Digital BW, The Print

"Mark" <mark@...> wrote:

Thanks for the great post, Mark.

> ... standard acrylic as arguably the best UV-visible wavelength transmission compromise in terms of eliminating UV energy without imparting a visual tint.

That's been my conclusion also.  

 
> 2). ... Standard acrylic which still allows a significant part of the 370nm energy to get through will enable the OBAs to still perform their function albeit not as well as ordinary glass which transmits more 370nm radiation than acrylic. ...

In practice, the "Bright White" version of Premier's Smooth Fine Art paper, under acrylic, still retains its very neutral if not cool look with dilute carbon mixes.  But, I fear that the rate of the OBA fade is still inconsistent with the assumptions of "fine art."  I sure do like the look of the combination, however, and that combo is still what hangs in my home.

 
> 3). ...Some people wrongly believe that if you filter the UV completely, the artwork won't ever show any light-induced fading.

This is not helped by some companies that sell UV coating doing tests of their UV coating done with UV light.  So, the shielding cuts out essentially all the light -- but it's totally irrelevant and a bogus test.


>  However, visible energy (what we call light), especially the blue wavelength region, is still potent enough photon per photon and abundant enough in indoor display situations to cause light-induced fading of pigments and dyes. 

Medical researchers have also found eye damage from visible blue light.

  
> ... If you don't also pay attention to the total illumination level, the benefit of conservation framing can very quickly be squandered!   For example, a homeowner can move a print on the wall a few feet closer to a window and unknowingly increase the average illumination level ten or one hundred fold, ...


I think an additional note would be that the artificial light we usually us is rather low in UV content.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com