Digital BW, The Print

Exactly, more often than not the mount, not the print, shows the first signs of deterioraton 
and discoloring. The matt can actually absorb all kinds of acids and contaminants like a 
sponge over long periods of time and keep them there. With the non-acidic linen tape 
method he described you can easily remove the print and throw away the matt every 50 
years or so and prolong the life of a print. A lot depends on the method of storage. The 
more toxants the mount comes into contact with the more likely it will need to be replaced 
more often.

There have been conservator tests that show that dry mouning with the thermo plastics in 
dry mount tissue, in some cases, had protected the prints from deterioraton. However, 
from what I read from these tests, they showed how the plastic dry mount material was 
protecting the print from acids bleeding into the old mount and transfering ultimately into 
the print. And, if the mount board was not acid free in the first place even more protecton 
would be noticed.

However, if the mount and matt are changed over time, before acids are absorbed and 
transfer into the print base, I would think this would be the best solution. Most museums 
that I have worked for would never have dreamed of dry or wet mounting anything that 
was considered for long term storage. Like he said, the mount can always be replaced, the 
artwork can not.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mojojones2001" 
<mojojones@c...> wrote:
> 
> Having worked in museum for more than twenty years, I'll jump in and
> give a perspective from there...  Dry mounting was very prevalent for
> photographs up through the 60's as it provided stability against curl,
> physical protection, and even a little extra crispness from the little
> bit of ferrotypeing that would occur under the heat and pressure. 
> However it began to lose favor in the 70's as photography became more
> and more a "fine art".  Traditionally, other print media would be
> hinge mounted and art photographers began doing this, in part to
> emulate fine art.  And while it was long suspected that dry mounting
> was an archival problem in that the fusion material may have
> deteriorative effects on the print and mount, over time it became
> evident that more often the problem was the deterioration of the mount
> board itself.  Photographers also began printing with the image well
> within the paper edge, in part to emulate other print types (and
> separate them from the 1/4 inch borders of commercial printers) as
> well as providing a visual "matt" for the image when showing a box of
> prints without the necessity of mounting everything.
> 
> The most compelling reason not to use permanent mounting techniques is
> that, as the mount/matt is meant to protect the print from physical
> damage, it invariably becomes damaged itself and needs to be replace.
>  Also, as presentation styles change over time, prints can be
> re-matted to fit the current trend.  Having the ability to easily
> remove and replace the mount/matt is really a necessity over the the
> life (100+ years?) of a print.  Believe me, having had to prepare
> prints that were dry mounted for exhibition can be a major pain.
> 
> I would recommend mounting prints with archival tape using the "T" or
> "hinge" mount technique.  Archival tape will not damage the print and
> can easily be removed by dampening from behind.  If you want to
> "float" mount a full bleed image, you can to it with a hinge mount. 
> It will not lay perfectly flat, but it does give an "artistic" effect.
>  Archival photo corner mounts are also acceptable for small prints but
> make sure to leave a little extra play in them for expansion.  Of
> course, if you go this way, you'd want to sign the print so that it
> travels from mount to mount.
> 
> John