P3D stereo card mounting

[koganlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Paul Talbot asks about Positionable Mounting Adhesive:
>> For RC papers (color and B&W) Positionable Mounting Adhesive (PMA)
>> made by Scotch works extremely well.

>Is this a spray?  Is "Positionable Mounting Adhesive" the label
>on the can?  Someone once posted that the 3M makes a positionable
>photo mounting adhesive, but everywhere I've looked I've only
>found the photo mounting adhesive that says "bonds instantly."
>Any more details on this positionable adhesive?  Are there mail-
>order sources for it?

Mark Josephson responds:
>No, it's not a spray, it comes in rolls.  Light Impressions sells it, but
>there's another place on the web that sells it for substantially cheaper. 
>(roughly 1/3 less) Someone on the list emailed me this web address about
>six months ago.  I checked it today, and it still works.  I can't vouch
>for the company, though, as I've never ordered from them.  I got mine from
>Light Impressions, and I can vouch for them. A bit pricey, but otherwise
>great.
>I love this stuff, it's a lot cleaner than a spray, though it is a bit
>more work to use.

        Mark suggests Freestyle as the place to buy it. Light Impressions 
lists it (11"x 50' roll) for $41.75 (item no. 16997)((800)828-5539). 
Freestyle lists it for $28.99 (item no. 17029) ((800)292-6137). United 
Manufacturers Supplies, Inc. lists it for $22.05 (item no. 3430) ((800)645-
7260). I get it from the latter and have found them very dependable for all 
sorts of framing supplies. I have also bought other things from the other 2 
companies and have found them very dependable, too. 

        
Bruce Springsteen writes:
>I've heard that dry-mount tissue can be fused with a regular clothes
>iron (no steam, please!), instead of the costly presses which are
>designed for the job.  None of my photo-books has any tips on this. 
>Does anyone have methods, tips and/or warnings? 

        I've heard of doing this, but it's hard to imagine doing more than a 
couple of images this way. Go ahead and try it, but I would strongly suggest 
that you save yourself a lot of trouble and buy a roll of PMA.

>Ray Zone says he uses wax.  I always heard in my cut-and-paste days
>that wax dries out and is actually the most temporary option of all. 
>Is that so?  Thus far I have been using rubber cement on both
>surfaces, allowing them to dry before mounting.  Fumes make me giddy,
>but not as bad as the spray adhesives. X-)  Any idea of the shelf
>life, and manner of failure, on these two, non-archival methods? 

        From what I have read rubber cement is one of the least archival 
adhesives.

>Trimming hasn't been a problem, though photographic paper really dulls
>X-Acto blades quickly! 

        C&H mat cutter blades no.1200SE work extremely well. I can cut at 
least 10 pairs/blade, but you have to buy a box of 100 ($10.30 from United).
>A knife, two good sized drafting triangles and
>a small ruler are usually sufficient. 

        This works fine for trimming a few images. A jig makes it possible to 
cut 10 times as many in the same time.

>I usually trim for window/near
>object and let infinity fall where it will.  I understand infinity
>separation on Holmes-style mounting - set the distance between
>homologous far-points to equal the viewer's infinity separation.

Yes.

>But
>how does this work with over-under mounting?  My head hurts when I
>think about this one, so simple explanations are preferred if
>possible. :-)  Something tells me this has to do with the "maximum
>on-film deviation" issue I read about somewhere.  No?

Yes. You don't have to worry much about the infinity separation with View 
Magic views because your eyes are converged at the same point just as if you 
were looking at a piece of paper on the table (when you're looking at the 
near point). As you go back in the scene your eyes begin to de-converge, but 
they don't go very far because the "on-print deviation" would probably not 
be greater than 1/2 inch or so. Your eyes could de-converge at least 2-1/2 
inches before you couldn't view it anymore. You can try this by moving the 
top image slowly to the right until the image de-fuses. You will see that 
you can move it at least 2-1/2 inches. Try this with a Holmes view and you 
might separate them as much as 1/2 inch before it de-fuses. So, does this 
mean that the View Magic system is superior and why doesn't everyone use it? 
No. The View Magic viewer is wonderful for viewing proofs (thank you Dennis 
Brown), but there is no magnification so you're not seeing the image from 
the "ortho" position, and as you get past the age of 45 you have to get even 
farther back (I usually use reading glasses with it). The Holmes viewer 
magnifies the image so that it is at the ortho position (well almost, 
anyway). This is the reason why I designed my large mirrored viewer -- so 
that you can view an enlarged image at the ortho position (thank you for 
mentioning them, Bruce). I will have them at the convention again this year.

>BTW, my understanding is that, for regular viewers, 4.5 inches is the
>approximate height limit for Holmes prints.  This makes a 5 x 7
>"Imperial" size card.  (Did I get that right Bill?)

        If you take the lenses off a Holmes viewer and use it like a 
lorgnette, there is no limit to the height of a stereo card which can be 
easily viewed by scanning up and down. My friend Mike Isenberg has produced 
some stunning stereo images by turning a 6cm x 17cm panoramic camera on its 
side and making side step exposures, enlarging them slightly, then mounting 
them side by side in the Holmes format. If you leave the card holder stage 
on the viewer, the height would be limited by how far you can look up. 5" 
would have to be close to the practical limit in this case.





------------------------------