Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Clayton Price
<clay@c...> wrote:
>
> We're talking about  framed archival fine art photography here -- a 
> very different genre' from exhibit and display.

"Clay," I didn't suggest higher quality mounting (aluminum, formica) 
to make you testy. 

Exhibit designers with long museum/gallery experience and highly
demanding customers specify mounting methods according to an exhibit's
projected life. 

Sometimes they specify foam core (cheap shipping, cheap labor). But
keep your hand on your wallet when foam core is claimed to be suitable
for any long term.

 The life of  prints framed in this 
> manner [hopefully]
> will be valued long after exhibit oriented pieces have bit the dust.

It's hard enough to believe "archival" labels on photo papers and
pigments. When copy writers apply it to foam core, not even bothering
to document the claim, it's a stretch! 

" The MicroChamber products incorporated in this board effectively
remove many harmful compounds such as phenols, ethanoic and methanoic
acid, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and formaldahyde. Covering material on
the white board is off white and buffered."

1) "many" harmful compounds are removed, not "all" or "most".
2) "buffered" indicates "not archival" when we speak of paper. 
3) No definition or basis for "archival" is cited.

> >Consensus among exhibit designers and exhibit-oriented photo 
> > labs has forever been that foam core should be used only when the
client
> > accepts that images will be shown, probably damaged, soon discarded...
> >