh than over time), and dries out after a year or two and becomes unstable.  I find it convenient, and use it for short term applications, but would never trust it for fine art.  I like to spray both surfaces and let the solvent flash of for a bit before sticking the pieces together, but have seen too many bubbles and failures over time for permanent use.

The 568 sounds like an interesting product.  I'd love to hear if anybody has experience with it over time for fine art.

[bill t.]

Have had relatively poor results from adhesive based products, including various Drytac transfer adhesives and solvent based sprays.  Bubbles and peeling up edges have all bedeviled me, even disregarding problems with mounting in the first place.  And the 3M transfer adhesives I was using 30 years ago on Type R prints first turned to gooey slime, then oozed out, then hardened into uselessness over just a few years.  Have seen much greater longevity from PVA glues, wallpaper glue, and properly done dry mounting (which requires pre-heating).  Perhaps I am biased by early versions of products that may (or may not) have improved over time, but I just don't feel that adhesives are trustworthy.

Should have also be said that good ol' 77 Spray will get the archivalists stirred up like a hornets' nest.

[Paul2660]

After looking at the link, you have what is more commonly called PMA, positional mounting adhesive.  I believe it's the same
material that 3M has sold for many years.  I have used it on and off, and had mixed results.   One batch I got definately didn't
have the same tack as I was used to and it caused some problems down the road.  

It is easy to apply, less mess than Super 77, but on the expensive side IMO.  You don't need a press to use it, 3M give very good
instructions on how to apply.  

Paul Caldwell

[ghaynes754]

See the Bill Atkinson video.  On his larger sizes he T-Hinges followed by clear archival corner mounts.  That should solve your issues.  T-hinges on large photos just don't typically have the total load ability that you need.  I would avoid mounting the print permanently if you want an archival product.  The purpose of the t-hinge/corners is to allow a print to be changed out if the mounting material/mat get damaged.  If you use adhesive and something happens with mount board your print loses value and your are SOL.

[Clearair]

See the Bill Atkinson video.  On his larger sizes he T-Hinges followed by clear archival corner mounts.  That should solve your issues.  T-hinges on large photos just don't typically have the total load ability that you need.  I would avoid mounting the print permanently if you want an archival product.  The purpose of the t-hinge/corners is to allow a print to be changed out if the mounting material/mat get damaged.  If you use adhesive and something happens with mount board your print loses value and your are SOL.

I have just returned from the London Art Fair.

I went to look at the standard and also the methods of presentation used by galleries.

It was a pleasant surprise to see quite a bit of photo generated art work. MUCH of which was mounted flat onto diabond etc. While I aspire to museum archival quality there is a case for certain pieces to be permanently mounted for presentation and to get a look pertinent to the subject.

Acrylic bonded, quite a few of these on show and where the artist or gallery have got the right idea on content its effect is stunning. Straight onto a metal or other strong substrata was also much in evidence. More fragile and this would worry me. The point is that these methods are in use on work thats collectable and has reputations at stake in the art world with eye watering asking prices.

I have tried heat adhesives in sheet form with limited success on fine art papers and am waiting for something that requires much less heat and pressure to maintain the textures on papers I like.
I don't like sprays.
I visited one of those tiny shops that have more stock than floor space in early 09 and the laid back staff mentioned and sold me some Herma transfer adhesive on a 31 cm roll. It is laid onto the art work of substrata and peeled off leaving a dimpled layer of gum like adhesive. 24 hour re-positonal before setting (still a bit tough to get off though ) and works a charm when you are practiced.
Only comes in sheets or maximum 31 cm in roll 20 m lengths........
The distributers claim it's used by some museums and is archival safe.
Hermas website does have adhesive details but I have not found them and they are supposed to be sent to me.

For large pieces you have to align several lengths to cover the work and try not to leave a gap if the paper is on the thin side as it may show as not totally flat.

I would be interested in any other easy to apply products, bearing in mind that the UK does not have the range of choice that the US has.

Regards

[dwood]

Thanks for the replies folks. While I've never tried the sprays, I think I'd prefer to steer clear of that.

I currently use the t-hinge/corners method but have occasional problems with this on larger prints, thus the reason why I'm interested in this 3M (or similar) product. That Herma product sounds similar to the 3M 568. Good to hear that it works well.

Maybe I'll grab a roll of this stuff and experiment a bit.

[framah]

The 3M product, which is known as PMA or positional mounting adhesive, will work on small stuff up to about 24" square. 3M states that over that apx size, the shear strength of the adhesive cannot overcome the expansion/contraction of the paper being mounted and will fail eventually. I do use it on small stuff that comes in but not in an archival precess.

 Personally, i much prefer the print to be solidly mounted flat so it does not ripple. In my eye, it just looks nicer. That said, the method isn't "archival" or reversible.  

Yeah, spray 77 is pretty much the WORST thing you can use for many reasons... the fumes,   the fact that it doesn't give you a nice smooth spray but tends to spit, leaving little bumps,  the fumes,  the nasty overspray  that gets on everything remotely near where you are spraying,    the fumes.. noit archival,  the fumes...

So, if you are doing really big stuff, then PMA isn't for you. Try to find a framer who can dry mount your prints for you. Then they are flat and be done with it.

The prints mounted to clear plexi or aluminum and such aren't archival either.

[Gemmtech]

The 3M product, which is known as PMA or positional mounting adhesive, will work on small stuff up to about 24" square. 3M states that over that apx size, the shear strength of the adhesive cannot overcome the expansion/contraction of the paper being mounted and will fail eventually. I do use it on small stuff that comes in but not in an archival precess.

 Personally, i much prefer the print to be solidly mounted flat so it does not ripple. In my eye, it just looks nicer. That said, the method isn't "archival" or reversible.  

Yeah, spray 77 is pretty much the WORST thing you can use for many reasons... the fumes,   the fact that it doesn't give you a nice smooth spray but tends to spit, leaving little bumps,  the fumes,  the nasty overspray  that gets on everything remotely near where you are spraying,    the fumes.. noit archival,  the fumes...

So, if you are doing really big stuff, then PMA isn't for you. Try to find a framer who can dry mount your prints for you. Then they are flat and be done with it.

The prints mounted to clear plexi or aluminum and such aren't archival either.

So much misinformation    I've been using spray adhesives for 30+ years for various industries (photo mounting and framing being one of them), 3M 77 spits if you don't use it correctly (READ, CAN HELD HORIZONTALLY) and even if it does spit a little a good pinch roller will make it as smooth as possible.  The fumes?  Yes, you should use ventilation, big deal.  The nasty overspray?  It's a nonfactor because you spray in the same location with plastic sheathing covering the interior of a spray booth that gets replaced a few times per year.  Is it archival?  I don't know, since I wont be here in 100 years, I'll never know    I know it lasts at least 30 years. I can't stand the term archival, what does it mean anyhow?  There are cave paintings 30,000 years old, I guess that's archival?   The most expensive paintings ever are probably between 50-500 years old and most of them show their age, is oil paint on canvas archival?  We don't even know how long an inkjet print will last.  "We" were told gold / silver Cds and DVDs would last 100-200 years and we found that not to be the case.  If I get 50 years from a photograph, I'd be happy.  Most here wont have their "great works" of art hanging on a wall after they or their customer dies.  If the product works for you then use it.  People spout off all the time without having any knowledge of what they are talking about.  And again, what does the term archival mean to you?  How many years?    

[dwood]

There are cave paintings 30,000 years old, I guess that's archival?

Glad I wasn't drinking something when I read this or it would have been all over my monitor. Man, that's funny.

[framah]

Actually, i do know what i'm talking about, but, thanks for insinuating that I'm passing out misinformation.

 Just because you have been spraying with it for 30 years in the photo mounting and the framing business doesn't make it or you right. Times change and as technology advances, products come out that are better than the stuff you used 30 years ago. You also go on to assume that everyone has  or should have a spray booth where you can isolate the work as well as an exhaust fan to remove the fumes. I can pretty safely bet that virtually no one on this site has that capability tho I guess you do.

Keeping up with the advances in the  products we have available is what makes one a professional. Doing the same thing you did 30 years ago..not so much.

There are alot of businesses out there that do it the way you do but they are mass producers and they couldn't care less about anything except making as much as possible for as cheap as possible.

As I said before,  spray 77 is not a good product to use on photos or artwork. I've seen the damage it does by staining  thru to the front. Not with everything, but why take that kind of chance when there are alot better mounting methods out there that won't cause damage.

By the way... Archival means to have the ability to be completely reversible with no damage to the art. Obviously, spray 77 is not... tho neither is alot of other stuff out there.

Maybe if you had actually researched out what archival does mean and how it relates to mounting art, you wouldn't spout the examples you did in an attempt to dismiss the term because you don't like it.

What's even funnier is your own statement: "People spout off all the time without having any knowledge of what they are talking about."  

Nice to see you providing so much helpful info in your post.

[Gemmtech]

Actually, i do know what i'm talking about, but, thanks for insinuating that I'm passing out misinformation.

 Just because you have been spraying with it for 30 years in the photo mounting and the framing business doesn't make it or you right. Times change and as technology advances, products come out that are better than the stuff you used 30 years ago. You also go on to assume that everyone has  or should have a spray booth where you can isolate the work as well as an exhaust fan to remove the fumes. I can pretty safely bet that virtually no one on this site has that capability tho I guess you do.

Keeping up with the advances in the  products we have available is what makes one a professional. Doing the same thing you did 30 years ago..not so much.

There are alot of businesses out there that do it the way you do but they are mass producers and they couldn't care less about anything except making as much as possible for as cheap as possible.

As I said before,  spray 77 is not a good product to use on photos or artwork. I've seen the damage it does by staining  thru to the front. Not with everything, but why take that kind of chance when there are alot better mounting methods out there that won't cause damage.

By the way... Archival means to have the ability to be completely reversible with no damage to the art. Obviously, spray 77 is not... tho neither is alot of other stuff out there.

Maybe if you had actually researched out what archival does mean and how it relates to mounting art, you wouldn't spout the examples you did in an attempt to dismiss the term because you don't like it.

What's even funnier is your own statement: "People spout off all the time without having any knowledge of what they are talking about."  

Nice to see you providing so much helpful info in your post.

WOW, if you even had a clue who you are talking to    I have to laugh because my father and myself always state that length of time doing something doesn't make it right, however in this particular situation it isn't a question of right or wrong, but rather what works or doesn't.  As you erroneously stated 3M 77 isn't a good product to use, maybe what you could have said possibly for some 3M 77 isn't an appropriate product to use, to dismiss it entirely shows your ignorance!  I've mounted and have seen mounted A LOT (PLEASE SEPARATE THE A & LOT) of photos using 77 and haven't had any problems with it.  Sometimes it takes time to know if something works or doesn't.  I attempt to try everything that comes on to the market and over the years I have mounted artwork and photos utilizing just about every process one can use, it truly isn't rocket science!  I don't dispute there are a lot of methods that work for mounting a photo, but there's no doubt that 3M 77 is one of the easiest methods available.  I'm not against dry mounting, it works great if you own the machine.

I know what archival means, but obviously the definition is ambiguous at best and usage varies depending upon who you are speaking with.  I don't like the term because of the usage and what does it really mean anyhow.  Eventually the Mona Lisa will not have much if any of LD original oil.

And yes, people like yourself spout off all the time because as "they" say "Ignorance is Bliss"      


"Keeping up with the advances in the  products we have available is what makes one a professional. Doing the same thing you did 30 years ago..not so much."

I have to address this separately.  In my primary line of work (Architecture / Building) we HAVE TO keep up with advances to a much greater degree than those in the photography and art industries, however there are certain things that have worked for centuries that haven't changed.  There are engineering principles that are the same as they were 100 years ago.  If you can't think of any examples I'll list a few hundred for you.  

Sorry if this comes off as insulting, but when somebody states "Yeah, spray 77 is pretty much the WORST thing you can use for many reasons" and I know it works great; I have a problem with that.  How many years have you used the product?  How many photos have you mounted using it?  Some people use something once and then proclaim it's the best or worst product ever, I tend to speak from years of experience.  I have read a lot about the Epson 1280 being a lousy printer, yet for 9 years I've been making great prints with it and even with all the latest advances in inkjet technology there's NOT a pigment printer available that can match it's deep blacks, but hey, you "professionals" keep up with the latest technology!   I do own an Epson 3880 and have seen quite a few prints from a 7900 and Z3200.

[Clearair]

To me archival indicates long lasting/storage, the idea of an image for life and possibly a window to the past for the future observer.

Conservation means to preserve for as long as possible or for ever, meaning actions ongoing to maintain this.

Museums should be incorporating both concepts in one solution.

I don't need to treat all my images the same way, even if they are the same image.

Well now thats over lets all go on to far more interesting topics ?

[Gemmtech]

"I don't need to treat all my images the same way, even if they are the same image."

I agree 100%  and that's the point.

[framah]

Just to  clarify something here...

It seems that we are looking at the mounting process in different ways. I'm looking at it in how the small time person on this  site would want to do it and a spray adhesive is definitely not the way to go nor is it anything a professional framer would consider using in their business.

I'm sure I would be astounded and amazed if I discovered who you are. My heart races at the mere thought.

 What I do know is that you are not a certified professional framer or you would not suggest using spray 77 on anything in the framing process.  It has no place in a frame shop, period. Or i should say, no place in a professional shop striving to offer high quality  work for their customers.

Now, if you only want to blast out a bunch of crappy stuff  with no value, then go for it.


I really don't care that it works for you. What i do care is whether I give someone the right information about proper mounting techniques.

I'm done.

[JamiePeters]

I think we all should bug Tim Wolcott to tell us what he uses.  I figure if we all do it maybe he will sell us what he is using.  I know he has a great way to do it without chemical or sprays that is acid free and permanent.  

I was attending a lecture where he said he wanted to do a video on it, but obviously has not gotten around to it.  But I have seen the prints mounted and they look like perfect mounts.  JP


Lets bug him about it, or if someone wants to make a video with him.  JP

[fdi]

Although I do own a picture frame company, my expertise is primarily in high volume frame manufacturing, as opposed to conservative framing but I can throw out a few things I have picked up.

In general truly conservative picture framing means that the artwork can be completely removed from the picture frame package with no damage or chemical residue left on any portion of the artwork. The reason for this is that overtime all of the contents of the framing package will get polluted with harmful chemicals from the environment. For this reason a museum will periodically swap everything out with fresh components. This means that just about the only things that are truly conservative are photo corners and t-hinges. And not just regular t-hinges, but t-hinges made of Japanese rice paper using a wheat-based water activated adhesive that is 100% reversible.  

T-hinging is my personal favorite method of mounting my inkjet prints, but not because I need them to last forever since I can easily reprint them. I use t-hinges because they are cheap and don’t require any special equipment.  I don’t waste my time with wheat based ones either, I just use Lineco self adhesive linen hinging tape since it is much easier . I typically don’t use photo corners so that I don’t have to worry about the top center drooping although this is less likely on small stuff. For truly conservative framing you want to attach it to the backing or mounting board not the mat board. I don’t really use a t-hinge since I mount the image to the mat board and not the backing board.  You can see an example of this in this video about complete picture frame assembly: metal picture frame assembly

The drawback to t-hinging is that  some papers in some climates will curl. The only way to completely avoid this is to permanently mount the image to the mounting substrate.  Dry mounting and roller press mounting are most commonly used for this.  Technically it is not truly conservative, but as long as the artwork is permanently mounted to an archival substrate it is the next best thing.  The key here is the use of equipment, which does two critical things. One it gets rid of all the air and second, it fully activates the adhesive to help prevent bubbling and pealing over time.

Spray mount adhesive such as 3M super 77 is an economical alternative for the do-it-yourselfer that does not have the equipment but wants a permanent mount. It is difficult to apply 100% evenly and it is difficult to get out 100% of the air which is why as the print gets larger, this method becomes less stable over the long run. Custom frame shops are obligated to do work that will last at least 25 years, which is why you typically wont see them using something like this. They also have the space and the money for professional mounting equipment so they have no need to mess with it.

Production houses mass producing consumer art will often use liquid based adhesive instead of spray based adhesive such as super77 since it is easier to automate the process with rollers and the liquid based adhesive can be repositionable for a short time.

In the end, the question of which mounting technique you should use is like the question which camera you should use. It depends on what you are doing, who you are doing it for, what the expectations are, and of course…what you are comfortable with.

I have some basic info about picture mounting here: frame-mounting methods

Cheers,
Mark

[AFairley]

I have 11x14 and 16x20 C prints that were mounted with the 3M PMA close to 30 years ago and are still fine, for the most part.  Some prints were mounted by burnishing, some with the 3M roller press.  Some of them do have some separation from the mat at the edges.  So I would say, apart from archival issues, on which I express no opinon, it is not a 100% effective solution.

One comment on the Atkinson video, what I understood him to say on the video is that he places corners on the bottom corners of the photo not for support when hung, but for security during transportation, to reduce stress on the hinges.  The print when hung is supported entirely by the hinges -- the corners are not snugged up against the print so it can expand and contract freely.  Note that Atkinson placed the hinges at about 1/3 in from the sides of the print (as I recall) -- the idea being to minimize the span of print that was "locked down" to minimize bucking as it expands and contracts.

[fdi]

...section removed...
One comment on the Atkinson video, what I understood him to say on the video is that he places corners on the bottom corners of the photo not for support when hung, but for security during transportation, to reduce stress on the hinges.  The print when hung is supported entirely by the hinges -- the corners are not snugged up against the print so it can expand and contract freely.  Note that Atkinson placed the hinges at about 1/3 in from the sides of the print (as I recall) -- the idea being to minimize the span of print that was "locked down" to minimize bucking as it expands and contracts.

The method described in the video is how it is taught to custom picture framers doing archival work. I like the idea about the photo corners for support. That is not typically considered an issue for framers since the artwork is not expected to be moved much but it is significant issue for photographers moving work from gallery to gallery or artshow to artshow. I will add that suggestion to my business photo mounting techniques webpage.

Cheers,
Mark