RE: archivalness of gum
I see what you mean. Maybe more tests are required; but my guess (since
there isn't any LONG-term test) is that since the pigment is not reacting to
the polymer but just being held there, and since the dichromate has been
washed out, the pigment is not going to change by just being held there.
That is the same thing with paintings, right? Unless we are suspecting that
the hardened polymer is going to act differently from unhardened polymer.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:05 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: archivalness of gum
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yves Gauvreau [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 12:13 PM
> >> To: email@example.com
> >> Subject: Re: archivalness of gum
> >> Hi,
> >> Out of curiosity, wouldn't it be appropriate to also consider the
> >> gelatin and/or whatever else is used with the pigment(s) in the
> >> archivalness equation?
> >> Yves
> This is exactly the question I asked quite some time back in
> this discussion. It seems simplistic to me to just go by the
> galvanic series and say that because carbon is at the top,
> that means prints
> using carbon pigments are the most archival. How do we know that
> the archival qualities are the same for carbon held in a
> crosslinked polymer matrix are the same as pure unembedded
> carbon, was my question? Not disregarding the issues Ryuji
> raised about the complexities of determining archivality,
> which also need to be kept in mind.