FotoDave@aol.com
Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:19:22 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 1/29/99 9:05:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, silh@iag.net
writes:
> But don't think watercolors are so very permanent. My late wife bought a
> watercolor painting that she put up in a dark hall here. It was brilliant,
> but after about ten years, the paper has become a dark ecru and the colors
> have definitely deteriorated.
>
Yes, just because it is watercolor or because pigment is used does not
guarantee permanence as we also have fugitive pigments. The paper is important
too as the example above shows. The medium or bonding is also important. For
example, you can have a pastel painting with permanent pigment or archival
paper, but if not handled properly (or if handled roughly), the pigment might
come out of the paper, and you will have a big messy paper with permanent
pigment dusts.
Also, for those who are new in this area, please make sure that you check the
terms as used in the *context*. "Permanent" markers usually means that once it
dries, the ink is not water soluble although the ink itself might be fugitive.
"Permanent" Rose Madder means it is *relatively* more stable than genuine rose
madder, but it is still quiet fugitive.
For alt. process, I think we more or less use permanence to refer to
lightfastness.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:48