From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/23/01-10:06:04 PM Z
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Robert W. Schramm wrote:
> First, let me say that the dyes are most sensitive to fadeing. This is
> why normal ink-jet prints are non-archival. Real pigments last longer.
> Different hues fade at different rates. Different types of pigments fade
> at different rates. Different types of FL bulbs produce different amounts
> of UV of different energies, so that is a factor as well.
I was really thinking about gum prints -- with inkjet I only plan to make
negs (when, as & if).
> ... Also you havn't said how big the FL light over your computer
> is i.e what wattage and how many tubes.
Regular household fluorescent, only one tube, 8 feet long, painting is
about 3 feet below and 3 feet off to the side. But tube probably coated
with coat of grime... natural filter maybe.
> In summary, everything is deteriorating but some things are deteriorating
> faster than others ;-)
Sigh...
Incidentally, about 2 feet from painting are school photos of the kids,
taken some 30 years ago... no glass on them either (always THOUGHT I'd get
around to it...), and I don't see fading... at least not detectable
behind edge of the fiber overmat. Granted reveal is very tiny, but --
little if any. This was presumably a more archival print process than the
one hour photo.
Meanwhile, seems to me no need to bother about UV-barrier-plexi for gum
prints. Thanks.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:40 PM Z CST