Re: Advice

Dry-mounting or not is probably largely a matter of
taste. Personally, I like dry-mounted images because
they are perfectly flat and therefore irregularities
in the surface of the image are never a distraction.
You can float an image as someone suggested, but that
tends to leave bumps where the tape connects the image
to the backing, and these can show even on matted
prints if you aren't careful. A good framer can do
this, but it requires the kind of attention that
usually is expensive. Where I live there is a rental
darkroom with a drymounting press. THey charge nothing
if you buy the tissue from them and do it yourself.
Thus, I pay only about 80 cents to mount an 11x14
image. A framer would probably change you anywhere
from $15 to $25 an image to float it on board.
 
If you want to be certain about the effects of
mounting on your prints, try calling the manufacturer
of the mounting tissue you plan to use.

For what it's worth, I note the following:

1. I have prints dry-mounted in the 1930s that are in
pristine condition (no guarantee that the method was
the same, however, as what is in use today).

2. I have an Edward Weston print dry-mounted by Cole
Weston in the mid-1970s that is in perfect condition.
I believe dry-mounting has not changed much since the
1970s. I would guess that the mounting method on this
print was comparable to what is in use now. No
deterioration over 30 years is a good sign that not
much is happening.

3. I have read that dry-mounting actually has been
shown to protect prints mounted on non-archival
materials by creating a barrier between the acids in
the non-archival mount and the print. If you are
planning to use archival board (as you should, I'd
say), then this makes no difference, but the statement
itself suggests that dry-mounting is not detrimental
to the life of prints.

Hope that helps.

Colin

P.S. While I'm at it, a follow-up to a question I
posted about a week ago about standard light levels: I
decided it would be easiest just to get a light meter
that reads directly in footcandles instead of trying
to relate readings from an SLR to a spotmeter. I'm
happy to report that a local antique store had about
10 old light meters, two being GE models from the
1940s that read in footcandles. I picked one up for
$20. I saw some on E-bay for less. Now I can create a
standard viewing light for prints in the darkroom and
out of the darkroom, and check the light levels the
works of art on my walls are getting as well.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
pinhole-discussion mailing list
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
Received on Fri Mar 5 18:11:46 2004