From: clay (wcharmon@wt.net)
Date: 03/21/02-06:53:55 AM Z
This thread raises some interesting observations. It seems that there are
two sorts of print degradation processes being mentioned:
1) biologic - the affinity of bugs, various critters, mildew and mold for
the organic matter in our prints. The consensus here seems to be that it is
easier to recognize and fix( or simply stop) this sort of damage if the
print is not dry-mounted. Does this mean that over the long long haul that
organically based prints such as gum and carbon may just be critter magnets
and force us to give them tastier alternatives nearby?
2) Chemical - this is the silver degradation most often talked about. The
consensus here seems to be that the dry mount barrier may be good in
preventing this sort of damage, at the expense of making it difficult to fix
problem 1. It is also interesting that you can probably do accelerated aging
tests by increasing the concentrations of pollutants that cause the damage.
I doubt if similar 'accelerated' aging tests will properly model the damage
caused by organisms. Life forms just seem to do things on their own
schedule, and mutate over time to boot.
Sounds like this may be the photo world's dismal science.
Eeyore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:55 AM Z CST