Less than optimal photo mounting

[Jana]

Why do portrait photographers mount their photos on acid boards like single-X cardboard? Have the rest of you noticed this?

Is it because they don't have a clue, don't care, or because it's less expensive?

AnneL, maybe you can help me out with this query!

[Susan May]

Because it goes well with the big-ol' gold signiture in the bottom corner. You know the one belonging to the studio that no customer wants to see on their picture!!

(Actually, I've asked the same question for years.)

Sue

[RonEggers]

Jana,

I think it's normally the labs that do the mounting and, for the ones I've talked to, it's a matter of economics, albeit bad economics.

Personally, I'd rather they didn't mount the photos on anything. That should be left to the framer.

Ron

[Jana]

My next question is...what's the very best substrate* on which to mount photos?

And what do y'all think of Positional Mounting Adhesive, if you have to mount photos? That's what we use. We don't have a Seal press. (We vacuum mount things other than photos.)

*I think I'm using that word correctly.

[RonEggers]

Jana,

I often use Crescent's Perfect Mount on a board they call "Super Smooth." Like PMA, it can be used with or without a vacuum press. The Super Smooth board really is, so it's particularly good for hi-gloss prints. I won't tell you it's archival - we're talking about a permanent mounting process - but it's not 3x, though the weight is similar. It can be hard to find, oddly enough, but if you're interested, I'll send you some samples and the contact info.

It is pricey, which is why the labs, even those that know about it, won't use it.

Ron

[tgfu408]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RonEggers:
Jana,

I often use Crescent's Perfect Mount on a board they call "Super Smooth." Like PMA, it can be used with or without a vacuum press. The Super Smooth board really is, so it's particularly good for hi-gloss prints. I won't tell you it's archival - we're talking about a permanent mounting process - but it's not 3x, though the weight is similar. It can be hard to find, oddly enough, but if you're interested, I'll send you some samples and the contact info.

It is pricey, which is why the labs, even those that know about it, won't use it.

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


OK, you just lost me: do you mean you mount the photo on Perfect Mount and then back with Super Smooth??? Or is Super SMooth a type of Perfect Mount that is smoother?

And what about those pH buffered boardd Bainbridge loves to sell for photo mounting? What do y'all think of those???
My local distributor just started carrying Super Smooth and I'm cozying up to a new photographer that just opened up two doors down in the strip center, so maybe I can talk him into better photomounting while I'm at it, here.

Manythanks


------------------
Michael LeCompte CPF

[RonEggers]

Michael,

Boy, did you mess up that quote thing, or what? http://www.thegrumble.com/framer/ubbs/tongue.gif

Super Smooth is the board, but is available from some vendors with Perfect Mount adhesive already attached. I think it's as close as I've seen to a perfect mounting medium for photos, especially the gloss variety. You can also buy the Super Smooth board without adhesive or the Perfect Mount adhesive in sheets w/o the board.

Ron

[AnneL]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jana:
Why do portrait photographers mount their photos on acid boards like single-X cardboard? Have the rest of you noticed this?

Is it because they don't have a clue, don't care, or because it's less expensive?

AnneL, maybe you can help me out with this query! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most photographers don't have a clue and would rather pay their labs to mount their photos. We dry mount all our own using a method I learned from Paul Fredrick. We use either 4 or 8 ply rag mat depending on the size of the photo. I've talked to several art conservators about this issue and this was what they felt was the best alternative if you were going to mount them. By the way, the signature is no different than that of any artist. It is a matter of pride. Should we also have artists stop signing their limited editions?

------------------
Anne LeBouton

[Bob Shirk CPF]

We ahve several photographers that bring their mounting to us. We normaly dry-mount to rag mat. For digital prints we use PMA, teh heat in dry-mounting can be a problem with digital prints.

I don't mind the signiture. I wish we did not get so many mounted and flush trimed photos. You have to make a sink mount when you frame them with mats. The thing I really hate is the sticker some labs put on the back of photos.

[tgfu408]

Ron:

didn't you know I was computer stupid? If I were smart, I'd dump AOL and use a real ISP.

Thanks for straightening me out. I'm ordering Supersmooth and trying it. SOunds like it's what I need for all the photo work we're doing.

Still wanna know what I'm supposed to use Photorag for. Thought that was a mounting medium as well.

------------------
Michael LeCompte CPF

[wpfay]

Michael,
the Bainbridge Photorag is an unbuffered rag board specifically designed to be used with certain photo processes that are sensitive to alkalinity, in particular the dye-transfer technique. These kinds of photos exist best in a slightly acidic or neutral environment.

As far as dry mounting photos is concerned, I still do it on some kinds of photos, c-prints for example. I dry mount to rag board using Buffermount when necessary.
Last year I did this with a series of 20x24 Polaroids and am discovering to my chagrin that the mounts are slowly failing. Will probably have to pull them all from the frames and re-mount them.

[AnneL]

Maybe now that PPFA is affiliated with the PMA, we can start to educate the photo labs on how to properly mount photos. The trade association for photo labs is part of PMA.

------------------
Anne LeBouton

[Orton]

Hi Jana

My experience has been that the short answer to all of your original questions is "yes!"

Notwithstanding the effort to educate, reality strongly suggests that photographers and their respective labs, will continue to treat framing and mounting no differently than than do artists who have been similarly educated for years and years i.e. abominably.

Most artists view framing as being a very unfortunate and necessary evil.

One would think that logic demands that art schools and photography schools teach contemporary and current framing/mounting practices.

However, it has been my experience that only a slight, and I mean a slight nod of the head only, accompanied by much lip service is paid to the subject of framing and mounting at both types of institutions.

[Framar]

I remember getting into a heated discussion with a photographer because he wanted to know how to erase the lines off of his mats. Seems he was cutting them from the FRONT, because that was the way he had been taught, and I could not get thru to him no matter how hard I tried, that one cuts mats from the BACK and therefore there are no lines to erase. He was convinced that his bevels would be reversed.
Our theory is it is the FUMES.....

[curly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Framar:
He was convinced that his bevels would be reversed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only below the equator. Just ask our friends "down under".



------------------
curlyframer, CPF

[AnneL]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Framar:

Our theory is it is the FUMES.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What fumes? Most phtographers (with the exception of my husband) no longer do any of their own printing and processing in either color or black & white. Most don't even know how! Very few of the professional photographers I know have attended any kind of formal photography school. There in lies the problem. Many of them rely on their labs as the authority when it comes to questions of mounting and finishing their photos. I've taught workshops on photographic artwork and been amazed at the lack of even basic knowledge on that and framing most photographers have. Been meaning to offer a basic framing for photographers course through our professional organization, just haven't gotten around to it. Maybe this will get me going again on it. They have one day events 3 times a year. Missed the sign up to teach for the April one, I think I'll try for August.

------------------
Anne LeBouton

[Lance E]

Ease up on the labs please...
Some of us know what we're doing and then the photographer gets a hold of the photos and sticks 'em down. I believe that this is from a lack of education also (however it is the way they are taught around here) but it is mostly traditional, those darned stickers are a nuisance.

[jvandy57]

Now that you have the substrate right, what mounting adhesive do you use? Is it acid-free? Is it detrimental to the photo? Is it reversible?

I too have problems with the premounted photos that are brought in to be matted and framed and come in trimmed to the image. maybe we can educate through the PMA.

[Mel]

Should we tell our customers that the family or senior photo for which they paid good money is adhered to a board that will destroy it?

Photographers--Do not misunderstand me. I will defend any artist or artisan the price they need to charge to stay in business, even when the complaint relates to my competitors. But my customers almost always mention that they paid dearly for that photo.

This makes me hesitate to tell to them that the mount is going to eventually destroy the photo. My lily-livered approach is to note the acidic board, then go on to describe the ways I will frame it to diminish the effects of the board, and let them know that an optimal environment will greatly slow those effects.

[Mitch]

One thing I am curious about is, the effect of acids on resin coated photographs. Do the acids discolor or migrate through the paper to the emulsion?
Are we overdoing the conservation selling (when we are not dealing with fine art photographs)? For a few dollars we can have an image reprinted on new paper with computer controlled technology. Could photographers have this perspective when they mount a photograph?

[RonEggers]

(Looks like Mitch and I were typing at the same time and thinking along the same lines.)

The vast majority of colored photos, and even black-and-white photos during the last 15 years or so, are printed on Resin Coated (RC) papers. I would guess the greatest threats to these photos are:

<LI> Placement directly against the glass
<LI> Inadequate protection from sunlight and other UV sources
<LI> Mounting on textured board
<LI> Excessive mounting temperatures
<LI> Improper processing techniques

I could be wrong, and I'd love to hear other, more expert opinions (as long as you're nice about it,) but I would think acidic mounting boards are less of a threat to RC photos than any of these other factors. I seldom worry about reversibility in mounting studio portraits. In fact, my primary concern might be to make sure the mounting doesn't "self-reverse." If I wanted reversibility, I wouldn't be drymounting the photo in the first place.

I do feel there is no reason not to use the best-quality mounting board suitable for the job. I don't believe that many studio portraits are damaged by the ph of the mounting boards used by the labs.

Ron



[This message has been edited by RonEggers (edited December 06, 2001).]

[Orton]

I suggest that we are making this harder than it really needs to be.

The problem is not that photos are often inappropriately mounted right from the photographer - the problem seems to be in understanding what the appropriate technique is for mounting photos - and that cannot be decided until the need for CP technique has been determined.

Photos should not be considered differently than any other art.

Before mounting, one needs to ask if C-P mounting is necessary or desirable. If the answer is no, go ahead, stick it down with linoleum adhesive if you want to! However, if the answer is yes, then the appropriate CP technique should be employed.

If a photo is presented for framing already mounted (even though not CP), there is not a whole lot that can be done to correct the matter of the photo e.g. being mounted to an inferior substrate with an inferior adhesive.

However, the already-mounted photo as presented for framing i.e. the mounted unit - may be framed according to accepted CP technique.

Do remember that for the most part, colour photography is inherently chemically unstable. It is not unusual for colours to shift, and images to fade, over time, without external stimuli being introduced.

Prudence suggests that to help mitigate the photo's own chemical instability, responsible framers should do what can be done to keep the accelerator stimuli away from the photo - hence CP framing technique.

Chemical changes to any artwork are usually accelerated by increased temperature, increased moisture, and increased exposure to light (both UV and visible). For the most part, photos generally do not behave any differently. Remove any one of the stimuli and the potential for damage is lessened. Remove more than one and the potential is greatly reduced. Remove all three and the potential for damage is almost completely removed.

Framers generally are not expected to remedy problems within the artwork itself- that is usually left to Conservators. However, Framers can and should take appropriate steps to allow the customer to intelligently decide whether to take no action (frame without considering protection, in any fashion) or to take action (employ CP technique) to protect the artifact.

Many of my customers are photographers. As often as some of them have heard me expound the evils of drymounting photos onto Masonite, I still get asked to drymount photos onto Masonite. Many of my customers are artists. As often as some of them have heard the gospel concerning acid-burn, I still get asked to mount under regular matboard. Whether the blame for this attitude can be directed towards ignorance, historical intertia, or just plain not caring, is irrelevant.

The key is understanding the difference between CP and non-CP framing technique, and the reasons for their differences.
Having a good appreciation of these factors will explain many of the "Why's" that come up in discussions like this.

Armed with a sound understanding of framing technique and materials, both CP and non-CP, and seasoned with a very generous dose of Old-Fashioned Common Sense, the Framer should be in a solid position to guide customers in making final, intelligent decisions.



[This message has been edited by Orton (edited December 06, 2001).]

[RobertM]

I have been a professional photographer for 20 years, 15 of which I did my own color printing. Yes, there was a time when conventional color photographic prints were inherently unstable, but for many years now that has not been the case. Great advances have been made in the past two decades to insure that properly processed photographs compete with or exceed the durability of most other printing processes available today. And that includes offset prints, dye subs prints, inkjet prints and giclees. I have prints that have been around for 20 years with no discernible change or degradation.

Practically all conventional photographs this includes laser printing machines outputting digital files, onto conventional photo papers) are now resin-coated. This means there is a physical, plastic barrier to help prevent chemicals from migrating through to the emulsion. This also means that mounting adhesives have a hard time affecting the image on the front of the print.

I mount all of my photos on smooth foam-core using photo spray adhesive on both surfaces using a COLD vacuum press. When using the press cold, very little, if any, of the surface texture is transferred to the print, even when using the high gloss prints.

Should this be considered a conservation method? Certainly not, and you and your customer will have to be the judge of which prints this method would be appropriate for. I can simply tell you that those prints which were mounted using this method have endured many years with no sign of adverse effect.

[This message has been edited by RobertM (edited December 08, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by RobertM (edited December 08, 2001).]

[Framar]

RobertM, What kind of foam board do you use? Regular, acid free, artcare? I too have seen older photos in mint condition but adhered to substrates that would make you weep.
Coupla weeks ago I took an old photo out of its frame. This was a 16x20 portrait on semiglossy paper, and it was mounted onto very friable thin chipboard with a shingleback. Wood grain was "printed" onto the back of the substrate but the front of the photo looked BRAND NEW! Without looking at the back, one would have sworn this photo was new. I guess the family had really good storing and hanging facilities, plus perfect light and humidity levels. Not many photos are that lucky.
I have even seen photos mounted on acidfree foam that look terrible after a few years due to moisture problems.
I guess we can all just do the best we can for the highest percentage of items.

[Orton]

Please understand that my comments which follow are from the perspective of the original question posed in this thread, with its inference that photographers often mount their work on "acid boards" and that the practice is questionable.

It is not by intention to address differences in foam board - there are many old threads available in the Grumble archives - nor am I suggesting that the only way to treat photos is with CP technique - each set of circumstances is unique - you decide what is best for you.

I agree with Ron's inference, that from the customer's perspective unless there is a sound appreciation by the photographer of the consequences of self-mounting the photo, it is better that mounting be left to the knowledgable framer.

Traditional colour photographs personally processed by a responsible photographer, excercising infinite amounts of consciencious care to ensure correct processing, indeed may outlast what is normally commercially available from photo processing labs, and from so-called "custom" labs.

My experience as a professional photographer suggests that correctly processed prints are the exception rather than the rule, with the primary shortfalls being in the washing stage of traditional colour print processing (most prints just were not adequately washed) and in the photo's consequent exposure to light.

Digitally produced colour prints are a different ball game, with their own sets of problems, many of which are also inherent. Much of the digital product has not been around long enough to make a reliable assessment, with test results varying widely and without consistency.

Generally speaking, contemporary dyes used to create photographic colours, compared to colour dye technology of e.g. twenty years ago, are considered to be stable, but compared to the pigmented inks and molecular inks used in today's giclee process, are considered to be unstable.

It is for some of these reasons that after having produced professional photography for over forty years I now publish my work as giclees only, and no longer in pure photographic form. My customer gets far better value i.e. all things being equal, the images maintain their integrity better.

No matter how stable a medium may be considered to be, inappropriately mounting it with unstable materials e.g. contact spray onto masonite, is not going to benefit the customer - there is too much at risk. Where is the logic in using materials that are known to contribute to damge? e.g. masonite contributes to colour shift.

Colour shift may not be apparent to the eye. We may look at an old non-CP mounted colour photo and consider the image to be in excellent condition - which it may very well be. However, if we were to be able to compare that photo with an identical photo that had been CP archived, the differences would be dramatically apparent, with degradation of the non-CP photo blatantly visible. Both images may be excellent, but only the CP photo would be the superior. The point is, that unless comparison to a standard can be made, degradation may not be apparent.

I may stand to be corrected on this point, but to the best of my knowledge, conservators do not regard any foam cored board as being a CP material, principally because of the composition of the core materials, notwithstanding what various manufacturers claim. This is not to say that certain treatments of the paper surfaces are not CP quality e.g. zeolite technology is considered to be CP compatible.

Foam's use is generally rationalized as being a matter of cost-effectiveness, but it is not be considered as a true CP material and therefore its inclusion into an otherwise CP framing package is detracting.

If however, the framing package is not to be considered CP, the employ of spray adhesive on foam mounting board may be a perfectly sound alternative.

My policy is to use CP mounting technique whenever possible.

[This message has been edited by Orton (edited December 08, 2001).]

[AnneL]

Amen, Orton!

One more thing I'd like to comment on is RobertM's statement that the plastic coating on RC photos provides a barrier to chemicals. Unfortunately, that isn't so. The emulsion of the photo is on top of the resin coating. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to print and process the photo. And emulsion is chemically sensitive. As a retoucher, I worked on thousands of photos and seen damage of all kinds. It doesn't take much to destroy the sensitive emulsion layer on top. Just because the spray adhesive or foamboard is under the photo doesn't mean that they are not outgassing and that the gas isn't reaching the emulsion.



------------------
Anne LeBouton

[Frame Harbor]

AnneL, did you get my E-mail?

[RobertM]

Framar, I use regular.

Orton, I was referring to digital laser output onto conventional photo paper, such as: Kodak L.E.D (tm.),Chromira (tm.) etc. I am told by owners/processors that the processing control has become state of the art right down to the washing times. I think the original subject was photographs, not inkjet output of any kind.

But, back to the original subject and a reply to AnneL's statement. I did say that my
method should not be considered archival-at least not by scientific standards. I was simply stating that the plastic barrier should, and does seem to help prevent DIRECT migration through the print, as some of the above testimonies seem to indicate. I might also add that I currently use 3m (tm.),Photo Mount Adhesive. I cannot help but believe that a product designed specifically for photographs, has not had, at least some engineering research incorporated, to minimize the impact it has on the product it was designed to be used for.

And once again,(as we all know from being practicing framers), and as has also has been
stated above, there is a time and a place for conservation.

[This message has been edited by RobertM (edited December 10, 2001).]