Digital BW, The Print

Stephen Kundell wrote:

> ...
>Has anyone come up with a system that works with large images, and
>truly prevents UV and ozone degradation similar to the benefit of
>framed images. I hate that glass between me and the image!!!!

Jeff wrote:

>  Have you considered lamination? ...

I've been mildly interested in coatings and lamination also.  It appears
that oxidizers and UV are responsible for considerable long-term damage to
images, so if these alternatives protect the image at a reasonable cost
(price, labor and all considered) they could be of interest to me.

Of course, how one intends to use the image is a variable that probably
determines as much as any factor whether the process is useful or not.  My
prints include 16 x 20 display prints, snapshots, and family photos that I
hope last a long time.

I've thought maybe vacuum lamination would be the ultimate if it were doable
and looked good, but I have no samples or knowledge of such a system.

I just tried the Lyson Print Guard spray, and test samples of Epson Archival
Matte with it (and a control strip without any spray) are currently in my
fader.  It's too early to know the results, but the quick look at 100 hours
indicates no advantage to the spray.  So, since it lowers the Dmax, it seems
like a useless process for my purposes.

I downloaded the Golden MSA Varnish information from their website.  This
Golden Varnish has received generally good comments here, and it was among
the very few samples in the group of coated photos that was distributed that
I though might be something I would be able to live with.  (Especially if
Eclipse gives it more of a satin look.)

However, for my purposes, I'm inclined to think that any varnish or other
material that touches the image must be able to be removed without any
damage to the image.  (Conservationist, I beleive, prefer that prints not be
dry-mounted and otherwise be pristine, as far as I know.  I would guess that
they would insist that any covering be removable.)

Golden outlines a method of removing it's varnish with solvents.  But it's
not a process to be taken lightly.  I must say that I'm skeptical it can be
done without damaging the image and paper.

Frankly, for purposes of extending longevity, it seems strange to me that we
worry about whether the cellulose in our paper comes from the purest cotton
as opposed to highly-processed wood pulp; yet, we're talking about soaking
the paper with solvents and varnishes.  These are chemicals I'm not sure I
even want my archival prints close to.  I sure don't want to even breath
them.

I note that the Golden materials indicate, "MOST curing will occur within
two weeks." [Emphasis added by me.]  This sounds to me like we're talking
about a long out-gassing period.  (Sorry, this just does not sound like it's
"archival" to me.)

For my purposes, I remain interested in protection, but varnishes are going
to be a hard sell.  I'll probably stay with glass or acrylic for the display
prints -- which is probably the fine-art standard for some very good
reasons.  When the prints are not on display, they can be sealed in bags in
dark storage.  For family albums, I'll use mylar protectors.

So, keeping in mind that I'm just talking about my how I'll maximize the
life of my photographs, and not outdoor advertising signs, the varnishes do
not look likely to be useful.  A vacuum laminate might be very interesting.
But the best I know of now is UV glass/acrylic and sealed, dark storage if
longevity and archival life are important.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com