Adhesives used for mounting photographic prints

of the 19th and early 20th centuries

Alice Cannon

State Library of Victoria

acannon@slv.vic.gov.au

Abstract
This paper is the result of research conducted to determine the types of adhesives used to mount print photographs
up until 1920. Sources consulted included conservation literature, historical photographic journals and the relevant
trade and patent literature. A total of 185 recipes were found. The adhesive recipes were inventoried and the
various constituents of these recipes are discussed, particularly in reference to their possible effects on solubility and
permanence. Along with the recipes, a short history of adhesives for photographs is provided, including a discussion
on mounting methods. Pre-1920 photographers were concerned with all issues of permanence, and adhesives were
recognised as a potential source of deterioration. This would appear to have led to a generally conservative choice
of adhesive. The identified recipes tended to be simple, with 41.6% consisting only of the adhesive material and its
solvent. Starch and gelatine were the most common adhesives used, with dextrin and gum arabic also used frequently.
Less common were rubber, animal glue, shellac, flour and gum tragacanth. Fish glue, mastic, balsam, casein, egg, elemi
and gutta percha were used occasionally. About a quarter of all recipes contained more than one adhesive material,
with common mixtures including gelatine, gum arabic or dextrin mixed with starch or dextrin mixed with gelatine.
When additional ingredients were added, these were most often preservatives, such as carbolic acid or essence of clove,
or humectants, such as glycerine and sugar.

Keywords: photographs, mounting, adhesive, starch, gelatine

Introduction affect how easily a problematic adhesive can be removed.

Although not the primary concern of the early
photographer, mounting was nonetheless recognised as
an important step. Adhesives and mounting methods
were a regular topic of discussion in photographic
journals of the time, and it would appear many budding
photographers found mounting their photographs a
challenge of the highest order: ‘Many amateurs manage
their work admirably well until they come to the
mounting of their prints, and as they approach this stage
it is with great fear and trembling…’ (AGJ 1896).
Photographers were also concerned about the effect
of adhesives on the longevity of their prints. ‘It is an
incontestable fact known to all photographers…that the
fading of silver prints is more often caused by the way in
which the picture is mounted rather than being due to
any inherent defect in the process by which the picture
has been produced. The fault may lie in the mount or
card to which the picture is attached, or it may be due
to the paste or other medium by which the print is
fastened to its support’ (Anon 1892b).
Conservators are also interested in the effects of
adhesives on image permanence, as well as issues that
For this reason, pre–1920 adhesive recipes were
collected to find out more about the adhesives used to
mount early photographs. Recipes were collected from
contemporary photographic journals, newspapers and
relevant trade publications. The ingredients in each
recipe were tabulated, in order to gain an understanding
of their relative prevalence—and thus how likely it is
that a conservator working on photographic collections
may encounter them.
Information about the manner in which photographs
were mounted was also collected, as it can reveal practices
that have since affected the condition of the photograph.
Terminology
Pre-1920 photographic sources generally refer to
adhesives for mounting as mountants. Paste usually
indicates a flour or starch-based adhesive but was
also used to describe various wax preparations used
as coatings. The term glue usually denotes animal
glue. Gum could be used to describe gum arabic, gum
tragacanth and other plant gums, or dextrin, which was
prepared from starch treated with acid and/or heat.

1 AICCM Bulletin Volume 32, 2011

For example, the term British gum referred to a type of
dextrin prepared by roasting starch.
Components of an adhesive
The ingredients of an adhesive formulation consist
of at least one adhesive material (such as gelatin or
starch), a solvent (often water) and various additives.
The adhesive (or binder) is the material that gives the
formulation its tack. Secondary adhesive substances,
added in smaller quantities, are sometimes referred to as
“tackifiers”, especially when they increase the initial “grab”
of the adhesive. Furthermore, the working and drying
properties of adhesives are often altered by the addition
of various preservative materials, driers, plasticising
agents, pigments and perfumes.
Adhesive materials available prior to 1920
Plants and animals were the primary sources of adhesive
materials in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Animal
glue, plant gums (e.g. gum arabic, gum tragacanth) and
various preparations of starch and flour had been used
as adhesives for centuries. Shellac, casein and blood
were also used; casein and blood glues became more
important commercially in the lead-up to World War I,
as adhesives for plywood.
Rubber was a 19th century discovery—at least for the
west. Patents relating to natural rubber cements and
adhesives were issued from 1843 (Palinchak & Yurgen
1962: 209). Rubber is often referred to as india-rubber
or caoutchouc in literature of the time.
An exception to the largely organic nature of
adhesives from this era was waterglass, soluble sodium
or potassium silicate. Waterglass was used extensively in
the box-making industry from about 1825; it is unclear
to what extent it was used in other industries (Teesdale
& Bezeau 1922, p. 17).
Acetylated carbohydrates were known as early as
1865; collodion (nitrated starch) was one of the major
materials used for photographic binders throughout
the 19th century. However, it is rare to find reference
to collodion as an adhesive material. Cellulose acetate
preparations do not appear in patent literature as
lacquers until 1910–11 (Gettens & Stout 1966, p. 9),
though they were being used to prepare film materials
at an earlier date. Likewise, though experiments were
recorded as early as 1872, the first patent for a phenolic
resin product was not issued until 1899 and the first
use of phenol formaldehyde resin as a wood adhesive
occurred in 1901 (Hemming 1962, pp. 298–9).
Synthetic adhesives would appear to be a purely
20th-century phenomenon. Patents for polyvinyl acetate
and polyvinyl alcohol preparations were first issued in
the 1920s and were in commercial production by 1929,
but were not commercially widespread in the US until
the 1930s and 1940s, respectively (Norris & Draghetti
1962, pp. 349–352 & pp. 366–8). Though acrylic
acid was first synthesised in 1843 and trials of acrylic
esters were conducted in the 19th century, commercially
useful syntheses of acrylic esters were not discovered
until 1928 (Eisenträger & Druschke 1977, p. 528). It
is therefore unlikely such materials will be found on
photographic materials mounted prior to 1920.
Mounting photographs prior to 1920
Photographs were mounted for presentation
purposes—for display at home, for sale or for exhibition
in competitions. Scrapbooks and photo albums
became common during the Victorian era and, though
photo corners and other non-adhesive attachments
methods were also used, adhesives were often used to
attach prints to the page. A popular amateur pursuit,
photographic mounting was performed both in
professional studios and by home photographers.
Some photographic formats required mounting in
order to be viewed successfully. Albumen prints are
almost always found mounted to a secondary support,
as the paper used in their production was very thin and
the addition of the albumen coating gave them a strong
tendency to curl. The albumen process was predominant
throughout the 19th century but many other processes
were also available—salted paper prints, platinotypes,
cyanotypes, carbon prints, Woodburytypes, gelatin
and collodion printing-out papers, and developing-
out papers. The albumen process became especially
popular after Disderi’s patent of the carte-de-visite
in 1854 (Nadeau 1994, p. 27 & p. 59). The carte-de-
visite, cabinet card and Paris panel are all examples of
standard-sized mounts that were popular for albumen
prints, though other processes can be found adhered to
these formats also (Messier 2008).
From the very beginning, photographers were
concerned with issues of permanence, and thus the
choice of mounting adhesive was important: ‘There
are few things which contribute more to the general
perfection of result in a picture than the mode in which
it is mounted; and, as most photographers know, much
of the permanency depends upon the adhesive material
used in mounting’ (Simpson 1861, p. 551).
Staining and fading of print photographs were
common themes within the photographic literature
of the time. The 1855 Photographic Committee on
Positive Printing, known as ‘The Fading Committee’,
found that fading was largely due to sulphur from
residual fixing solutions or from atmospheric pollutants.
As the effects of sulphur were thought to worsen in
the presence of moisture, the committee expressed
concern at the hygroscopic nature of many adhesives
used to mount prints, including gelatin, gum and paste,
2
but recommended gelatin for mounting as a much
smaller amount was needed to create a good bond (von
Waldthausen 2005).
Photographers noted that fading or changes to the
gloss of the photograph often only occurred where a
mountant had been applied to the reverse: ‘…a friend…
has made it a practice to secure the edges of his
pictures only…the pictures in this case have all proved
permanent in character, except at their edges, where they
are attached to the mounts’ (Anon 1892c; Anon 1893c).
Acidity and moisture were often identified as
factors affecting the longevity of the image. For
example, Hardwich (1859, pp. 171–3) pointed to acids
that ‘dissolved silver oxide’, including ammonia and
sizing agents such as alum or rosin, as well as many
mountants: ‘All cements of an acid nature, or which are
liable to become sour by acetous fermentation, should
be avoided.’ Others wrote on the importance of keeping
photographs dry: ‘We believe that both these mountants
[starch and glue] are safe provided that the pictures to
which they are applied are kept from damp, for damp
will set up chemical changes, which will often account
for the destruction of the pictures subjected to its
influence’ (Anon 1892b).
Analysis of published recipes to 1920
Given photographers’ concern for purity, it is not
surprising that most adhesive formulations recommended
for photographic prints were quite simple. Nineteenth
and early 20th-century adhesive recipes for paper, such
as those listed in trade books by Standage (1902) and
Dawidowsky and Brannt (1905) often contained multiple
additives, to adjust the working properties, viscosity,
drying time and other characteristics of the resultant
adhesive. However, those recommended for photographs
contain very few additives, if any at all.
Of the 185 recipes for mountants found within
photographic journals and trade books, 41.6%
contained only two ingredients—the adhesive material
and its solvent. An additional 18.9% contained three
ingredients and 21.6% contained four. The additional
ingredients were generally another adhesive material,
another solvent (such as alcohol or methylated spirits)
or a little preservative. The most complicated recipe
found contained eight ingredients: two adhesives (starch
and dextrin), water, glucose syrup, soap, borax, clove
oil and milk (Standage 1893, pp. 120–1). The simplest
recipes entailed ironing sheets of gutta percha between
photograph and mount, or rubbing the print with the
‘juice of an onion’ (Anon 1901).
Table 1 lists all the ingredients found within the
adhesive recipes, alphabetically. Forty-eight separate
ingredients were identified, though the terms used to
describe these ingredients within the recipes themselves
3
were more varied. For example, the term ‘alcohol’ in
Table 1 includes references to methylated spirits and
‘spirit of wine’; ‘sugar’ may have been included in a recipe
as white sugar, rock candy or honey.
Of the total number of ingredients identified, 19 were
adhesive materials—including sugar, which was also
used as a humectant. Table 2 contains a summary of
the substances used as adhesive materials and as other
recipe components. Twenty-four per cent of recipes
included more than one adhesive material. Common
mixtures were starch and gelatine, starch and dextrin,
starch and gum arabic, and rubber mixed with shellac.
Plant resins such as mastic and elemi were also added
to rubber on occasion, presumably to act as tackifiers.
Adhesives based on or including rubber, shellac and
plant resins could be expected to have discoloured
severely with the passage of time and to be unresponsive
to aqueous resolubilisation treatments. Combinations
of plant and animal adhesives (such as starch and
gelatine) may also prove to be less soluble now, as starch
would inhibit the natural solubility of the gelatine. The
Maillard reaction may also occur between protein and
carbohydrate molecules, causing a brown discolouration
and increasing insolubility (Cannon 2011).
Ten identified ingredients were used as preservatives
(see Table 2); carbolic acid and oil of cloves were the
most common. Proportions of such preservatives
were generally 1% or less (Wall 1896c). For example,
Bacharach (1892, p. 290) recommended adding a trace
of salicylic acid to starch paste, having dissolved the acid
first in a little alcohol (‘five grains to a quart of paste is
ample’) to prevent decomposition and souring. Alcohol
was sometimes used to cover unused adhesive to prevent
spoilage (Wall 1896c). It is difficult to judge how the
inclusion of such preservatives may have affected the
ageing characteristics of the adhesive, save that they are
likely to have become more acidic.
Six ingredients were used as solvents—water was the
most common solvent for gelatine, starch and similar
binders, and various organic solvents (e.g. benzol,
naphtha) were used with rubber, gutta percha and
plant resins. Acids (e.g. nitric acid) were sometimes
added to gelatine and animal glue to lower their gelling
temperature, so that they would be soluble at room
temperature and not require heating for use. These acids
would have broken down the protein chains and may
contribute to yellowing on ageing. Recipes for casein
included a solution of borax to aid solubilisation.
Materials like chalk (calcium carbonate) were
occasionally added as acid neutralisers. Glycerine and
sugar were added to give flexibility to the dried film.
For example, on the use of gelatine, one author wrote
that ‘…the buckling may to some extent be avoided by
the addition of sugar, three or five per cent…’ (Anon
Table 1. Ingredients within recipes for photographic mountants to 1920, arranged alphabetically

Ingredient Probable purpose Percentage Number

of recipes of recipes
(of 185 total) (of 185 total)
Acetic acid To lower gelling temperature of animal glue and gelatine 2.7% 5
Alcohol/methylated spirit Solvent, preservative, to prevent cockling 27.0% 50
Alum (aluminium potassium sulphate) Waterproofing agent 3.8% 7
Aluminium sulphate Waterproofing agent/adhesion enhancer 1.6% 3
(e.g. aids adhesion to wood and other surfaces)
Ammonia/ammonium hydroxide Preservative 1.6% 3
Animal glue Adhesive 8.1% 15
Balsam Adhesive/tackifier 1.1% 2
Benzol (benzene) Solvent (for rubber) 3.2% 6
Borax (sodium tetraborate) To solubilise casein 1.6% 3
Calcium carbonate (chalk) pH adjustment (to neutralise acids) 1.1% 2
Carbolic acid (phenol) Preservative 13.0% 24
Casein Adhesive 1.1% 2
Chloral hydrate Preservative 0.5% 1
Chloroform (trichloro methane) Solvent (for rubber) 3.8% 7
Chrome alum Hardener/waterproofing agent 0.5% 1
Creosote Preservative 1.1% 2
Dextrin Adhesive 16.2% 30
Egg, egg white Adhesive 1.1% 2
Elemi Adhesive/tackifier 1.1% 2
Essential oil (e.g. oil of wintergreen, Preservative, scent, to mask odours 1.6% 3
lavender)
Fish glue Adhesive 1.6% 3
Flour Adhesive 4.9% 9
Formaldehyde/formalin Hardener/waterproofing agent 0.5% 1
Gelatine Adhesive 27.0% 50
Glycerine Humectant (for flexibility) 11.9% 22
Gum arabic Adhesive 13.5% 25
Gum hog Adhesive 0.5% 1
Gum tragacanth Adhesive 3.8% 7
Gutta percha Adhesive 1.1% 2
Linseed oil Waterproofing agent 0.5% 1
Mastic Adhesive/tackifier 1.6% 3
Miscellaneous or unspecified Adhesive 1.6% 3
carbohydrate
Naphtha Solvent (for rubber) 2.7% 5
Nitric acid To lower gelling temperature of animal glue and gelatine 0.5% 1
Oil of cloves Preservative 5.4% 10
Oxalic acid To lower gelling temperature of animal glue and gelatine 1.1% 2
Rubber Adhesive 9.2% 17
Salicylic acid Preservative 1.6% 3
Shellac Adhesive/tackifier 5.4% 10
Soap Surfactant 1.6% 3
Sodium bicarbonate pH adjustment (to neutralise acid) 1.1% 2
Solvent, unspecified Solvent (for rubber) 2.7% 5
Starch Adhesive 27.6% 51
Sugar Adhesive and/or humectant (for flexibility and to prevent cockling) 8.1% 15
Tartaric acid To separate casein from milk 1.1% 2
Thymol Preservative 1.6% 3
Water Solvent 81.6% 151
Zinc sulphate Preservative 0.5% 1

4
1879). Aluminium sulfate, aluminium potassium sulfate
(alum), chrome alum, formaldehyde and linseed oil
were used as waterproofing agents, though their use
does not appear to have been widespread. Adhesives
containing these ingredients would be expected to resist
resolubilisation treatments (Cannon 2011).
It can be seen from Table 3, where the ingredients
have been listed in order of prevalence, that the most
common ingredients in photographic mountants were
water, starch, gelatine, alcohol, gum arabic, dextrin,
glycerine, rubber and carbolic acid, all used in over 10%
of recipes. The next most common ingredients were
animal glue, shellac, flour, oil of cloves, gum tragacanth,
sugar, benzol, naphtha and unspecified solvents for
rubber, all used in more than five recipes. Animal glue
and flour are the less pure forms of gelatin and starch,
and so were less popular with photographers. Shellac
Table 2. Components of photographic mountants to 1920
Purpose Identified ingredients
Adhesive/tackifier Animal glue, balsam, casein, dextrin,
egg or egg white, elemi, fish glue,
flour, gelatine, gum arabic, gum hog,
gum tragacanth, gutta percha, mastic,
rubber, shellac, starch, sugar
Solvent Alcohol, benzol (rubber), borax
solution (casein), chloroform (rubber), may have negligible long-term effects. Borax is a strongly alkaline
chloroform (rubber), naphtha (rubber), substance, which may have caused image fading.
water
Preservative Alcohol, ammonium hydroxide,
carbolic acid, chloral hydrate, creosote,
essential oil, oil of cloves, salicylic acid,
thymol, zinc sulphate
Humectant Glycerine, sugar
To lower gelling Acetic acid, nitric acid, oxalic acid
temperature of
animal glue and
gelatine
pH adjustment Calcium carbonate, sodium
bicarbonate
Hardener or Alum, aluminium sulphate, chrome
waterproofing agent alum, formaldehyde, linseed oil
Perfume Various essential oils – e.g.
wintergreen, lavender
Surfactant Soap
5
and gum tragacanth were often used as tackifiers, shellac
for rubber-based adhesives and gum tragacanth in
combination with other starch-based adhesives. When
used as the primary adhesive material, shellac was often
used in combination with mastic (e.g. Dann 1879).
The rest of the ingredients found were used in
less than five recipes each. Casein is only mentioned
occasionally (e.g. Standage 1893, pp. 120-121) and egg
white or albumen almost never—perhaps surprisingly,
given its widespread use as the photographic binder for
albumen prints.
Only one reference to waterglass was discovered
during the course of this research, in relation to its use
as a ‘substratum in collotype work’. The author states,
furthermore, that waterglass had ‘no photographic
applications’, suggesting that it was unlikely to have
been used as a photographic mountant to any great
Notes re permanence and solubility
Isoprenes (rubber, gutta percha) and terpenes (plant resins and
shellac) may be expected to discolour more with age and will be
unresponsive to aqueous treatments.
Animal glue and flour-based adhesives are less pure products and
are likely to have discoloured more than gelatine and starch-based
adhesives.
Dextrin and gum arabic tend to remain soluble on aging, even in
cold water. Casein and egg proteins are difficult to solubilise in any
solvent.
Mixtures of proteins and carbohydrates (eg gelatine mixed with
starch) may be less soluble than expected, due to reactions
between functional groups on polymer chains.
Organic solvents are likely to have evaporated on setting and
These were typically added in small quantities. Some, like
alcohol, would only have had an effect on the adhesive prior to
setting. Others will have altered the pH of the adhesive (perhaps
only slightly), which may have affected image fading and/or
discolouration. Essential oils are complex substances; it is difficult
to predict what effect they may have on an adhesive. Zinc sulphate
may cause proteins to become insoluble.
As these materials retain moisture, adhesives containing either
of these materials may be more water soluble. Higher moisture
content may have led to greater fading of the photograph.
Acids will have contributed to the breakdown of long protein
chains within the adhesive. The adhesive may be more acidic and
may have discoloured more. Oxalic acid can act as a chelating
agent and bleach.
Alkaline substances may have contributed to image fading.
Adhesives containing these substances are likely to be much less
soluble when using aqueous treatments.
Essential oils are complex and varied substances; it is difficult to
predict what effect they may have on an adhesive. They would
have been added in small quantities.
May in fact decrease the solubility of the adhesive, as soaps were
typically composed of a metallic salt of a fatty acid. Soaps were used
as a wash solution by bill-posters, to improve weather resistance.
Table 3. Prevalence of ingredients within recipes for photographic mountants to 1920
Ingredient Probable purpose Percentage Number
of recipes of recipes
(of 185 total) (of 185 total)
Water Solvent 81.6% 151
Starch Adhesive 27.6% 51
Alcohol/methylated spirit Solvent, preservative, to prevent cockling 27.0% 50
Gelatine Adhesive 27.0% 50
Dextrin Adhesive 16.2% 30
Gum arabic Adhesive 13.5% 25
Carbolic acid (phenol) Preservative 13.0% 24
Glycerine Humectant (for flexibility) 11.9% 22
Rubber Adhesive 9.2% 17
Animal glue Adhesive 8.1% 15
Sugar Adhesive and/or humectant (for flexibility and to prevent cockling) 8.1% 15

Oil of cloves Preservative 5.4% 10

Shellac Adhesive/tackifier 5.4% 10
Flour Adhesive 4.9% 9
Alum (aluminium potassium sulphate) Waterproofing agent 3.8% 7
Chloroform (trichloro methane) Solvent (for rubber) 3.8% 7
Gum tragacanth Adhesive 3.8% 7
Benzol (benzene) Solvent (for rubber) 3.2% 6
Acetic acid To lower gelling temperature of animal glue and gelatine 2.7% 5
Naphtha Solvent (for rubber) 2.7% 5
Solvent, unspecified Solvent (for rubber) 2.7% 5
Aluminium sulphate Waterproofing agent/adhesion enhancer 1.6% 3
(e.g. aids adhesion to wood and other surfaces)
Ammonia/ammonium hydroxide Preservative 1.6% 3
Borax (sodium tetraborate) To solubilise casein 1.6% 3
Essential oil (e.g. oil of wintergreen, lavender) Preservative, scent, masking of odour 1.6% 3
Fish glue Adhesive 1.6% 3
Mastic Adhesive/tackifier 1.6% 3
Miscellaneous or unspecified carbohydrate Adhesive 1.6% 3
Salicylic acid Preservative 1.6% 3
Soap Surfactant 1.6% 3
Thymol Preservative 1.6% 3
Balsam Adhesive/tackifier 1.1% 2
Calcium carbonate (chalk) pH adjustment (to neutralise acids) 1.1% 2
Casein Adhesive 1.1% 2
Creosote Preservative 1.1% 2
Egg, egg white Adhesive 1.1% 2
Elemi Adhesive/tackifier 1.1% 2
Gutta percha Adhesive 1.1% 2
Oxalic acid To lower gelling temperature of animal glue and gelatine 1.1% 2
Sodium bicarbonate pH adjustment (to neutralise acid) 1.1% 2
Tartaric acid To separate casein from milk 1.1% 2
Chloral hydrate Preservative 0.5% 1
Chrome alum Hardener/waterproofing agent 0.5% 1
Formaldehyde/formalin Hardener/waterproofing agent 0.5% 1
Gum hog Binder 0.5% 1
Linseed oil Waterproofing agent 0.5% 1
Nitric acid To lower gelling temperature of animal glue and gelatine 0.5% 1
Zinc sulphate Preservative 0.5% 1

6
extent (Anon 1893a). Waterglass is a highly alkaline
substance; it thus may have been found to be unsuitable
for photographic materials.
Preparation methods most commonly involved the
use of heat to help bring the adhesive into solution, by
warming the adhesive solution over a flame or in a water
bath. Often, glue or starch was softened in cold water
for some time, after which boiling water was added
and the mixture stirred until a suitable consistency was
reached. Those recipes that involved the use of organic
solvents were less likely to need heat.
Commercial products
Adhesive manufacturing was an identifiable industry in
the 1800s, growing more robust with the approach of
the 20th century. A variety of commercial mountants
were available. Photographic journals contain
advertisements and recommendations for various
tradenames, including Higgins’ Photo-Mountant (Anon
1895a; Anon 1895b), Messrs. Houghton’s “Excelsior”
(Anon 1892a), Fallowfield’s starch-based P.O.P.
Mountant (Anon 1893b), Le Page’s Liquid Glue (SB
1896a) and Le Page’s clarified fish glue (Wall 1896a),
Seccotine (Anon 1906a) and Glucine (APT 1896).
Examples of these products can be seen in Figures 1-5.
The composition of such commercial preparations
is difficult to determine. Le Page products were
often advertised as being based on fish glue, at least
until synthetic materials became available later in the
twentieth century. A number of patents for Higgins’
adhesive preparations detail various methods of
preparing starch, flour and dextrin, usually with the
addition of alkaline substances such as borax and
sodium hydroxide, to act as a preservative and to
increase the viscosity and adhesiveness of the product
(Higgins 1891, 1895, 1896a, 1896b, 1897, 1900).
Editorials in photographic journals referred to the
ready availability of gelatine, dextrin and starch-
based mountants (‘almost every dealer makes such a
mountant’—Anon 1903), but do not go into specifics.
Even when preparing their own adhesives,
photographers were wont to use commercial products:
‘Of the various kinds of paste, that made of starch is
preferable…I prefer the patent starch, in powder, and
without the blue tint for my own use’ (Simpson 1861,
p. 551). Various brands of gelatine, glue and starch were
mentioned: Oswego’s starch (Anon 1892b), Glenfield’s
powdered starch (SB1896b) and Nelson’s sheet gelatine
(Hypop 1896a).
Commercial ‘dry mount’ tissues for heat-set
application were also marketed and mentioned in
photographic journals—products such as Kodak’s Dry
Mounting Tissue (Anon 1906b). The composition
of these products is also unclear, although Watkins’
7
research (1993) indicates early products may have
consisted of a thin sheet of paper impregnated with
shellac or another resin. The sheet was placed between
the photograph and its mount and attached with a
heated iron. Gutta percha could also be used as a heat-
set tissue; it could be purchased in sheet form from the
chemist, placed on the reverse of the photograph to be
mounted and ironed in place (Anon 1908).
Choice of mountant—working properties
‘A good mounting material is a blessing to photographers…’
(Anon 1879). Simpson (1861, p. 551) listed the necessary
qualities of a mountant as ‘easy to prepare, easy to use,
efficient when used, and free from deleterious effect upon
the photograph’. He also noted ‘curling and cockling’
as factors in adhesive choice. Individual photographers
would have had their preferences for particular adhesives;
some preferred patent or commercially available mixtures,
others preferred to prepare their own recipes.
Working properties would have been one of the first
considerations of the photographer. Animal glue, rubber,
starch and gum adhesives required different preparation
methods and varied in working qualities such as tack,
viscosity and drying time. However, it would appear
that photographers had divergent opinions on which
adhesive best fulfilled these qualities. For example, one
correspondent preferred gelatine mountants to starch,
finding starch ‘messy’ (Hypop 1896a) whereas another
preferred starch ‘as it can be used with greater facility
and cleanliness than gum-arabic…’ (Simpson 1861, p.
551). Others found gelatine too viscous to apply easily,
and the need for heat to keep gelatine liquid was often
seen as a disadvantage (Anon 1879).
Cockling was another factor that affected the choice
of adhesive. Glue and starch adhesives both contained
a comparatively large quantity of water, which led to
the cockling of the photograph or mount. For this
reason many photographers preferred to use ‘india-
rubber’ or caoutchouc, mixed with benzole (benzene),
mineral naphtha or another suitable solvent. Shellac in
methylated spirits was also recommended by some for
this reason (Anon 1892b; Bacharach 1892; Hardwich
1859, pp. 171–3). Others tried to use paste or glues
that had cooled slightly or contained less water, to make
them as ‘dry’ as possible (e.g. Anon 1891).
Rubber went through periods of intense popularity
as an adhesive, despite the cautions of some early
writers. Simpson (1861, p. 551) writes that ‘[it] is
scarcely suitable for general mounting purposes but is
invaluable for fixing prints in albums or scrapbooks.
A slight touch of the paste at each corner attaches
the print to its place in the scrap-book, and keeps it
perfectly flat, without the slightest contraction, or
cockling.’ Some objected to its smell, but otherwise
 barrier layers (Blanchard
1867; Robinson 1867).
Such barrier layers will
have reacted with both
the adhesive and the
photograph on ageing,
most likely contributing
to greater insolubility
of the adhesive and
staining or fading of the
photograph.
However, as one
correspondent writes, ‘You
do not always want the
same kind of mounting
material’ (Anon 1879).
The appropriateness of
a particular adhesive for
the type of print to be
mounted was considered.
‘If it is a thin delicate
sheet to be mounted,
no one would think of
taking thick hot glue,
nor when a stiff carbon
impression is to be fixed
is he likely to employ
gum water” (Simpson
1861, p. 551). Starch
and dextrine appeared to
be common choices for
thin materials, such as
albumen photographs (e.g. Anon 1879), whereas glue
were ‘not aware of any chemical objection to its use’ was preferred for ‘papers of greater area and substance,
(Martin 1862). In 1867 GH Egerton (1867) wrote such as enlargements on bromide paper’ (Anon 1892b).
in to The British Journal of Photography to tell of ‘dirty One author recommended a mixture of gum and glue
brown that penetrated the paper’. However, during for ‘stubborn prints which want a good deal of cement
1867, extensive correspondence about a “new” method upon them’ (Anon 1879).
of utilising rubber as an adhesive appeared in the pages Mountant choice also appears to have changed
of the Journal. The method involved applying a solution with the introduction of new photographic methods.
of rubber in benzole to both surfaces, mount and print, Gelatine and collodion coated papers were found to
and allowing them to dry. The two surfaces then only be easily abraded while damp, and so photographers
required pressure to join them—effectively, an early avoided ‘wet’ adhesives like starch paste and tried ‘drier’
pressure-sensitive adhesive system. The cleanliness of adhesives, such as the tackier animal glues and various
the process and the absence of cockling were seen as ready-made mountants, such as Houghton’s “Excelsior”
definite advantages, as were its perceived preservative (Anon 1892b; Anon 1892a). One author recommended
effects against damp and pollutants, prompting the using gelatine mixed with methylated spirits for
editor of the Journal to write ‘the death-blow has been mounting bromide paper as it avoided wetting the
given to dextrine, starch, gum…as mountants’ (Anon surface (Hypop 1896b).
1867). The tendency of rubber to oxidise and cause Occasionally, reversibility was a valued characteristic.
staining was apparently as yet unrecognised; some Gelatine was preferred by at least one journal
photographers even recommended using rubber as a correspondent because ‘…if any of the mountant gets on
barrier layer between the print and other adhesives the surface it can be easily got off with a handkerchief
used. Plant resins and collodion were also employed as dipped in water. The print, too, can be easily got off

8
the mount by placing blotting-paper over the print
and soaking it with warm water, or by sponging it over
with water’ (Hypop 1896a). Rubber-based adhesives
were less easy to remove: ‘the only thing to do is to split
the mount with a knife till there is only a thin film of
card left on the print, and then to soak it in mineral
naphtha or bisulphide of carbon. The smell of this is so
unpleasant that it is better, after splitting off the card,
to rub the rest down with a bit of cuttlefish or pumice-
stone or blunt knife’ (Wall 1896b).
Mounting equipment and methods
There is a marked consistency within early instructions
for mounting photographs. Prints were nearly
always adhered to their mounts when dampened or
wet—if not straight from the wash bath, then they
were re-dampened using sponges or sheets of damp
linen or a handkerchief, or placed again in a bath of
water—‘they will then lie perfectly flat, and cause no
difficulty’ (Simpson 1861, p. 551). Excess moisture was
removed from the print, using either a rubber “squeegee”
(obtained from a glazier) and rubbed over the print with
a sheet of waxed paper or rubber cloth in between, or
pressed with the fingers through a thin linen or calico.
(Blotting paper was not recommended, as it could leave
fluff on the print).
The item was pasted out ‘…with a wide, flat brush, in
a thin, even coating, taking care that no lumps are left on
the print before applying it to the mount, and that the
edges and corners are well covered…’, usually on a sheet
of glass, but sometimes on zinc or ebonite. The print
was pasted from the centre outwards, ‘on no account…
from end to end’ (FHK 1896). A knife blade was
used to lift the photograph, which was then carefully
placed on the mount, and the whole was pressed
with the fingers or squeegeed into place, again with a
layer of cloth in between. Sometimes mounted prints
were placed between the covers of a book and rubbed
vigorously. Excess paste was removed with a clean cloth,
though warnings were made not to get any on the front
of the photograph if one could help it (see Anon 1892c;
SB 1896b; Erudio 1896; FHK 1896; Hunger 1896;
Anon 1896a; Wall 1896a; Wall 1896d; A.G.J. 1896;
Hardwich 1859, pp. 171–3).
Some authors recommended soaking the prints in a
solution of alum prior to mounting, to harden them and
make them less susceptible to damage (Hunger 1896),
even going so far as to say that this step ‘never should
be omitted’ (A.G.J 1896). Others first varnished the
backs of their prints with a solution of gutta percha,
rubber, collodion or plant resin as a protective barrier
layer between the print and the adhesive, ‘whereby
the decomposition of the gum or paste is not liable
to affect the photograph’ (Dunelm 1857). Such a
9
layer may subsequently affect the deterioration of the
photograph and/or react with the adhesive, resulting in
discolouration of the support and/or image fading.
Surprisingly, to the modern photograph conservator,
it seems rare that mounted prints were dried under
weight: ‘In some extreme cases it will be found necessary
to dry the prints between towels under pressure of a pile
of books or a letter press, to prevent the curling up of
the edges’ (Anon 1892c); ‘…never mind about bumps,
they disappear as it dries, and place on one side in not
too warm a place to dry’ (Erudio 1896).
However, curling and warping was a problem for
some and was the topic of much correspondence
to photographic journals. It was known that many
adhesives contracted on drying, and that adhesives
containing water were more likely to cause cockling of
papers and boards. The methods used to counteract
this phenomenon varied. Some simply used non-
aqueous adhesives, such as rubber and shellac, or tried
to minimise the amount of water in their adhesive
formulation. Others advocated bending the mounted
prints while they dried, to counteract the force of the
drying adhesive: ‘…either bend the mount and print into
an arc of a circle, with the print outside, and keep in this
position by strings till dry, or else paste a piece of paper
a little larger than the print on the back of the mount’
(Wall 1896e).
Others pre-pasted their prints, allowing them to dry
fully before mounting, and re-dampened the prints by
placing them between sheets of damp blotter or with a
sponge (Towler 1864: Ch XXXII). Mr Stuart’s method
of mounting was referred to in journals with reasonable
frequency. Stuart’s method involved pre-pasting the
prints with starch, allowing them to dry, dampening
the mounts and placing the pre-pasted photographs on
top, and then running the prints and mounts through
a lithographic press. Journals reported that he was able
to mount 3,000 items in 15 hours by this method.
Amateur correspondents noted that Mr Stuart’s method
would have gained almost universal use if a press had
not been required (Anon 1863a).
Commercial enterprises were more likely to use
equipment to speed up the mounting process. It is
more difficult to trace popular commercial practice, as
there were fewer published records of this nature. The
patent record can be of some assistance. Patents exist
for improved machinery for mounting large numbers of
mounts quickly (Studds 1893; Dorticus 1895; Hoddle
1895) or outline designs for pre-gummed photographic
mounts (Delépine 1896; McCabe 1896; Radford 1898).
Other patents outline patterns for gummed photo-
corners (Lake 1893) or methods of drying mounted
photographs without curvature (Renard 1895). Patent
records from this time also reveal a tendency to ‘pre-glue’
photographic mounts, so that the process of mounting
could become quicker.
Equipment such as the ‘Zenith Mounter’ perhaps fell
in between the needs of the commercial and amateur
practitioner; certainly it seems to have been aimed
more at the amateur market, as advertisements were
placed in amateur journals. Essentially, the Zenith
Mounter consisted of a board to which the mount and
photograph could be clipped, and an attached roller
lowered and rolled over the print to ensure contact, one
end at a time, without risk of movement during the
process (Anon 1896b). It is difficult to imagine that
it saved a great deal of time, as mounts still had to be
mounted one at a time in a relatively labour-intensive
manner. Similar machines were made by the Messrs
Bullock Brothers, of Leamington (Anon 1863b) and Mr
Solomon of Red Lion Square (Anon 1865).
After mounting and drying, the photographs may have
been put through rolling machines or burnishers, to impart
a smooth surface to the print (Burgess 1862, p. 22)
Alternatively, unmounted prints were often passed
beneath the rollers of a glazing or ‘planishing’ machine
in order to perform two operations in one step—
mounting the print to the cardboard backing and
providing a more pleasing surface to the photograph
(Towler 1864: Ch XXXII).
Conclusions
Mounting photographs was evidentially a topic of
great concern for the nineteenth and early twentieth-
century photographer. If not performed successfully,
mounting could ruin the results of many hours of
labour. Thus, photographers debated the advantages and
disadvantages of various adhesives, with respect to issues
of permanence, working qualities and drying properties.
The conservator faced with mounted photographs
from this era can be fairly confident that the adhesive
used was based on gelatine or starch, dextrin, plants
gums or rubber—providing, of course, that the
photograph was indeed mounted during this time
and by a person who took an interest in the relevant
literature. Flour, animal glue, shellac, gutta percha and
casein may also have been used. Preservative agents
and sugar or glycerine may have been added to adhesive
formulations, with alcohol often added to minimise
cockling. Conservators may also be able to make an
educated guess about the adhesive depending on the
type of photograph—for example, animal glue was more
likely to have been used for a thicker, stiffer photograph,
and starch and gums for thinner papers—but the
number of divergent opinions published on this topic
may make this practice unwise.
The effects of these adhesives on the photograph
itself vary. Those with a strongly acidic or alkaline
10
nature, high moisture content, or an inclination
to discolour (e.g. rubber, animal glue) may have
contributed to image fading and/or discolouration of
the support. Many of the adhesives may now prove
intractable during conservation treatment, due to their
inherent non-aqueous nature (rubber) or due to contact
with various waterproofing agents, such as alum. These
agents may have been added to the adhesive itself, or
applied to the photograph in a wash solution, as part
of the mounting process. Other components of the
adhesive may have reacted with each other to bring
about decreased solubility, such as the combination of
starch and gelatine.
For those who conquered the challenges of mounting
photographs, success proved to be a rewarding
experience: ‘Mounting is now a pleasure to me, and if
any of your readers who are in difficulties follow the
plan that I have, they will soon derive as much pleasure
from mounting as developing…’ (SB 1896b). There is
no doubt that poor quality adhesives and mount boards
have taken their toll on many early photographic prints;
however, the well-mounted print does indeed remain a
pleasure to all.
Author biography
Alice Cannon trained in paper conservation at the
University of Canberra, Australia, 1992-1994. She
has since completed a postgraduate certificate in
photographic conservation and a Master of Arts by
Research, both at the University of Melbourne. The title
of her Masters thesis was Adhesives for paper, 1870–
1920: Recipes and proprietary products. She currently
works as a paper and photograph conservator at the
State Library of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
References
AGJ 1896, ‘Practical Points—A very simple method of
trimming and mounting prints’, The Photographic News XL,
vol. 29, 17 July, p. 462.
Anon 1863a, ‘Glasgow Photographic Association—
Mounting Photographs’, The British Journal of Photography,
15 May, p. 215.
Anon 1863b, ‘Mounting Machine for Cartes de Visite’, The
British Journal of Photography, 16 March, p. 124.
Anon 1865, ‘New Apparatus for Mounting Cartes de Visite’,
The British Journal of Photography, 28 July, p. 396.
Anon 1867, ‘Mounting Prints. The British Journal of
Photography’, vol XIV, no. 392, 8 November, p. 527.
Anon 1879, ‘Photography In and Out of the Studio—A Good
Mounting Material’, The Photographic News XXIII, vol.
1062, 10 January, p. 13.
Anon 1891, ‘Mounting Photographs’, The Photographic News
XXXV, 10 July, p. 502.
Anon 1892a, ‘Apparatus, etc.’, The Photographic News XXXVI,
 15 July, p. 464.
Anon 1892b, ‘Notes on mounting photographs’, The
Photographic News XXXVI, 22 July, p. 472–3.
Anon 1892c, ‘Hints on mounting photographs’, The
Photographic News XXXVI, 3 June, p. 364–5.
Anon 1893a, ‘Answers to Correspondents’, The Photographic
News XXXVII, 21 April, p. 256.
Anon 1893b, ‘Fallowfield’s P.O.P. Mountant...’,The Photographic
News XXXVII, 11 August, p. 507.
Anon 1893c, ‘Answers to Correspondents’, The Photographic
News XXXVII, 28 July, p. 480.
Anon 1895a, ‘Apparatus, etc.’, The Photographic News IXL, 5
July, p. 429.
Anon 1895b, ‘Apparatus, etc.—Higgins’ Photo-Mountant’, The
Photographic News IXL, 1 November, p. 701.
Anon 1896a, ‘Starch Paste’, The Photographic News XL, 28
February, p. 144.
Anon 1896b, ‘Notes on Novelties—The “Zenith” Mounter’,
The Photographic News XL, 13 March, p. 174.
Anon 1901, ‘Mounting Photographs Upon Metal’, The
Australian Photographic Journal, 24 June, p. 188.
Anon 1903, ‘Mountant’, The Photographic News, 2 January, p. 79.
Anon 1906a, ‘Brevities—Trimming and Mounting Prints’, The
Photographic News, 30 November, p. 956.
Anon 1906b, ‘The only Way to mount Prints’, The
Australasian Photo-Review, 21 May, p. 193.
Anon 1908, ‘Cheap and effective method of dry mounting’, The
Amateur Photographer, 9 June, p. 579.
APT 1896, ‘How to Mount Glazed P.O.P.’, The Photographic
News, 14 August, p. 522–33.
Bacharach, D, Jr 1892, ‘Mounts and Mountants—Method in
Photographic Work’, Wilson’s Photographic Magazine XXIX
vol. 418, 21 May, p. 290.
Blanchard 1867, ‘On the Best Means of Rendering Silver
Prints Permanent’, The British Journal of Photography, 24
May, p. 241–3.
Burgess, NG 1862, ‘The Photograph Manual; A Practical
Treatise, containing the cartes de visite process, and the method of
taking stereoscopic pictures’, New York, D. Applestone & Co.
Cannon, A 2011, ‘Interactions between adhesives from natural
sources and paper substrates’, Proceedings of Symposium
2011—Adhesives and Consolidants for Conservation, Ottawa,
Canadian Conservation Institute.
Dawidowsky, F and Brannt, WT 1905, Glue, Gelatine, Animal
Charcoal, Phosphorus, Cements, Pastes, and Mucilages,
Philadelphia, Henry Carey Baird & Co.
Dann, F 1879, ‘A Good Mounting Material’, The Photographic
News XXIII. vol. 1069, 28 February, p. 103.
Delépine, S 1896, Improvement in and relating to the Mounting of
Photographs and other Pictures, Patent: Great Britain, No. 8143.
Dorticus, C 1895, Improvements in Machines for Embossing and
Mounting Photographs, Patent: Great Britain, No. 7632.
Dunelm, RR 1857, ‘Mounting Photographs—To the Editor of
the Photographic Journal’, Journal of the Photographic Society
11
of London 3, vol. 54, 21 May, p. 291.
Egerton, GH 1867, To the editors, The British Journal of
Photography, 15 November, p. 548–9.
Eisenträger, W and Druschke, K 1977, ‘Acrylic Adhesives and
Sealants’, Handbook of Adhesives, I Skeist (ed.). New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: 528-559.
Erudio, 1896, ‘To Mount Gelatinol-Chloride Prints While
Wet’, The Photographic News Xl, vol. 12, 17 July, p. 184.
FHK, 1896, Mounting. The Photographic News XL (41), 9
October 1896: 659.
Gettens RJ and Stout, GL 1966, Painting Materials—A Short
Encyclopaedia, New York, Dover Publications Inc.
Hardwich, TF 1859, Manual of photographic chemistry, including
the practice of the collodion process, London, John Churchill.
Hemming, CB 1962, Phenolic Resin Adhesives. In: Handbook
of Adhesives, I Skeist (ed.). New York: Reinhold Publishing
Corporation: 298-305.
Higgins, CM 1891, Patent, Adhesive Compound, United States
Patent Office: No. 466,239, 29 December.
Higgins, CM 1895, Patent, Improved Manufacture of Adhesive
Pastes, Great Britain: No. 17,337.
Higgins, CM 1896a, Patent, Adhesive, United States Patent
Office: No. 579,827.
Higgins, CM 1896b, Patent, Improvements in or relating to
Flour and Starch Pastes, and Processes of Making the Same.
Great Britain: No. 12,447.
Higgins, CM 1897, Patent, Improvements in or relating to
Adhesive Compounds, Great Britain: No. 2746.
Higgins, CM 1900, Patent. Improvements in the Digestion
of Starch and the Manufacture of Dextrine Pastes and other
Products. Great Britain: No. 1885.
Hoddle, C 1895, A Machine or Apparatus for Mounting
Photographs and the like. Patent: Great Britain, No. 11,902.
Hunger, AT 1896, Mounting Prints. The Photographic News
XL vol. 42, 16 October, p. 685.
Hypop 1896a, Gelatine Mountant, The Photographic News XL
vol. 52, 25 December, vol. 839–40.
Hypop 1896b, ‘Practical Points—How to Mount
Enlargements’, The Photographic News XL vol. 52, 25
December, p. 839–40.
Lake, M 1893, ‘Improved Devices for Mounting Photographs or
the like’, Patent: Great Britain, No. 20,405.
Martin, J 1862, ‘Of the Adhesive Materials Employed for
Mounting Photographs’, The British Journal of Photography,
15 September, p. 350–1.
McCabe, JW 1896, An Improved Mode or Method of Uniting
Paper to a Cardboard or other Support, particularly applicable
to the art of Manufacturing Photographic Prints. Patent: Great
Britain, No. 23,507.
Messier, P 2008, ‘History and stylistic evolution of gelatin
silver developing out paper’, AIC Annual Meeting,
Photographic Materials Group Session, Denver, CO, USA,
April 2008. Available at <http://paulmessier.com/pm/pdf/
abstracts/dop_messier.pdf> (Accessed 9 November 2011).
Nadeau, L 1994, Encyclopedia of Printing, Photographic, and
Photomechanical Processes, Fredricton, New Brunswick, Atelier.
Norris, PM and Draghetti, FH 1962, Polyvinyl Acetate
and Related Polymers for Adhesives. In: Handbook of
Adhesives, I Skeist (ed.). New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company: 349–82.
Palinchak, S and Yurgen, WJ 1962, Natural and Reclaimed
Rubber Adhesives, Handbook of Adhesives, I Skeist (ed.).
New York, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, pp. 209–220.
Radford, TH 1898, Mounts for Photographs, Pictures, and
the like. Patent: Great Britain, No. 25,921.
Reynard, E 1895, A Process and Apparatus for Flattening
Mounted Photographs, Patent: Great Britain, No. 13,428.
Robinson, JV 1867, Preservatives and Mounting Materials.
The British Journal of Photography, 8 November, p. 528.
SB 1896a, ‘A Good Binding Strip’, The Photographic News XL
vol. 50, 11 December, p. 806.
SB 1896b, ‘An Easy Way to Mount P.O.P.’, The Photographic
News XL, vol. 11, 13 March, p. 168.
Simpson, GW 1861, ‘On Mounting Photographs’, The
Photographic News V, vol. 168, 22 November, p. 551
<http://albumen.stanford.edu/library/c19/simpson.html>,
accessed 2 March 2008.
Standage, HC 1893, Cements, Pastes, Glues and Gums,
London, Crosby, Lockwood and Son.
Standage, HC 1902, Sealing-Waxes, Wafers, & Other Adhesives
12
for the House-Hold, Office, Workshop, and Factory, London,
Scott, Greenwood & Co.
Studds, HF 1893, An Improved Mount for Photographic Prints,
Patent: Great Britain, No. 21,371.
Teesdale, CH and Bezeau, CM 1922, Modern Glues and Glue
Testing, Grand Rapids, Mich., The Periodical Publishing Co.
Towler, J 1864, The Silver Sunbeam, Joseph H Ladd, New York.
von Waldthausen, C 2005, Coatings on Salted Paper,
Albumen and Platinum Prints. Coatings on Photographs—
Materials, Techniques, and Conservation, C McCabe,
Washington, DC, the Photographic Materials Group,
American Institute for Conservation of Historic and
Artistic Works: 78–95.
Wall, EJ 1896a, Our Consulting Room—Liquid Mountant.
The Photographic News XL vol. 5, 31 January, vol. 80.
Wall, EJ 1896b, ‘Our Consulting Room—Unmounting Prints’,
The Photographic News XL, 18 December, p. 830.
Wall, EJ 1896c, ‘Our Consulting Room—Starch Mountant’,
The Photographic News XL vol. 43, 23 October, p. 702.
Wall, EJ 1896d, ‘Our Consulting Room—Mounting Prints’,
The Photographic News XL vol. 13, 27 March, p. 204–5.
Wall, EJ 1896e, ‘Our Consulting Room—Curling prints’, The
Photographic News XL vol. 12, 20 March, p. 189.
Watkins, S 1993, ‘Origins and Development of Dry Mounting’
The Book and Paper Group Annual, 66–74.