How To Improve The Archival Qualities of a C-Print?

[Willie]

Once you have the print and have taken every step possible to help you are left with storage, framing and display.

Bainbridge Alpharag Artcare mat board can help with protection againse airborne/environmental contamination. Help, nothing is perfect. Keeping prints away from kraft paper and cheap mounting/matting/interleaving materials is important.

Framing - avoid wood frames and cheap plastics. Outgassing of the frame itself presents problems. The Artcare board helps but framing material other than metals can cause trouble. Also a problem is display or storage in locations where air quality is questionable. Airborne contaminants come from burning fuel of various types, from vehicle tailpipes to open flame heating. Frame with the Artcare materals and be sure to seal the back of the frame as well.

Then you have UV light levels as well as too bright conditions. Top quality Museum Glass or Tru Vue Optium Museum Acrylic are supposed to be at the top of the game for protection. Costly but can show the artwork at its best while protecting it from UV damage. The Acrylic(plexi) has the added benefits of being lighter weight than glass as well as not easily shattered. Glass shatters and can damage your art - Acrylic is much less likely to do so.

The general term of all this is "Conservation/preservation Framing" and storage. If you want your images to last you go that extra mile to help with the best material and practices known.

[Drew Wiley]

Tinted museum glass or acrylic only slightly protects from UV, while it the yellowish of pinkish tint (much like a skylight filter) does mute blue hues somewhat. I've tested it of course, but it's certainly no silver bullet. Alkaline buffered boards aren't always ideal either; some print media don't do well in contact with alkalinity. And I've had a few unexpected issues with Bainbridge Alphamat over time. Wood frame rabbets can be sealed with true shellac (not varnish or lacquer) to prevent acid or turpene migration. Of course, any wood finishes themselves should be thoroughly outgassed prior to picture framing, and this can take weeks to months if oil-based finishes are involved.

One of the biggest problems today is that many people don't realize just how much UV is output by certain kinds of artificial lighting : halogen track lighting, halogen floor and ceiling lighting, most fluorescent and CLF bulbs. As far as sunlight goes, reflected sunlight, bounced around off painted interior walls, is nowhere near as bad a direct window light in terms of UV.

[koraks]

Thanks for beginning to think this over.

I relayed information I obtained from Fuji to the asker of the original question because I promised to follow up on this.

If I want to discuss the market of power tools in the 1990s, I'll ask you. If I want to know about color papers, I'll ask the people who manufacture them.

[Willie]

Drew, you may be a bit behind on museum glass & acrylic. 99% UV filtration is the claim with TruVue top glass these days - clear with no tint.
Bainbridge Alpharag ARTCARE is not just a buffered board - it actively protects from outgassing and environmental pollutants.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm am NOT behind, Willie. I'm way ahead. And I have actually tested these things for two or three decades under all kinds of display situations, some deliberately abusive, going clear back to the first variety, Denglas. I think I still have one sheet of current TrueVue left in stock. I sent out a Cibachrome framed with it about 6 months ago. I also have an analogous background in industrial pigments, and am all too aware of the pitfalls in extrapolating accelerated aging test results into predicted years of light tolerance. All of that is relative, and simply cannot factor in all the potential variables.

Optically coated framing glass is analogous to an optically coated "clear" UV camera filter. But even if that can filter out certain wavelengths of UV somewhat, the residual amount can still be significant in terms of fading risk. And lots of display lighting is brutal in terms of UV output. So the only logical answer is to deal with the light sources themselves. And even putting UV-control filters over those has only a minor effect, essentially worthless over the long run. And UV alone is not the issue. So even a 99% hypothetical blockage of a particular part of that end of the spectrum might equate to only a 5% improvement in actual fading over time.

But besides the risk of breakage, the other problem with glass is that it thermally insulates less well than acrylic, and the coated varieties need to be cleaned carefully just like a lens. Clients or their janitors forget that and haul out the paper towels and Windex, and risk spoiling the whole extra cost. You also need to cut coated glass with different cutters than regular float glass. The best of both worlds is optically coated acrylic, but that gets really expensive.

As per board, yeah, I've known about the Alpha marketing mantra ever since that product line first came out. It a good product; but again, it's no silver bullet. Pollutants need to be stopped at the source. And artificial CaCO3 buffering is not always a good idea. I've even got examples of the alkaline buffering leaching out of Alpha over time and causing a surface deposit - a rare problem, but evidently possible. For black and white prints I prefer Rising Museum board, which is manufactured using natural limestone well water rather than aggressive buffering. But I do use Alpha for overmats or window mats in some color print framing applications, and still have a few cases of full 32X40 inch sheets.

[faberryman]

I'm am NOT behind, Willie. I'm way ahead. And I have actually tested these things for two or three decades under all kinds of display situations, some deliberately abusive. I also have an analogous background in industrial pigment, and am all too aware of the pitfalls in accelerated aging tests and so forth.

If TruVue UV glass and Bainbridge Alpharag ARTCARE mat board are problematic, what do you use? Or do you echew glass and mat board altogether? You have said you make your own wood frames. Is there a reason you don't use metal frames? Also, can you describe with specificity how you have tested these conservation and mounting methods and products over the decades? Thanks.

[Michael R]

Maybe Drew is referring specifically to Dye Transfer prints? Apparently even the weak alkalinity of most buffered conservation materials is no good for that and you have to use something neutral. But Dye Transfer printing is irrelevant and has nothing to do with this thread.

UV glass and conservation board/adhesives are basically all you can do, and they are good. For framing metal is probably best but I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you're using particularly stinky plastic etc. The other option is to keep the print in sterile, climate controlled dark storage. That's a great way to enjoy a piece of art, and also not expensive at all.

Also in the end who cares. With reasonable care things will last long enough and what does it matter thereafter, unless anyone here seriously thinks their stuff needs to last hundreds of years, in which case haha good one.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't use any generic solution. The high cost of a serious color installation warrants a tailored approach, evaluating the lighting conditions in advance, discussions with the architect or owner. I'm getting older and less ambitious now, but have used all kinds of framing solutions, including expensive proprietary true hermetic sealing of displayed images. I kept a large variety of mounting board, mat and museum board, and mounting tissues and adhesives on hand; and for all practical purposes, had my own commercial quality frame shop.

I do use metal frames. I have a overhead loft with a selection of Nielsen 10 ft metal sections still on hand, and an industrial quality mitering station. I have a commercial glass cutter capable of cutting up to 6 ft wide glass a quarter inch thick - that should tell you something. But I prefer acrylic for framing.

Coated glass was useful when I was doing static mounting of moderate sized Cibachromes, where one does not want an acrylic face capable of a static charge itself, potentially pulling the print away from the static charge behind the print. But current Fuji Supergloss is not static prone, a great improvement over Ciba in one respect, but a minus if one wants to offer static mounting, which was extremely smooth yet also reversible.

On my day job basis prior to retirement, I was a supplier of equipment and finishes, plus technical advice, to both museum shops and large picture frame wholesale fabricators, as well as to many high-end architectural restoration projects, as also many serious artists and artisans receiving very high commissions for their work. No one shoe size fits all.

[faberryman]

I don't use any generic solution. The high cost of a serious color installation warrants a tailored approach, evaluating the lighting conditions in advance, discussions with the architect or owner. I'm getting older and less ambitious now, but have used all kinds of framing solutions, including expensive proprietary true hermetic sealing of displayed images. I kept a large variety of mounting board, mat and museum board, and mounting tissues and adhesives on hand; and for all practical purposes, had my own commercial quality frame shop.

I do use metal frames. I have a overhead loft with a selection of Nielsen 10 ft metal sections still on hand, and an industrial quality mitering station. I have a commercial glass cutter capable of cutting up to 6 ft wide glass a quarter inch thick - that should tell you something. But I prefer acrylic for framing.

Coated glass was useful when I was doing static mounting of moderate sized Cibachromes, where one does not want an acrylic face capable of a static charge itself, potentially pulling the print away from the static charge behind the print. But current Fuji Supergloss is not static prone, a great improvement over Ciba in one respect, but a minus if one wants to offer static mounting, which was extremely smooth yet also reversible.

On my day job basis prior to retirement, I was a supplier of equipment and finishes, plus technical advice, to both museum shops and large picture frame wholesale fabricators, as well as to many high-end architectural restoration projects, as also many serious artists and artisans receiving very high commissions for their work. No one shoe size fits all.

So no information, just self-aggrandizing statements. How helpful.

[Drew Wiley]

This is how it's done, faberryman. Specific info is based on specific application. Want a generic answer and price? - go to some shopping mall DIY framing outlet instead. True custom framing is different. There are entire trade association websites of their own involving the picture framing trade, with lots of info articles. Limit it to just photographs, and there are all kinds of options within that single overall category, depending on archival requirements and personal esthetic taste. Lots of handbooks are in print. All the serious product manufacturers and distributors have their own informational sites and tech literature. Ask a specific question, and you might get a specific answer. But insulting someone with actual experience is likely to be a non-starter.

As for my friend Koraks, my expertise goes right up to the pandemic line, and I still keep updated. It goes way beyond power tools. Keeping with chemical reformulations of finishes etc is more difficult, since many of my inside contacts have now themselves retired. Fuji might state something in good faith (if from the engineering side rather than customer service dept guessing); but testing and seeing real world results under a wide variety of conditions, and comparing the end result with other print media, is a brass tacks kind of evidence of its own, and often differs from extrapolated accelerated guesstimates based on a limited number of lab-controlled variables. I'm not particularly worried in Fuji's case, since they've already made significant improvements. But talking 200, 400 yrs... C'mon. Did they factor in a few world wars during that cycle, or fade resistance to nuke fallout?

Otherwise, when I can actually get ahold of one of these newer papers in sufficient width, which you or they allegedly claims is not ideally suitable for darkroom use, I'll test it relative to my own needs. If necessary, curve restructuring via masking was routine before scanning and digital printing days. No big deal; it's easy enough to do. In the meantime, my big Fujiflex roll is capable of producing superb results for those images where a high gloss is suitable. I doubt it can be done better digitally, or at least have never seen anything which would give me that impression; and there is an awful lot of fancy printing technology in this part of the world. And every good printmaker learns to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of his chosen medium, and make the most of them.

But I am awaiting your own LED printing head results relative to at least some variety of Fuji CA paper. No matter what, each such venture is another helpful step in the exploration process.