I have a few 11x14s I want to mount so that they don't warp in the Frame, and was wondering if SprayMount has any acidic properties that would damage the prints over time? I've received quotes for $9/per for dry mounting the photos, but would like to keep the costs down.

Thanks!

Years ago I used to mount photos using "Dry Mounting Tissue" and a household iron. As far as I know this should still be available. Call Henry's and Vistek to see if they still carry it.

As far as spray adhesives are concerned, I know 3M makes one specifically for photographs ---never used it myself, so I don't know how safe it is.

If you do end up using a spray adhesive, think of using it under well-ventilated conditions. The stuff is gross.

Not sure if things have changed much in the past 15-30 years but I generally found 3M Spray Mount was not reliable, especially with resin coated photo papers.

NOTE: This is not generally recommended. With RC papers, rubber cement (contact style) is quite effective. FWIW None of the photos I mounted that way have suffered over the years. Always a good idea to leave a one inch border on the print if using this method as any discoloration will be very near the edges.

I also recall a 2 sided adhesive sheet (Falcon Mount) that while somewhat expensive and a bit touchy to use, did work very well with 8x10s and smaller. 11x14s were about as big as this would work without some bubbling and it took some real skill to get this size to mount successfully.

None of the methods mentioned so far qualify as truly archival (not sure how important that is here) but here's a very good article on different options:

Mounting Techniques for Matting and Framing Images (http://www.framedestination.com/picture_frame_mounting.html)

Scotch Photo Mount spray adhesive is acid-free, but by definition isn't archival since it's not reversible.

I have a friend who is an art conservationist (she has a master's degree in it and teaches at several universities) and she's really opened my eyes! So many of the things we do to our art and photos end up damaging them. For instance - how many of you are aware that there are NO colored matte boards that are truly acid free? It was news to me!

So many of the things we do to our art and photos end up damaging them. For instance - how many of you are aware that there are NO colored matte boards that are truly acid free? It was news to me!Quite true. Personally I go with this theory; If I have the original either film or digital, then the print is easily replaced. Most of the techniques above should be good for 25+ years. Doing it twice in a lifetime will always be a lot less expensive than going archival.

If we are talking about something like portraits that we want great, great,...great grand kids to see then the advice and also the cost would be very different. In the case of colour photo images it would start with only having the prints done immediately after the bleach fix has been changed, pulling the prints before they go through the dryer, extra clean water rinses and air dry at room temp. With most modern photo printers a couple of those steps are not even possible, and it is almost impossible to hand print a digital image, leaving film as the only alternative if true archival permanence is required.

Display also becomes an issue. Temperature, humidity, air pollution must all be carefully controlled. Additionally exposure to UV light must be kept to an absolute minimum. No sunlight, no florescent lights, and no CFBs.

NOTE: Some inkjet printers do claim archival permanence but results should be tested by placing a test image in a south window for a month. Any measurable fading and that image is not permanent. I tested one of the first Epson Printers which made this claim and it came up a bit short. Fading was slightly visible and easily measured. Ordinary inkjets failed miserably. Run of the mill photographic prints came very close to meeting that standard. If going the inkjet route be sure the paper base is acid free.