Seal Dry Mounting -- Not for Archival Use
Dave
<www.sealbrands.com>:
NOTE: We do not recommend dry mounting for original pieces of art,
signed or numbered prints, anything of value, or Ilfochrome
(cibachrome) photographs. Dry mounting is not intended for Archival,
Conservation or Preservation practices.
Dave
Priscilla
Dave wrote:
One of the requirements for classification of "Archival" is that the
print be able to be removed from the mounting. Dry mounting is
considered a permanent technique. So, the first issue here is not the
chemicals in the adhesive, or the heat applied in the process, but the
inability to undo the drymount. My understanding is that the drymount
tissue is not all that nasty, as far as acid goes. Also, there are
several types of tissue available.
I'd love to know, however, exactly what is in the tissue.
Priscilla
>
>
> Dave
Richard Knoppow
You can get details of ingredients from Seal. The reasons you state
above are the only ones for not using dry mounting, namely that its
hard to get the print off the backing if you need to work on it.
In fact, in the past, dry mounting was recommended as an archival
mounting technique because it protects the back of the print.
I am not sure why Seal recommends against dry mounting Ilfochrome,
there may be a heat problem with it.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Sandor Feher
see any problem with them, hanging on the wall under glass covers.
"Dave" <dc1999...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3A7ECA44...@telocity.com...
dave
colormount tissue and MT5 are both neutral ph materials. The
colormount tissue's adhesive melts at a little lower temperature than
MT5. I use ColorMount for everything. It's a layer of acid-free,
lignin-free tissue that's impregnated with a low-temperature plastic
adhesive. (Contrast this with another product I tried several years
ago, Kodak's dry mounting material. Kodak's material had no tissue
support layer. It was just the "glue" itself. I had very little
success using it.)
There's another product called AchivalMount tissue in Seal's line of
products. It's buffered to be slightly alkaline. Supposedly it'll
help guard against damage caused by mounting a print to something that
might be slightly acidic. (I wouldn't do that in the first place, and
the guy at the Seal company told me it's not necessary to use when
using an acid-free, lignin-free mounting board.) As for being able to
remove the photograph after it's mounted, I've forgotten which of
Seal's products allow this. (It's not the ColorMount product. That's
supposed to be permanent.) Nevertheless, it's generally not practical
to remove prints dry mounted with any of the dry mounting tissues.
I've worked with Seal's ColorMount product for so many years, I highly
recommend it. I also recommend dry mounting photographs, and I'm not
troubled by the argument that a photograph can't be truly archival
unless it's removable from its mount. Properly dry mounted, I find
the finished work flatter and more pleasing to view than any other
technique. I also consider the mount to add a measure of support and
protection to the photograph.
I read recently about what sounds to me to be a fantastic product that
goes beyond acid-free, lignin-free museum board. It's a product that
has micro-encapsulated activated charcoal in it -- it looks like good
quality museum board -- but it's reported to provide much better
protection for photographs when one dry mounts them to it than when
dry mounting to otherwise excellent museum board. (I think the
product is called ArtCare, but I don't remember for sure.) There were
a bunch of tests done with this and top-notch museum board.
Curiously, the non-dry mounted products suffered more image
deterioration than those that were dry mounted. The theory is that
the dry mounting tissue and its adhesive helped form a barrier between
the back of the print and the rest of the world. By contrast, the
free-mounted (corner mounts for example) prints had no such barrier
and succumbed to a more rapid deterioration in accelerated aging
tests. I wish I could remember where I read the article. It was
fascinating. -Dave
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 17:37:53 GMT, Priscilla <pfor...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
ele...@home.com
were mounted in the late 70s and are still perfect. The only problem I had
with mounting Cibachromes is that the very glossy surface took on some of
the texture of the board they were mounted on. I ended up using a matte
spray on the mounted prints.
Ray
Sandor Feher <san...@methow.com> wrote:
: I have mounted my Ciba prints with Fusion400 over a decade ago and I don't
:>
--
E. Ray Lemar ele...@home.com
Wayne
> You can get details of ingredients from Seal. The reasons you state
> above are the only ones for not using dry mounting, namely that its
> hard to get the print off the backing if you need to work on it.
> In fact, in the past, dry mounting was recommended as an archival
> mounting technique because it protects the back of the print.
> I am not sure why Seal recommends against dry mounting Ilfochrome,
> there may be a heat problem with it.
Well its plastic, for one thing, but I dont know if thats the reason.
Ilford also recommends against it. I dont know what temps are used in
dry mounting because I've never done it, but Ilford recommends keeping
temps under 160 F when drying them. Maybe I'll stick one in my Technal
press and see what happens. For science, of course. ;-)
Wayne
Tom Raymondson
Dave wrote: Warning Note I found at Seal's web site
Ron
I'm not sure if this is a win-win or lose-lose situation. In order to
display FB prints properly, is there another way to get them to lie very
flat other than dry mounting? Also, how to keep them in one position on the
board? I'm new to this; just ordered some matte boards and tissue (from
Seal, I think) from LightImpressions and going to dry mount 20 or so
photographs in preparation to making some gallery rounds. All toned B&W.
RON
Kirk
dick...@ix.netcom.com says...
As Priscilla is alluding to, there are museums that do *not* want
mounted photographs, regardless of the archival qualities of the
materials because they simply don't want the photograph mounted,
period.
All too often, the materials are *not* archival (regardless of what
the photographer says)--and they have no way of proving it one way or
another until it's too late. So it's much easier to have an unmounted
print that they can handle in the way that makes them most
comfortable.
--
Kirk
Experience is the best teacher...
But her pop quizzes can be mighty tough.
Richard Knoppow
>On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:09:47 -0500, "L. J. Powell" <ljp...@banet.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Paul Butzi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:39:03 GMT, dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard
>>> Knoppow) wrote:
>>>
>>> > I am not sure why Seal recommends against dry mounting Ilfochrome,
>>> >there may be a heat problem with it.
>>>
>>> Probably because most people dry-mount onto mat board.
>>>
>>> If you dry-mount Ilfochrome onto mat board, the orange-peel
>>> texture of the mat board surface is transferred to the face of
>>> the print, and it looks just awful.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Only cheap mat board has the orange peel texture. Good board is smooth.
>
>Well, I mount prints on Light Impression Westminster Bright White,
>which I think is pretty good, and fairly smooth as mat board goes.
>If you mount Ilfochrome that's on the polyester base on Westminster
>Bright White, you get orange peel.
>
>The problem appears to me to be that even smooth mat board
>is relatively rough compared to the gloss surface of Ilfochrome
>on polyester base. You might do fine dry mounting that stuff
>onto, say, sheet acrylic, although perhaps the texture of the
>dry mount tissue would show.
>
>-Paul
>
>--
>Newly updated and moved web site at:
> http://www.butzi.net
>
You've pointed up an important difference between Ilfochrome and
other material here, namely the polyester base. This may be why Ilford
rrecommends against dry mounting.
Polyester should be easier to mount without serious curling than
paper base, especially fiber base.
Richard Knoppow
I suspect this is the origin of the idea that dry mounting is not
archival. Its not the dry mounting itself but rather that galleries
and museums don't want any kind of permanent mounting.
If you are making prints for sale this is a critical issue. If you
want to display your work dry mounting makes a better looking display
IMHO than other mounting methods and doesn't injure the life of the
image, provided decent mounting materials are used.
Photography is now considered collectible art with investment value
since traditional investment art became so valuable as to put it
beyond most private collectors.
We do truely live in a strange world.
Paul Butzi
wrote:
>
>
>Dave wrote:
>
>> FWIW, here's the Warning Note I found at Seal's web site
>> <www.sealbrands.com>:
>>
>> NOTE: We do not recommend dry mounting for original pieces of art,
>> signed or numbered prints, anything of value, or Ilfochrome
>> (cibachrome) photographs. Dry mounting is not intended for Archival,
>> Conservation or Preservation practices.
>
>One of the requirements for classification of "Archival" is that the
>print be able to be removed from the mounting. Dry mounting is
>considered a permanent technique.
I guess I've never understood this argument.
I make a print. The print is not the finished art work; I then take
the loose print and bond it permanently to a substrate that will
ensure it looks the way I want - e.g. a piece of mat board.
The permanently bonded paper and mat board form the finished
work. It is not a finished work that is permanently mounted,
the mounted print is the finished work. I do not want someone
taking my prints, and displaying them on, say, fluorescent magenta
mounts. If I had some reasonable way to control the lighting
under which the print would be displayed, I'd do that, too.
Do they insist that oil painters use paints which form a film
which can be stripped off the canvas and then bonded to
new canvas? How about collage works - do they insist that
non-permanent glue be used for mixed media work?
jw&a
> Do they insist that oil painters use paints which form a film
> which can be stripped off the canvas and then bonded to
> new canvas? How about collage works - do they insist that
> non-permanent glue be used for mixed media work?
>
> -Paul
perhaps they should consider mounting that the artist does differently than
they consider mounting that someone else does later?
i don't think they would appreciate an oil painter who epoxied his work to
the frame....
what happens if the mat board is damaged?
bob
south carolina
Ken Burns
> Do they insist that oil painters use paints which form a film
> which can be stripped off the canvas and then bonded to
> new canvas? How about collage works - do they insist that
> non-permanent glue be used for mixed media work?
>
> -Paul
> --
> Newly updated and moved web site at:
> http://www.butzi.net
Actually, oil paintings can be removed from an old canvas and placed on a
new canvas.
Ken
Paul Butzi
wrote:
Amazing. You can actually strip the film of paint off of one
canvas and stick it to another? Is this done often?
How do they match the texture of the original canvas?
And what do they do about murals and similar works?
Paul Butzi
>what happens if the mat board is damaged?
Same thing that happens if a unmounted print is damaged. You
end up with a damaged work of art.
Pam Niedermayer
the like.
Pam
Paul Butzi wrote:
> ...
> >
> >
> >Actually, oil paintings can be removed from an old canvas and placed on a
> >new canvas.
>
> Amazing. You can actually strip the film of paint off of one
> canvas and stick it to another? Is this done often?
>
> How do they match the texture of the original canvas?
>
> And what do they do about murals and similar works?
>
> -Paul
> --
> Newly updated and moved web site at:
> http://www.butzi.net
>
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
Austin, TX 78705
512-236-1677
http://www.pinehill.com
Roy Harrington
I have a hard time envisioning removing paint intact from a piece of
canvas and reapplying or gluing it to a new piece of canvas. I can
see the canvas removed from its frame and put on a new frame.
By the way I agree with Paul that the mounted print is the completed
work. I dry mount all my fiber prints, because thats they way I want
them displayed. In fact I always provide a window overmat cut the way
I'd like the whole work presented.
Roy
----
--
Roy Harrington
r...@harrington.com
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com
Ken Burns
oil painting that had problems with the old canvas starting to deteriorate.
The painting was taken to a specialist who does all kinds of restorative
work on oil paintings. To be totally accurate, the canvas was removed from
the oil painting, not the other way around. This of course was done after
the painting, canvas and all, was removed from the stretcher. I don't know
the actual technique for attaching the new canvas, but it was done. This is
a fairly common practice for old oil paintings done on less than perfect
canvases.
Ken
"Paul Butzi" <bu...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:vhb68tglfpushespn...@4ax.com...
Paul Butzi
wrote:
>I don't know the fine details of how it is done, but my family owns an old
>oil painting that had problems with the old canvas starting to deteriorate.
>The painting was taken to a specialist who does all kinds of restorative
>work on oil paintings. To be totally accurate, the canvas was removed from
>the oil painting, not the other way around. This of course was done after
>the painting, canvas and all, was removed from the stretcher. I don't know
>the actual technique for attaching the new canvas, but it was done. This is
>a fairly common practice for old oil paintings done on less than perfect
>canvases.
Cool. If they can do that, I see no problem with stripping the mat
board and dry mount tissue off the print and replacing it. Heck, they
could probably lift the emulsion off the fiber base and layer it onto
something different, a la polaroid emulsion transfers.
What do they do with paintings which are more closely integrated with
the surface, like watercolors, or something that doesn't form a
complete film that could be removed and put on another substrate,
like charcoal drawings?
Ken Burns
canvas is gessoed before applying the oils. Being a photographer instead of
an oil painter, I really don't know the fine details. All I know is what I
managed to pick up when we were having the oil painting restored. Charcoal
and watercolors are applied directly to the paper, so they probably are not
removeable.
As far as stripping the mat board and dry mount tissue from a print, I have
read about a number of approaches, but have never attempted it myself. Long
soak times in water are required to manage to peal away the layers of mat
board, and solvents are used to remove the tissue. I'm not so sure I would
want to try that with a print that I valued.
I don't know about the practicality of removing the emulsion from a FB
print, but I have seen it done with negatives. It is a very delicate
operation, but with some of the early film base materials there turned out
to be real problems with longevity. The emulsion in some cases has far
outlasted the base. If an old negative is of value, the emulsion can be
removed if necessary, a placed on another base.
Ken
"Paul Butzi" <bu...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:lkm68t891mm1vsph0...@4ax.com...
Peter De Smidt
removing a drymounted print from the board by soaking the whole thing in
acetone. He said it worked. Nonetheless, I can't believe that this could
be anything but harmful to the print..
Peter
Kirk
pdes...@fdldotnet.com says...
Acetone can be used to clean prints.
Mark Rabiner
>
> I have a hard time envisioning removing paint intact from a piece of
> canvas and reapplying or gluing it to a new piece of canvas. I can
> see the canvas removed from its frame and put on a new frame.
>
> By the way I agree with Paul that the mounted print is the completed
> work. I dry mount all my fiber prints, because thats they way I want
> them displayed. In fact I always provide a window overmat cut the way
> I'd like the whole work presented.
>
> Roy
> ----
>
by it's corners!
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
USA
updated temporary Website by "Foxy": http://spokenword.to/rabiner/
(consisting of late night E-mail descriptions of photos)
Richard Knoppow
There are dry mounting tissues available now which are removable by
re-heating them. The pring simply strips off the mount. I believe Sean
offers such tissue.
dave
and framed back in 1981. It's on display at my folks' house. No
deterioration, still flat, no problems. I'm convinced that if you're
careful, you can dry mount Cibachrome with no adverse affects. -Dave
dave
into it and let you know. -Dave
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:06:13 -0800, Paul Butzi <bu...@nwlink.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:35:09 GMT, da...@nospam.com (dave) wrote:
>
>>I just looked at a Cibachrome print I'd dry mounted in 1981, matted
>>and framed back in 1981. It's on display at my folks' house. No
>>deterioration, still flat, no problems. I'm convinced that if you're
>>careful, you can dry mount Cibachrome with no adverse affects. -Dave
>
>Was this the older material (now called Ilfochrome classic?) on what
>appears to be a standard resin coated paper base, or the
>extremely glossy stuff on the voided polyester base?