Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone  (Read 8521 times)
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 25, 2010, 06:14:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Phil, you bring up a good point about obsessing about numbers. Can someone tell me what the expected lifetime of a traditionally printed photo is. I know my wedding photos have faded and we've been married 28 years in April.
Archivally processed and selenium toned B&W prints will last a very long time.  I've seen three large Ansel Adams retrospectives and his prints look fine.  Color prints are another matter.  Most will show significant fading after a short time because of the dyes used.  Supposedly the Cibachrome process and dyes were the most stable but I've seen fading of those.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829


« Reply #41 on: December 25, 2010, 06:36:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Phil, you bring up a good point about obsessing about numbers. Can someone tell me what the expected lifetime of a traditionally printed photo is. I know my wedding photos have faded and we've been married 28 years in April.

The struggle to get more fade resistant prints (and films) may have started with the complaints of wedding photographers and their customers. Wedding pictures less than 10 years old had faded and the films too. 1968-1977 Ektacolor prints. Agfacolor paper Type 4 printed from 1974 to 1982 were even worse. In 1978 Wilhelm presented data that showed that the existing acceleration tests on fading could have unexpected reciprocity failures. It started his involvement in photo preservation and a long battle with Kodak. For some people wedding pictures may belong to the non important photo documents but for others it belongs to the most important ones they have. The Agfacolor disaster led to a class action suite in 1985 which was settled in 1987. Your prints could have been made on that material. Right now analogue prints have Wilhelm test results that should give them a lifetime of 17 to 40 years (Fuji Crystal Archive) depending on the paper/process selected. So how prosaic the image content may be, for a customer it may be an important image. Not mentioning art etc.


Edit: Years and numbers quoted from Henry's book The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 04:45:41 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #42 on: December 25, 2010, 07:12:37 PM »
ReplyReply

The struggle to get more fade resistant prints (and films) may have started with the complaints of wedding photographers and their customers. Wedding pictures less than 10 years old had faded and the films too. 1968-1977 Ektacolor prints. Agfacolor paper Type 4 printed from 1974 to 1982 were even worse. In 1978 Wilhelm presented data that showed that the existing acceleration tests on fading could have unexpected reciprocity failures. It started his involvement in photo preservation and a long battle with Kodak. For some people wedding pictures may belong to the non important photo documents but for others it belongs to the most important ones they have. The Agfacolor disaster led to a class action suite in 1985 which was settled in 1987. ...


Actually, the fading of photographs has been a concern almost from the inception of photographic print making. "So serious was the problem that in 1855 the Photographic Society formed a committee to examine the causes of fading; this committee, chaired by Roger Fenton, received support from an equally concerned Prince Albert, who contributed 50 to its funds." (source: http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/fading.htm)

cheers,
Mark
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #43 on: December 25, 2010, 07:48:39 PM »
ReplyReply

That's true, but what drives vendors decisions on costs is whether they can recover those costs in the price to the market.  The market is always demanding a higher quality at a lower price (fair enough).

Well, in this inkjet age, it's not even realistic anymore to expect the vendors to test all material processes that printmakers choose to use. I can make very beautiful prints on Epson Exhibition Fiber paper using my Canon ip8100. Would Canon pay for that test? Would Epson? Of course not, but we are certainly free to use such a combination in our work. Hence, the Aardenburg digital print research program that lets end-users submit samples made with the processes they actually prefer to use. If the combination is commercially available there is now a way it can be tested. I don't think we can realistically expect the vendors to support these non OEM branded material combinations, but there are more of these mix-and-match inkjet processes in use today than totally OEM branded solutions.

We have also reached the point where the bar has been raised well above that of many alternative or traditional photographic printing methods such that expectations now would be utterly unreasonable just a few years ago.  That's a good thing, in my opinion, but from time to time I think it's worth acknowledging the new field on which we play.  An artist, with a digital capacity, can offer something significantly less than 100+ years if a client understands the limitation but prefers the presentation (indeed, for exhibition work, stability beyond a few years probably shouldn't matter compared to presentation of the image in the best/preferred manner for the artist).

It's a little like pixel peeping at times - we can become too focussed on numbers and fail to step back and look at the overall results.

Yup, I can cite a thousand reasons why the kind of print longevity testing I do is no longer important to the vast majority of photographers. On the other hand, let me offer one pragmatic example that indicates why I continue to test. The current street price of a 50 foot roll of 17 inch wide Museo Portfolio Rag 300gsm is about $136 in the U.S. That's 2.72 per lineal foot. The current price of a 39 foot roll of 17 inch wide Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308gsm is about $116 ($2.97 per lineal foot). Both papers have very similar surface texture, initial image quality, and media whitepoint color. Given that they are very similar indeed, it is clear that Museo Portfolio Rag wins on price per lineal foot.  I have a Canon ipf5000. The AaI&A Conservation display rating for Museo Portfolio Rag when printed on the iPF5000 with Canon OEM Lucia inks is 60-94 Megalux hours.  For HN Photo Rag printed on the same iPF5000/OEM Lucia ink system the Conservation Display rating  is 116-156 Megalux hours. 60-94 Megalux hours exposure dose is a pretty darn good score (equivalent to 30-47 years for "little or no noticeable fade" at 500 lux-12 hours per day display conditions), but the HN Photo Rag is nearly twice as good. Does it matter? That's for the individual user to decide, but clearly, the HN Photo Rag has superior light fastness properties on my printer, and as a serious printmaker I can convey that information to my clients.  Some won't care, but some will.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 09:24:24 AM by MHMG » Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 26, 2010, 03:47:55 AM »
ReplyReply

There's absolutely nothing wrong with testing and publishing results.

There failure, if you like, in the system is that most users and many (perhaps even most, if we're honest) photographers don't really understand how it all goes together.  Lightfastness, gasfastness, OB issues, etc, etc.  You need to understand your customers in order to understand what is required to suit their needs.  If you just assualt the customers with techincal babble (regardless of how accurate it is), it adds little to no value.

The customer isn't an expert (most times).  They probably won't look after the print in ideal conditions. 

So, keep on testing, but we need to educate photos, print makers and customers as to what the testing really means and how they can use the results to create/obtain the products that they want.
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #45 on: December 26, 2010, 08:18:51 AM »
ReplyReply

There's absolutely nothing wrong with testing and publishing results.

There failure, if you like, in the system is that most users and many (perhaps even most, if we're honest) photographers don't really understand how it all goes together.  Lightfastness, gasfastness, OB issues, etc, etc.  You need to understand your customers in order to understand what is required to suit their needs.  If you just assualt the customers with techincal babble (regardless of how accurate it is), it adds little to no value.

The customer isn't an expert (most times).  They probably won't look after the print in ideal conditions.  

So, keep on testing, but we need to educate photos, print makers and customers as to what the testing really means and how they can use the results to create/obtain the products that they want.

hmmm, I thought an education component was a big part of the AaI&A website. Admittedly, the research that I publish isn't easy to distill into a simple soundbite.  People who are interested in this complex subject matter have to be willing to invest some personal time in the learning process.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 09:20:44 AM by MHMG » Logged
JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 734


WWW
« Reply #46 on: December 26, 2010, 08:36:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your work, Mark. I joined up yesterday  Grin  because these issues are important to me and ultimately important to the galleries which represent my photography. Neither of us need someone coming in several years after a sale complaining of fading or deteriation of a print due to factors beyond our control or knowledge.
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 26, 2010, 03:21:58 PM »
ReplyReply

hmmm, I thought an education component was a big part of the AaI&A website. Admittedly, the research that I publish isn't easy to distill into a simple soundbite.  People who are interested in this complex subject matter have to be willing to invest some personal time in the learning process.

And there's the rub.  The information being provided is good (very good), but consumers, by and large, are not going to take the time to learn the subject.  As in most fields, it becomes the responsibility of the experts to present the information in a meaningful way that allows a layman to comprehend it and to make a reasonably informed decision.  This might be in conjunction with specific advice from some party (the artist or the print maker and so forth).

Most people are not mechanics or engineers and yet most people manage to make a decent decision about which motor vehicle to buy to suit their needs.  If they purchase from a reputable dealer, even better are the chances of success.  If they read publications designed for the end user, they'll do even better.  Thus, a very complex piece of machinery is made accessible to the public in a way that allows them to make informed and reasonable decisions.  Of course, we all know about the dealers who will spin any old story to get a sale, but for the most part the professionals in the industry and their related press make honest and accurate information available.

At the moment, in print making, we have a vast array of numbers, opinions, testing methods, focus of testing, areas in which no testing is done, and a lack of presentation to the end users as to how to apply this to their needs.  Whilst it's wonderful to debate and discuss this material, doing so amongst ourselves has only a limited immediate benefit to the end users.  Long term, it should strengthen the industry which should flow on, but right now - today - it's not really helping people to make good purchases and it's not helping a lot of artists and print makers make appropriate decisions, either, as we're caught up with the mass of numbers.
Logged

Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #48 on: December 26, 2010, 05:50:06 PM »
ReplyReply

thanks Terry, but that wording is a little odd:
"This is the paper that has similar non-OBA color"
which seems like clever weasel words for: it has got OBAs, but is the same color as non OBA paper.

I think if it had no OBA's they would say it clear and proud, and they don't.
When it makes Ernst SpectraViz, then we will know for sure.

I would love to be wrong,but as EEF shows us, scepticism is the best approach

I understand your scepticism Narikin. I too assume there are OBA's unless I see something that states otherwise. So, after reading positive comments from a print maker I have the highest regard for (Tyler Boley) when the paper first came out, I asked Inkjet Mall Tech Support about OBA's. This is what they e-mailed back. . . .

"Type 5 is a natural white paper, so no OBA's."

When I put EEF under my black light it glows (rather nicely). When I put Type 5 under my black light it does not.

Type 5's paper base measures as follows (ColorMunki). . . .  L*98.531816, a*0.021066, b*2.585261. It has a very pleasing, warm tone, as confirmed by the positive b* value. I can't see the need for OBA's in a paper with a positive b* value like this. EEF conversely, will have a significant negative b* value.

I'd be happy to send Ernst a couple of pieces to measure for SpectraViz. Maybe we can work something out off-line.

Terry.
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #49 on: December 26, 2010, 06:11:31 PM »
ReplyReply


At the moment, in print making, we have a vast array of numbers, opinions, testing methods, focus of testing, areas in which no testing is done, and a lack of presentation to the end users as to how to apply this to their needs.  Whilst it's wonderful to debate and discuss this material, doing so amongst ourselves has only a limited immediate benefit to the end users.  Long term, it should strengthen the industry which should flow on, but right now - today - it's not really helping people to make good purchases and it's not helping a lot of artists and print makers make appropriate decisions, either, as we're caught up with the mass of numbers.

Right, but as the saying goes, "All journeys begin with a first step".  Amongst that mass of numbers you think trip so many people up, I know that more than one person without engineering or science background has still managed to identify the OBA burnout issue with EEF by taking the time to study various results in the AaI&A lightfastness database.  They've taken the first step  Smiley

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #50 on: December 26, 2010, 09:29:38 PM »
ReplyReply

And there you go. The "layman" doesn't have to have a lot of intelligence or scientific capability to do that simple test with a simple uv light. If that is too much trouble, to hell with them.

It matches up with the Aardenburg data- lots of bluish oba bad. This is certainly not new information! We've known this for over a decade in the inkjet business for God's sake. What IS new is Mark giving us great comparisons between the manufacturers various products with various inks, and now we also have uv coatings to apply if we still want this brightness and the very long term is not important. So the next time you hear the term 'Ultra', 'Premium', 'Gallery', 'Exhibiton', 'Pro', or whatever bullshit, just think for yourself. It isn't that difficult.

john



When I put EEF under my black light it glows (rather nicely). When I put Type 5 under my black light it does not.

Type 5's paper base measures as follows (ColorMunki). . . .  L*98.531816, a*0.021066, b*2.585261. It has a very pleasing, warm tone, as confirmed by the positive b* value. I can't see the need for OBA's in a paper with a positive b* value like this. EEF conversely, will have a significant negative b* value.

I'd be happy to send Ernst a couple of pieces to measure for SpectraViz. Maybe we can work something out off-line.

Terry.
[/quote]
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829


« Reply #51 on: December 27, 2010, 05:09:33 AM »
ReplyReply


I'd be happy to send Ernst a couple of pieces to measure for SpectraViz. Maybe we can work something out off-line.

Terry.

Nice gesture Terry.

There are some paper manufacturers/suppliers/distributors in the USA with as it seems unique papers yet their distribution is mainly happinng in North America. I do have sheets of Hawk Mountain but they are at least 5 years old so I it is not correct to measure them and compare them to fresh sheets from other sources. I would love to receive the Cone paper but be aware that I live in The Netherlands. A package of USA only distributed sheets coming my way could be an option if someone in the US collects them first. Going through the SpectrumViz list will show fast enough what is already present.

I have a sample book of Epson papers now and the package of Tecco papers arrived. Holiday's occupation. Related to the US distribution: what are the Epson qualities that have a different name in the USA-Europe ?


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 27, 2010, 03:15:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Right, but as the saying goes, "All journeys begin with a first step".  Amongst that mass of numbers you think trip so many people up, I know that more than one person without engineering or science background has still managed to identify the OBA burnout issue with EEF by taking the time to study various results in the AaI&A lightfastness database.  They've taken the first step  Smiley


I agree with you, Mark, in regard to the first step.  The danger, though, is that artists or print makers or buyers are frightened away from some products because of some "bad" aspect.  It's only bad if it translates to being so for their intended use.  That's where part of the problem is.  Saying something's bad or not as good or what have you, but if the reasoning and situation doesn't convey to the end user then all they see is "bad" without understanding that it may not matter for their use.

It's a complex issue and distilling it down for the layman has risks that must be considered in order to maintain the integrity and benefit of the testing.

When someone first provides a product that tests to have light fastness at 1000+ years via your testing, should the market eschew all other products because they are not in the same order of magnitude?  I'm sure you would say no.  That's the point.  Not everyone understands more than the headline number and that's what we need to fix.  Not just for the professionals and the enthusiasts, but for the majority.  First step, for sure - I totally agree - but we need to keep marching and sometimes arguments and discussions in a place like this get so bogged down over a tiny numerical variation that progress seems unlikely.
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2010, 05:59:53 PM »
ReplyReply


When someone first provides a product that tests to have light fastness at 1000+ years via your testing, should the market eschew all other products because they are not in the same order of magnitude?  I'm sure you would say no.  That's the point.  Not everyone understands more than the headline number and that's what we need to fix.  Not just for the professionals and the enthusiasts, but for the majority.  First step, for sure - I totally agree - but we need to keep marching and sometimes arguments and discussions in a place like this get so bogged down over a tiny numerical variation that progress seems unlikely.

Precisely why Aardenburg light fastness test results are expressed as megalux hours of exposure and not "years of life". Choose a low enough real world light level and numerous traditional and modern photographic prints won't fade due to light in 1000+ years. They may fade for other reasons, but not light exposure.  Thus, your suggested goal has already been met!

"Years of life" is a good example of the kind of soundbite you seem to suggest that the "layman" requires. The industry has certainly obliged.  But to express any light fade rates in terms of "Years on display" requires a critical assumption about average daily light levels in the display environment. That's a fool's game because the uninformed public takes these "light standardized" ratings as gospel for how the prints will age in many different environments and without bothering to ask what the prints will actually look like when they reach the quoted age number (e.g., some fade, lots of fade, or totally unrecoverable image). Real world light levels of prints on display, even in just one individual's home, typically vary by two sometimes three orders of magnitude. So, go ahead and make three prints using the same materials and process. Place them in three different locations in your home where you might like to have them on display. One may fade noticeably in 2 years, another in 20, and another in 200. How would you rate the product in terms of display life? I choose not to convolute the real world light levels into the rating, so I stick with megalux hours. Then anyone (with a wee bit of knowledge) can use a simple table (and a light meter for more accuracy if they wish) to figure out that the brightest location described above will fade the print 100 times faster than the safest location, and they can complete their own "display life" prediction based on a rational knowledge of their chosen display environment.  The formula is 6th grade math, maybe not even.

As far as getting too bogged down in a discussion "in a place like this", you may be right. But I think many LL readers are interested and would rather hold these discussions here than not hold them at all. What's the alternative? Quit discussing print permanence in this forum because some people think the subject matter is too difficult or too corrupted with false claims and faulty research?

With respect to EEF which is after all what got this thread started, a balanced perspective on the pros and cons of EEF means the OBA burnout issue needs to be understood, but obviously that's just one of many factors that buyers will want to consider.  I believe people should not feel any buyer's remorse if they really like the look and feel of EEF (and apparently many photographers do). However, printmakers may want to think twice about labeling prints with high OBAs an "archival pigment print" since OBAs are fugitive dyes.  With Epson OEM K3, K3VM and HDR inks EEF exhibits moderate lightfastness but not as robust as other papers in this "traditional Fiber" class of inkjet papers.  I doubt there are logical alternatives which improve on the lightfastness properties unless the OP is willing to try a somewhat less "cool white" paper, (e.g., IGFS. Canson infinity Baryta, etc). Those papers have some OBAs as well but the amounts, locations, and chemistry within the various layers help those products to perform significantly better in Aai&A light fade testing.

I  certainly don't believe we are morally obligated to always choose the most stable process, but I do think it's better to be informed rather than ignore the print permanence issues because the subject matter can't be easily reduced to a simple soundbite. But if you insist, ponder this relatively simple and entirely truthful statement:

Framed under glass and using reasonable conditions for humidity, temperature, and light levels, plus allowing for some discoloration and embrittlement that won't destroy the functional or aesthetic value of the object, even an image printed with ordinary dyes on the most acid-choked, lignin-filled news paper pulp can easily last over a century on display!


So, if a century of "display life" meets your personal standards without getting bogged down in those pesky details, then you no longer need to be concerned about print permanence issues.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 06:19:05 PM by MHMG » Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 27, 2010, 06:42:15 PM »
ReplyReply


With respect to EEF which is after all what got this thread started, a balanced perspective on the pros and cons of EEF means the OBA burnout issue needs to be understood, but obviously that's just one of many factors that buyers will want to consider.  I believe people should not feel any buyer's remorse if they really like the look and feel of EEF (and apparently many photographers do). However, printmakers may want to think twice about labeling prints with high OBAs an "archival pigment print" since OBAs are fugitive dyes.  With Epson OEM K3, K3VM and HDR inks EEF exhibits moderate lightfastness but not as robust as other papers in this "traditional Fiber" class of inkjet papers.  I doubt there are logical alternatives which improve on the lightfastness properties unless the OP is willing to try a somewhat less "cool white" paper, (e.g., IGFS. Canson infinity Baryta, etc). Those papers have some OBAs as well but the amounts, locations, and chemistry within the various layers help those products to perform significantly better in Aai&A light fade testing.
I'm continually amazed by the performance of Ilford Gold Fibre Silk.  If you look at the reflection response that Ernst has on his site, it's level and without a huge spike that EEF and other OBA-loaded papers have.  It seems to hold the color values quite well under the Aardenberg testing and best of all it's reasonably priced.  The only thing I don't like about it is the tactile sensation; it reminds me too much of the old resin coated papers of the 1970s.  I won't print a folio on it for that reason. 

Alan
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2010, 08:15:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark,

I'm not suggesting at all that we shouldn't discuss these things here (or similar).  I greatly appreciate the effort you've put into the responses in this thread, for example.

I think in a large degree that we agree.  I'm just concerned when I see some people (not you) quoting figures as absolutes as to which should be used over another.  That concern stems from the various issues I've already mentioned.

At this point in the game, I'm personally more interested in gasfastness, but not to the point of ignoring lightfastness at all.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 28, 2010, 07:59:16 AM »
ReplyReply

At this point in the game, I'm personally more interested in gasfastness, but not to the point of ignoring lightfastness at all.
Isn't this the easiest problem to resolve?  All one needs to do is let the print fully degas which is pretty trivial.  Light fading is another problem that you at least need to apprise the customer/recipient of your print.  If they get it framed and hang it in a place where there is full sun exposure or the wrong kind of lighting, fading would be a big issue.  I think Mark's numbers are just that numbers and it's up to us to make use of them in the best manner possible. 

Alan
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #57 on: December 28, 2010, 10:40:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, you are referring to what most people call "off-gasing" of inkjet prints.  I think Farmer is probably talking about the effect of air pollutants like ozone.  Here's a paper on the AaI&A website that gives a real world example of both light fade issues and gas fade issues. Definitely not a soundbite, but hopefully of value to those who would like to learn a little more about print permanence issues:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4569ZGxkLzBeMjAwMDAwMDAwMTIzNDU2Nzg5LyoxMzM=

OBA loaded papers like EEF also have considerable sensitivity to ozone. Framing under glass dramatically reduces gas fade problems (essentially eliminating external contamination but not the potential contamination that can be produced within the frame's own microclimate), However, in situations where one wants to display without glazing, airborne gaseous pollutants and good ole' fashioned dirt and grease particles in the air will take their toll on a print as much if not more so than light fading in many cases.

Appropriate Gas fade testing equipment is in the $100 K range in terms of capital equipment costs. AaI&A has the technical know-how to perform this type of testing. However, it would take a lot more AaI&A members' and sponsors' funds to support such an effort...not likely in this current economy. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be for various testing labs to coordinate their testing activities by sharing resources and seeking sponsors that would get on board with that approach. This approach would even allow the same sample batches to get tested under different testing regimens and a collective database of information to be maintained...I'm just tossing the idea out there...

kind regards,
Mark
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 10:57:14 AM by MHMG » Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2010, 11:51:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, you are referring to what most people call "off-gasing" of inkjet prints.  I think Farmer is probably talking about the effect of air pollutants like ozone.  Here's a paper on the AaI&A website that gives a real world example of both light fade issues and gas fade issues. Definitely not a soundbite, but hopefully of value to those who would like to learn a little more about print permanence issues:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4569ZGxkLzBeMjAwMDAwMDAwMTIzNDU2Nzg5LyoxMzM=

OBA loaded papers like EEF also have considerable sensitivity to ozone. Framing under glass dramatically reduces gas fade problems (essentially eliminating external contamination but not the potential contamination that can be produced within the frame's own microclimate), However, in situations where one wants to display without glazing, airborne gaseous pollutants and good ole' fashioned dirt and grease particles in the air will take their toll on a print as much if not more so than light fading in many cases.

Yes, and I misinterpreted the point he raised in the post.  Thanks for posting the link to the article.  It's interesting that indoor ozone levels would be high enough to cause serious degradation of the OBAs (or it could be that the OBAs are exquisitely sensitive).  I would presume that up in the Berkshires, ozone levels would be considerably lower than in a smog basin such as the San Fernando valley in the LA area.

Alan
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 28, 2010, 02:43:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Mark - that's exactly what I'm talking about.

To see the damage that can occur just because, for example, a print was hung over a vinyl lounge or in an area that had air flow from a kitchen or near an air conditioner and so forth.  These sorts of things can pretty much destroy some prints in a matter of a few years.

Combined resources for testing of this nature would be a great idea, but I suspect that it may be politically difficult to achieve?
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad