Back to basics

Conservation Issues
User avatar
prospero
Posts: 11492
Joined: Tue 05 Jun, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: Back to basics

Post by prospero »

Whe I first started in the mid-eighties, 'conservation' grade materials were vitually unknown in the trade. Mountboard came in one standard - brown core. If ragboard was available, it came in white and ivory and was generally not to be found in the typical framers workshop. Better materials were gradually introduced, probably following the trend toward limited-edition prints, where value was keyed strongly to condition and with that printing standards improved with more thought given the lightfast inks and good paper. I'm willing to bet that any typical print from 1980 and before will show some degree of fading if it has framed and hung on a wall. And I'll also bet that it would still have faded even with UV filtered glass. It's not only light that causes fading. Damp atmospheres can also effect certain pigments (usually the reds).
I've seen more than a few David Shepherd prints from the 1970's that have gone a nice bluey-green hue and have never been exposed to light. Likewise Russell-Flints from the same period.
The prints are simply not very good. Publishers gave no thought to longevity.
Watch Out. There's A Humphrey About
Roboframer

Re: Back to basics

Post by Roboframer »

John wrote:
To state ‘Conservation glass on that piece would have helped preserve it in much better condition and you'd probably be able to see some colour in it other than blue’ in the context of all that had been previously said in this thread demonstrates an insensitivity that is truly staggering,

As many on the forum already know, my purpose in starting this thread ......... is not intended to be confrontational
But there, in (my) blue, is the point where the subject turned from methods and materials to people and assumptions of their personality. Here you are worried about newbies - laying in to the exact type of person that we need - whether you realise it or not.

Regardless of previous context, all Dave did was point something glaringly obvious out (the fact that at least one of your prints is actaully not fine - and I'd like to add is in no way 'good for another 20 years' because it's already screwed)

Noticed how quiet it's getting lately?
Roboframer

Re: Back to basics

Post by Roboframer »

John wrote:Given the way that they are framed, and where they have been hung, would you have predicted that my prints would have looked as they do after 20 years?
Not directed at me, but anyway - that would be an affirmative!
User avatar
John
Site Admin
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sun 27 Apr, 2003 8:00 pm
Location: Ireland
Organisation: Scenes Picture Framing
Interests: Forums and stuff
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Back to basics

Post by John »

Roboframer wrote: Not directed at me, but anyway - that would be an affirmative!
If I'm reading it correctly John, we seem to be in agreement here. From a distance at least, MDF does no noticeable damage to prints, even when hung for 20 years in a bathroom, and direct sunlight will badly damage a print. :)

Roboframer wrote:But there, in (my) blue, is the point where the subject turned from methods and materials to people and assumptions of their personality.
In my crude inarticulate way I am just trying to point out that when one wades in with "you don't want to do that, you want to do this" in the company of ones peers, it shows disrespect, and yes, insensitivity. And no, you are correct, it's not about the materials or methods.

I wish that I could be more eloquent and convince you in a way that you would not find so hurtful.

Do you really see no merit in what I am trying to achieve?
osgood

Re: Back to basics

Post by osgood »

This discussion has degenerated and I now find it's not a pleasant place to be.

Respect for the customers art means that we need to inform (educate) the customer about the hazards of some materials and methods and hopefully encourage them to allow us to use products and procedures that are of good, better or best quality.

Some framers (including me) are advocating that there are many levels of framing and framers should seek to find the highest level that each customer is willing to pay for!

FramerDave said: "I happen to think that there is a lot of middle ground that gets ignored."

Middle ground is where I'm at personally on a daily basis in my work. Anyone using the term 'conservation police' have indeed ignored any middle ground and it seems they are the ones who have created the 'them and us' situation, by assuming that some of us advocate complete preservation framing for every item that comes into our businesses. This assumption is a misconception and I have said so before and it has been ignored before!

Some of us also have some levels that we will not go below and I have spelled out some of mine before, so will not spell them out again. That's my choice and I daresay the choice of many other framers!

If the aim of this topic is to get more people to agree that mdf causes no harm, then IMHO it's a misguided errand. MDF is made from wood pulp. Wood pulp contains ligin and lignin produces acid and acid breaks the fibres of paper down. If art of any type is on paper that is backed with MDF or any other wood product, then it will be disadvantageously affected to a greater or lesser effect!

Someone said something about the positive, protective properties of MDF against punctures and I fully agree with that proposition. However the risk is very small. 100% of art backed with MDF will be damaged, but only a tiny percentage of art backed with foamboard will be damaged by intrusion. If these were the only two choices available, I think I would stick to the lesser risk!

We all have different customers, different items to frame, different requirements by customers. In the end we all have to make our own decisions on what products and techniques we use and where we use them. We don't, however need to rubbish anyone by calling them an unjustified name like 'conservation police'!


(I've read and re-read and re-read FramerDave's post and I don't read: "you don't want to do that, you want to do this" in any shape or form in what he said.)
The Jolly Good Framer #1

Re: Back to basics

Post by The Jolly Good Framer #1 »

Framer Dave wrote: Conservation glass on that piece would have helped preserve it in much better condition and you'd probably be able to see some colour in it other than blue. And I'm sure that someone will point out that the print only cost a few quid. So what? Obviously the customer cares something about it if it's being framed, and likes it enough to keep it on the wall for twenty years. I would have specified conservation glass on it as a default and switched to regular only if it was an issue. But one way or another it would have been presented as an option. I'm not going to make less money on a job by judging what's worthy of preserving and what's not.
You seem to have a lot of confidence that the UV glass would have been the saviour of Johns print. I think you will find that Johns print would of turned blue regardless of how it was framed. It’s a cheep print for fecks sake.
I have a cheep print in my bedroom framed to conservation standards but with out the UV glass (its about 11 years old and as Merlin said UV glass was not around then for the average framer to use). And guess what… Its turning blue. And why would that be? Its not in direct sunlight. The framing is good. Answer:- IT’S A POORLY PRODUCED PRINT WITH INKS THAT ARE NOT LIGHT FAST.

Ok so have a look at this.
Image
Image
This is a little on going experiment that I’m doing.
Its the front page from my local newspaper from October 10th 2005 (framed on that day) and the 2nd from about 2 weeks ago. One half of the old paper has Tru Vue Conservation Clear the other half bog standard float. For the first 6 months it was sat in a south facing window in my shop getting lots of UV light on it and now it is hung up in my workshop.

As you can see from the close-up the UV glass has protected the newspaper… abit. But its no where near 100% protection. More like 5% maybe?
So UV protecting glass or no UV protecting glass, Johns print still would of turned blue.
User avatar
prospero
Posts: 11492
Joined: Tue 05 Jun, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: Back to basics

Post by prospero »

Ormond. :D What do you think about using an MDF back but putting a sheet of polyester film inside?
Watch Out. There's A Humphrey About
User avatar
prospero
Posts: 11492
Joined: Tue 05 Jun, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: Back to basics

Post by prospero »

That's a very interesting experiment John. I have found that modern newsprint (post WWII) will go brown as long as it is exposed to the air. I carries the seeds of it's own destruction. Victorian newspapers - no prob: Good as the day they were printed.
I have done similar tests in the past on a variety of media and the results can be suprising. When colour photocopiers first came out an artist friend of mine decided it was an ideal way to do his own prints and got a local copyshop to do some for him. I was very suspicious and I got a sample print from him and put it in my back windowsill (which gets fierce sun) with half covered up. It was there for at least two years and on removing the covering I could see no fading at all. :shock: Same with other such emphemeral stuff - calendars, greetings cards. They seem to be more lightfast than the average 'fine art' print.

Another thing that people don't consider is the lightfastness of the facing papers on mountboard. Many is the time I have seen a faint square patch on a mount where a price label has been placed on the frame. I have done it myself. :oops: It happens very quickly. Couple of days in the sun is all it takes. I have had mounts left flat on a bench for a short while. If one is partly covered by another you can get a distinct line. The colour shift is very subtle. You wouldn't notice it if it faded evenly all over. Funny thing is, you can leave the blemished mount is the sun for as long as you like and the unfaded area will never fade to match the faded area.

So never prop price labels on the glass. 8)
Watch Out. There's A Humphrey About
framemaker

Re: Back to basics

Post by framemaker »

For what it's worth, I personally think there is a place for MDF in the modern, professional workshop. I keep a stock of MDF, art-bak conservation, and foamboard.

I don't use much MDF now but I do use it, a few years ago it was the only backing I stocked, if I was framing something of value then I would use a conservation or cotton mountboard as an under mount with a layer of melinex.

I frame a a number of original paintings each year that are painted on MDF, I do not have a problem backing these or float mounting them on painted MDF. I don't think there is much dispute regarding the negative and positive qualities of MDF; dust, health risks, strength etc. I think there is still a place for it in framing and that people just starting out in framing should not read these discussions and think they are sub standard when they use it. As long as it is used in a suitable way and each situation is assessed individually.


In my workshop, the base level that is used for most open/limited prints, posters, photos etc. is float glass, whitecore board, P90 or PH7-70 tape, drymounting onto mountboard or 500 micron barrier board, Art-Bak backing and seal glazing to under mount with P90 tape. These materials account for the majority of the day to day bespoke framing, probably about 50% of our work.

The rest is framed, when required with better quality conservation mountboards and Hayaku or gummed white hinging tape, and the smallest percent, maybe only 5% off all the glazed/mounted items that go through my workshop are framed to the highest spec with UV/museum glass, japanese hinges/wheat starch, etc.

I think this is as it should be, there are many times when 'Conservation framing' IMHO is not required, there are times where it is a good idea and times where it is a must, and at the other end of the scale there are even fewer examples of a job requiring the absolute highest standards. I would imagine this pattern is the same for the majority of high street or home framers.
Roboframer

Re: Back to basics

Post by Roboframer »

The Jolly Good Framer #1 wrote:
You seem to have a lot of confidence that the UV glass would have been the saviour of Johns print. I think you will find that Johns print would of turned blue regardless of how it was framed. It’s a cheep print for fecks sake.
I have a cheep print in my bedroom framed to conservation standards but without the UV glass (its about 11 years old and as Merlin said UV glass was not around then for the average framer to use). And guess what… Its turning blue. And why would that be? Its not in direct sunlight. The framing is good. Answer:- IT’S A POORLY PRODUCED PRINT WITH INKS THAT ARE NOT LIGHT FAST.
Again I hear words my customers give me "Oh - it won't be hung in direct sunlight"

So "Ahh - shucks, and there was me thinking it would be"??? Er, no!

All light, natural or artificial, omits UV - even reflected light - OK the more direct the more potent - OK the quality of the paper and the inks contribute. Simple fact is - the same print in a plan chest for 11 years would be in far better if not perfect condition now - carp paper and inks or not. The light is turning it blue, end of!

'Framed to conservation standards but without the UV glass'

So - not framed to conservation standards then!

Like an anaesthetic for masochsists. (Pick a smiley, I can't be arsed)
Ok so have a look at this.

(Photo, photo, photo)

This is a little on going experiment that I’m doing.

Its the front page from my local newspaper from October 10th 2005 (framed on that day) and the 2nd from about 2 weeks ago. One half of the old paper has Tru Vue Conservation Clear the other half bog standard float. For the first 6 months it was sat in a south facing window in my shop getting lots of UV light on it and now it is hung up in my workshop.

As you can see from the close-up the UV glass has protected the newspaper… abit. But its no where near 100% protection. More like 5% maybe?
So UV protecting glass or no UV protecting glass, Johns print still would of turned blue.
Your 'little experiment' could have been done with an email to tru-vu - or just by reading the stickers that comes with CC!

Apart from experimenting on something ephemeral you plonked it in a South facing window and subjected it to two 'enemies' light and heat. That heat was intensified both by your window and the glass in the frame.

Under those conditions; especially given the carp paper, you'd be lucky if it did not discolour if you'd glazed it with a friggin' mirror!
Roboframer

Re: Back to basics

Post by Roboframer »

Roboframer wrote:
All light, natural or artificial, omits UV
I meant 'emits' :oops:
The Jolly Good Framer #1

Re: Back to basics

Post by The Jolly Good Framer #1 »

Roboframer wrote: Again I hear words my customers give me "Oh - it won't be hung in direct sunlight"
I have customers who tell me that the picture will be hung in a conservatory. That’s as near to direct sunlight as you are going to get.

Roboframer wrote:'Framed to conservation standards but without the UV glass'
It was 11 years ago when I framed it. Not many framers used UV reflecting glass then. I certainly didn’t.
Roboframer wrote:Your 'little experiment' could have been done with an email to tru-vu - or just by reading the stickers that comes with CC!
I don’t always believe a manufactures claims. ‘Blocks 98% of harmful UV rays’? if that’s the case my framed newspaper would of faired better regardless of how strong the light was. It should have been 98% less brown then the normal glass.
Roboframer wrote:Apart from experimenting on something ephemeral you plonked it in a South facing window and subjected it to two 'enemies' light and heat. That heat was intensified both by your window and the glass in the frame.
It would not have been hot as the 6 months were over winter. If any thing it would have been considerably colder than a normal domestic environment.

Another thought, Tru Vue Claim that their CC glass reflects 98% of the UV light – but that’s compared to no glass. How much of the UV light does your bog standard float glass reflect? It could be 97% - not likely but let’s say its 49%, which would make the CC glass only 49% better. (only? That’s still better that yer bog standard!).

Don’t get me wrong here I like Tru Vue’s Conservation Clear and I do use it.
framejunkie
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue 13 May, 2008 11:40 am
Location: Bethnal Green, London
Organisation: framejunkie
Interests: 6.9%APR; 21.3%APR
Location: Bethnal Green, London
Contact:

Re: Back to basics

Post by framejunkie »

The Jolly Good Framer #1 wrote:‘Blocks 98% of harmful UV rays’? if that’s the case my framed newspaper would of faired better regardless of how strong the light was. It should have been 98% less brown then the normal glass.
As far as i understand it newsprint with go brown by the action of the acids in the paper alone. I think maybe that that process needs oxygen though - sign me up for those argon-filled encapsulations! :idea: And i'm looking for a bank vault i can turn into a cryo lab - gonna store all my art at 4 degrees Kelvin. Any one know of a supplier for liquid Helium? :nerd:
Roboframer

Re: Back to basics

Post by Roboframer »

The Jolly Good Framer #1 wrote:

It was 11 years ago when I framed it. Not many framers used UV reflecting glass then. I certainly didn’t.
I did - not a fraction as much as i do now, but I did and I read up on its capabilities - which is what i meant re contacting manufacturer/supplier or reading the 'label' (literature)
don’t always believe a manufactures claims. ‘Blocks 98% of harmful UV rays’? if that’s the case my framed newspaper would of faired better regardless of how strong the light was. It should have been 98% less brown then the normal glass.
You however, obviously have not read up on the subject :giggle: . Anyway - the claim is now 99%+

Another thought, Tru Vue Claim that their CC glass reflects 98% of the UV light – but that’s compared to no glass. How much of the UV light does your bog standard float glass reflect?
54% or so.

Here you go - and this is not a copy and paste, it's edited from a hard copy I obtained those years ago. This is all no doubt google-able, but anyway............

"Invisible UV light in the 200-400 nanometer range is the most damaging and induces photo-chemical damage to organic materials such as paper and fabric, resulting in loss of colour, yellowing, bleaching, darkening & embrittleness.

Ordinary float glass filters around 54% of the harmful range, but this is NOT sufficient to offer any degree of protection.

Light up to 200 nanometers is filtered by the earth's atmosphere. Between 200 and 300 nanometers, some protection is gained from ordinary glass, but between 300 and 400 nanometers a UV filtering glass is required.

Over 400 nanometers light becomes visible; this is the violet/blue range. An effective product has not been developed to filter this range effectively because a yellow filter would have to be used to counter the blue light.

As this range cannot be filtered pictures are at serious risk if hung in 'blue sky' or 'sunshine' areas.

The only way to protect art from the 400+ nanometer range is to block out the light, which could be done by control of light entering a room - as some museums do, or storage in darkened cupboards/drawers"
The Jolly Good Framer #1

Re: Back to basics

Post by The Jolly Good Framer #1 »

Thanks for that information John.
I have allways wondered how much UV light normal glass reflects.
Roboframer

Re: Back to basics

Post by Roboframer »

No worries (and it's 'filters')

So now you can say you use 'UV filtering' glass as standard - from 54% to 99%+ - wee hah!

No - actually you can't say that if you stock bog standard non-reflective glass - it reflects less light (duh) and therefore absorbs more. My glass rep told me of a framer that advertised his NR glass bigtime as filtering 48.7% (or whatever) of UV light - IOW less than normal clear float.

Point is - sing it like a witness to your customers - mount it, hinge it, glaze it, seal it - with the best you can get - and then they hang it in a bone position - well, you may as well have done it ...a la John's one!

It'll last longer but it's still on a no-winner!
Framer Dave
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri 30 Mar, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: Houston TX

Re: Back to basics

Post by Framer Dave »

I think I will bow out of this discussion now.

With all due respect to the members here who may disagree, I believe that another reading of my posts will show that I did not denigrate anyone who chooses not to use more conservationally-minded methods or materials. In fact I pointed out that I hate to see the polarization that we do, and that a lot of reasonable middle ground tends to get excluded when people feel that they have to choose sides. Or that there has to be sides at all.

My apologies to anyone who may have been offended due to my poor language skills.
User avatar
John
Site Admin
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sun 27 Apr, 2003 8:00 pm
Location: Ireland
Organisation: Scenes Picture Framing
Interests: Forums and stuff
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Back to basics

Post by John »

Jolly Good Framer #1's framed newspaper experiment tells the story much better than some half understood theory ever could for me.

I believe that all light will damage dyes and pigments over time, and I accept without question that the most damaging in the spectrum is in the ultra violet range, even though I have no direct means of proving this.

I tend to get a bit sceptical when someone is trying to sell me a product whose worth is based more or less on some scientific theory. I want to be shown, and that is why, for me, Jolly Good Framer #1's experiment has more validity than a ton of scientific mumbo jumbo.

It is great to see verification that UV glass does in fact filter more of the harmful rays than plain float. The degree might appear to be disappointing at the moment, but lets see how it looks after more time has passed.
The Jolly Good Framer #1

Re: Back to basics

Post by The Jolly Good Framer #1 »

I will report back in 50 years time! :Slap: :giggle:
User avatar
prospero
Posts: 11492
Joined: Tue 05 Jun, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: Back to basics

Post by prospero »

There is one factor in this discussion that seems to be overlooked. That is, the integrity of the artwork itself. If a watercolour/print/whatever is on poor quality paper with inferior pigments, it is going to gradually deteriorate no matter what you do. I have seen old watercolours that are as good as the day they were finished that really didn't aught to be. One recent one I refamed was very large, glued to canvas and mounted on pine stretchers (I suspect this was done by the artist before painting). The mount was anything but acid-free, but not a trace of acid burn/foxing/darkening of the paper. No UV glass either. :lol:
Reason? The artist paid attention to the quality of his materials. I left the painting on its original stretchers. If they have not damaged the paper in 120 years then there is no point in trying to 'improve' things. I did replace the original glass with museum though, mainly to minimise reflections. With this done, the colours looked amazing.

Strikes me that the level of preservation practices required in the framing is inversely proportional to the quality of the item being framed. :?
Watch Out. There's A Humphrey About
Post Reply