Moderate Preservation?

Ron Eggers

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Joined
Jul 6, 2001
Posts
16,932
From
Wisconsin
There is an interesting discussion going on over at HH about preservation framing. A number of people have taken issue with Jim Miller's use of terms like "moderate preservation." They contend that it's either preservation framing or it's not.

I find that astounding. I doubt that there is a single job I've done that used every material and technique available to achieve "maximum preservation." If I did I'd still be working on order #31 instead of #31,000.

Our friend Jim is taking a beating over there, and I think it's unjustified. Jim's a big boy and he can handle it, but I'd really like to pursue the question here. Is there such a thing as "moderate preservation?"

Personally, I think the vast majority of my work falls in the category of "moderate preservation."
 

smitten

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Posts
452
From
new england
It may be overly simplistic but the way I explain it to my staff is that "there is the right way and there is the retail way". This is not to say that when called for we do not do things "the right way" but there has to be a middle ground. My prices would have to astronomical to cover the costs of proper paste hinges on every piece, to book hinge every mat, to stock every type of rag mat for every buffering situation. What we do offer as a standard is a proven average for the preservation of every piece that comes in.

If you meet the three basic questions of preservation framing for the typical job we all see. Can the process be reversed with an absolute minimum of damage to the art? Will any likely product failure or handling damage be worsened by process or materials we used? Will the art remain relatively un-changed for more than a reasonable amount of time? If it is yes to all of the above we have met the compromise of the "Retail way".

If through the "qualification" process at the time of the sale, the customer requests a higher standard or if the art is recognized to deserve that higher standard then it will always be used and charged for appropriately.

Now all this being said, there have been times that even with all the explanation to the customer they still refuse to have us use preservation or conservation techniques for their art, that ethics take over and I feel as though I must do the piece the “right” way. If not for my own conscious but to limit my future liability. But that is a different conversation.
 

Ron Eggers

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Thread starter
Joined
Jul 6, 2001
Posts
16,932
From
Wisconsin
Here is my first, and hopefully last, response to this topic on HH.

Is it the term itself that you all are upset about? I would agree that there
is some room for confusion, but I doubt it's a term that Jim Miller uses at
the design counter.

Or is it the concept? Preservation framing is all or nothing? Really?

Do you use UV glass? Glass can shatter, so you should always use UV acrylic.
And hang some black curtains over it, since even visible light is damaging.
Make sure the frame is stored flat. Hanging art on a vertical wall is a
compromise and not in the interest of maximum preservation. I trust that the
frame is made of some inert material - certainly not wood!

All framing is a compromise and preservation framing is an oxymoron. About
90% of the work I do is "moderate preservation."

Our job is to educate ourselves and our customers about the compromises and
make informed decisions.

By the way, the PPFA guidebooks have guidelines. If you're looking for
standards, you need to go to the FACTS website.
The problem with HH, and my reason for opening this topic here, is not that they are too serious or restrictive there. On HH, there is no such thing as a thread, so it's mind-numbing to try and follow a topic of interest.
 

JFeig

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 13, 1999
Posts
4,991
From
Oak Park, MI
Time to bring FACTS into the calculation of this discussion.

Ron, as a fellow FACTS member the group has always considered the specifications as the MAXIMUM preservation. There has always been room for less than maxinum . Point of reference, the labels produced by FACTS for the back of frames. They have lines printed with the heading "Noted exceptions:".

As retailers we can "take a horse to the water; but, we can't make him drink".
 

wpfay

Comfort Badger
Forum Support Team
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 1, 2000
Posts
14,847
From
Jacksonville Beach, FL USA
Business
Sunshine Frames
Ron,
A while back Orton spelled out the levels of preservation that he sells from his framing studio. His guidelines are probably the most practical writings I have seen on the subject.

There really have to be levels since no one, at least in the retail industry, really does maximum preservation framing (if there really is such a thing). Wouldn't that have to include an absolutely sealed frame with inert gas (halon) in the art environment, and opaque glazing since all visible and invisible light causes damage to art.(perhaps even lead glazing to keep out X-rays). By those criteria no one is doing preservation framing are they? Even the Mona Lisa has to have an annual inspection to see if the techniques used in displaying her have been effective and that is as close to what might be maximum preservation framing as is available.

What the premise has to be is that framing is not primarily for preservation, but for display. Once that is settled the preservation aspect is retrofitted onto the display aspect.

There have to be varying degrees of preservation from none at all to the ridiculous. I believe this is what FACTS is trying to address, though at times I don't think there is consensus even within that organization.

What it boils down to is common sense and economics as too what lengths a person is willing to go to help preserve their art.

Semantics will probably be the undoing of all efforts to codify "preservation" framing.

Jim is probably as well equipped as anyone to explain and defend the concept of the varying degrees of preservation.
 

wcox

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Jun 15, 1999
Posts
422
From
Winter Park, Florida
I agree with you, Ron. My shop also believes in the practice of "moderate preservation".

If you really think about it the best way to preserve something is not to frame it at all. And if that would be the case we all practiced we would all be out of business.

Everything we do in framing can effect the art. And can we really believe the "conservation experts" of what is safe and what isn't.

30 years ago the "conservation experts" told us to do things that were safe then that are not considered conservation now. Is what we are being told now to be safe maybe will be told 10 years from now that they are not safe, probably.

So someone says that the practice "total preservation framing" well I don't think that is possible. Ron, your right that is a oxymoron.

I remmember 30 years ago a conversation with some conservationist at a PPFA meeting. It was about the use of Acid Free Rag Board and why it was not availabe at the time in boards other than white. They said because no ink or paint was acid free at the time. So I asked at the time "Well lets say we are framing a watercolor. It has paint on it that is not acid free then?? Why worry about a mat board that is not acid free then??

They did not know the answer.

Also I pointed out the at the time Winsor Newton watercolor Hooker Green, was pigmented out of Elephant Urine. That had to be acidic. So why worry about framing something that was full of acid in a conservation method. Again no answer.
 

AWG

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Jun 12, 2003
Posts
1,021
From
North Carolina - Picture Framing Capital of the Wo
I think it's a ridiculous proposition. I would think "Maximum preservation" would mean something along the lines of a dark, sealed, inert vault (got any of those on the wall?), with no display whatsoever. Sounds like a recipe for holding a going out of business sale.

Medium preservation would probably incorporate 90% of what we do.

We try to frame each item appropriately - sealed rabbet when necessary, proper glazing, rag/acid free matting and backing, security hangers, etc. We advise on the proper options and go from there.

Will we frame a $6 poster the same way as a $6000 Motherwell print? Of course not. We'd be out of business sooner than later. Will we educate the $6 poster customer in what we're doing, explain about longevity, etc? Absolutely.

Rich is right - the retail way and the right way - and the retail way is usually 90% of the right way anyway. There is a place for both, at the right time on the right piece.

Tony
 

Jay H

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Posts
9,908
From
KY
I can say that I have been a PPFA member for less than a month but still have very little interest in checking out the HH. Maybe I could just be silent reader. Doesn't sound like a very pleasant atmosphere.

Like your post indicates, Ron I don't even understand the debate! If it on the knowledge of preservation techniques, then everybody framing should have more than "moderate" knowledge on that subject. If it’s about your level of practical framing then I would say it doesn't make me one difference what anybody but my customer thinks.

If somebody brought me XXXXXXX print 1/1000 and wanted it drymounted with a metal frame around it with no glass at all I would probably do it (after I try to talk them out of it exactly 3 tiems). I don't ever expect to be asked to do that. People that pay for nice prints naturally want some protection but the absolute best known methods is a little out of their price range and honestly unnecessary anyway. (What would happen to me on the HH if I said that?)
shutup.gif


I would love to tell everybody that I ONLY frame to museum specifications, however I have to eat and would actually like to sell some frames.
 

BUDDY

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Charter Member
Joined
Sep 16, 1998
Posts
11,515
From
Mandeville,La. USA 130 Blue Heron Dr.
Ron as I followed the topic the problem was a symantic one calling someting PRESERVATION FRAMING in the past ( to the best of my knowledge ) denoted useing the BEST of materials and techninques. Then it is suggested that there are DEGREES. If you start with a superaltive anything lest is not the same thing,and only adds to the cofussion,( Not unlike the "ACID FREE" label of recent past).
This issue was added to by the desire to service all types of cutomers ( includeing those who wouldn't pay the price of TRUE Preservation work) .And while as Bob Carter has so correctly pointed out we need to offer alternatives or we will lose out to the BBs. Shouldn't we call what we are doing something other than PRESERVATION? Granted much, if not most of our work, isn't TRUE PRESERVATION work .So why call it that? Doing so only confuses what actullly IS. Why can't we be straight forward honest and explain to our clients what we are doing with out the need to LABEL IT with words that are meant to impress like PRESERVATION,ARCHIVAL,MUSEEM and the like? Useig these words ONLY when they are completely fitting. Isn't that what happened to the term ACID FREE? It got used so much in an attemot to assure everyone that a given product was safe that now it is all but meaningless.

As to Jim being attacked I don't think that is an accurate statement. I do think there were some who agreed with him but many more who disagreed ,and some who gave very lengthy explantaions as to why.I think that more accurately descibes a debate.As a matter of fact it Mirrored some that we have had right here on TFG and I suggested to the other HH's that they come over to TFG and use the SEACH feature .However the main topic and original source of this DEBATE was the comment that AEZ was a true PRESERVATION TOOL if I am not mistaken and that NYLON was a good source of attaching textiles,which if memory serves me there is quiet a bit of rebutal here in TFG from some fairly knowledgable FRAMERS.
But the TERM is what Jim was mostly being rebutted about and some even asked where he got his referance.
BUDDY
 

Rick Granick

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Resource Provider
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Posts
20,562
From
Cincinnati, OH
What the premise has to be is that framing is not primarily for preservation, but for display. Once that is settled the preservation aspect is retrofitted onto the display aspect.
Very well stated, Wally. This thread, and that featuring Orton's system, as linked previously, feature some of the most rational discussion I've seen on this overarching subject.

This reconfirms my deep appreciation for the Grumble. (Not that it needed reconfirming)

:cool: Rick
 

Emibub

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Posts
9,246
From
Centennial, CO, USA
Originally posted by Jay H:
I can say that I have been a PPFA member for less than a month but still have very little interest in checking out the HH. Maybe I could just be silent reader. Doesn't sound like a very pleasant atmosphere.
Jay, Don't discount HH. It is a valuable resource of information. There just isn't much room for interaction like here on the G. That isn't a bad thing, just different.

I always read it but don't participate much. Mainly because I have the digest version and it is old news by the time I see it. Getting the individual emails drove me crazy......

I'm with Ron on how hard it is to follow though. For the life of me I can't even find the place where the gauntlet was thrown on this conversation. It never seems to follow in order. Somebody once said you had to read the digest version from last to first but that doesn't always ring true.

Plus, you wouldn't catch me entering in on a discussion like this anyway. Just sitting back and reading it whether it be on HH or the G.
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,195
I agree that it isn't so much an attack at Jim, but a "purist" approach and a lot of splitting hairs.

Jim certainly is most capable of defending his well reasoned approach (which, in application,probably is how most of us do our work)

But, I really agree with Ron. This format allows a sense of continuity that simply isn't available over there.

I do get a little tired of the mindless bashing of the Attach-EZ. My wife was pretty much a purist in her approach and just didn't like the tool without ever using it, a were a few of our framers.

Jim Miller graciously spent a few minutes explaining benefits to her (How can you simply not trust evey word out of his mouth), we bought one and she would more likely give up the Wiz than the Attach-EZ.

Every single framer on our staff is also a convert. There is a place for this tool
 

Ron Eggers

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Thread starter
Joined
Jul 6, 2001
Posts
16,932
From
Wisconsin
Ron, as a fellow FACTS member the group has always considered the specifications as the MAXIMUM preservation.
There was some discussion at the 2002 Atlanta meeting with the major vendors (the one that decided the fate of FACTS.) I was appalled when it was suggested that what we are really looking at are the MINIMUM standards for preservation, but I later understood the logic.

Maximum preservation is un-attainable in a frame environment. We do the best we can. Sometimes it's not enough. Sometimes it's probably too much for the project at hand.

I am surprised when I read the frequent suggestion to "frame a copy and store the original." I'm not sure what my dream car would be but, if I owned it, I wouldn't be storing it somewhere and driving a facsimile. I'd have it out on the highway, taking my chances with the rest of 'em.

As Wally pointed out, people come to us because they want to display and enjoy the items they're framing.
 
D

Dermot

Guest
I have the feeling that this subject has taken the roll of that statement “A Bit Pregnant”……you are either pregnant or not…..you are either framing to a preservation standard or not……guys make up your mind what you are doing….playing around with words or there definition doesn’t alter the facts……one of the root causes in my view of the confusion in framing terms/standards has its roots in the likes of the discussion on this thread…STOP bastardising terminology to suit your marketing aims.

If you are not framing to maximum preservation standards….be honest with your customers and yourself……and explain that you frame to a standard that you believe offers a very high level of protection.

My response has nothing to do with being a purest……it is all about being honest in my affaires.

Rgs
 

Rogatory

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
May 8, 2003
Posts
1,077
From
Lubbock, Texas
Jay,
If you are a PPFA member why not try HH? Bob's wife didn't like the Attach-EZ UNTIL she tried it.

Not long ago I had (what I thought was) a crisis in my shop. Within a couple of hours of posting my problem on HH I had several replies on the board. I also received many personal e-mails and someone whom I consider an industry leader called me at the shop and helped me over the phone on her own dime!
TFG is almost real time and very helpful. HH is a little slower but just as important.

As for the Preservation discussion I like what Betty Newman calls it "Protection framing". If it needs a name, that makes more since to me.


-David -
Lubbock, Texas
 

wpfay

Comfort Badger
Forum Support Team
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 1, 2000
Posts
14,847
From
Jacksonville Beach, FL USA
Business
Sunshine Frames
Dermot, I am in complete agreement with you with one exception. The definition of preservation framing and museum standards is a dynamic concept that changes as technology does so there is always going to be an inherent gray area in the definition. As you have stated there is no gray area in pregnancy.
The best we can hope to say is that the framing we are doing is up to par with the most current knowledge of preservation technologies.
There is also a great gap between theoretical framing and reality. An example would be from a conversation I had with a paper conservator I use occasionally. When asked about the efficacy of UV filtering glass the conservator replied that she would not recommend using it because the artwork should not be hung in a place where it is exposed to UV in the first place. In theory she is right, but we know that in reality the work will be hung where the client wants to hang it regardless of UV exposure.
I see no problem with offering good/better/best as long as the framer is clear and honest about which is which and the client makes informed decisions.
I'm going fishing now, but I'll check back in tomorrow. There is value in this discussion.
 

BUDDY

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Charter Member
Joined
Sep 16, 1998
Posts
11,515
From
Mandeville,La. USA 130 Blue Heron Dr.
I'm not trying to cause a problem and I have already stated my opinion.However would someone please clarifie a part of Orton's suggested statement.(http://www.thegrumble.com/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002223 )
It reads :"The non-conservation category is self-explanatory.

To qualify for the CP category, materials AND technique must conform to industry approved CP standards and definitions." As i understand the degrees that orton personally used and said he suggested to the HH and PPFA he started with CP ( which I may be wrong )but I think he coralates to PRESERVATION frameing,and then he goes on to list ALL others under the above quotation.
While orton as knowlegable as he is is not infalable nor is anyone else ,to my understanding this seems to suggest that while we have degrees to the tratemnet of art work and the materials we use and as Bob suggest the prices we charge ,there is no mistakening why we should make very clear to any and all what we are speaking about when we are suggesting the treatment that Orton first set foorth. And this is what the problem is on HH they equate PRESERVATION with this same treatement ( despite the fact that very few if any of us actually preform this completely).
Calling it By differnt names as we see fit only makes the public doubt what they are paying for. I have seen some framers who refer to weighted mats as MUSEEM STANDARD mats . While we all know this is a joke does the public? And I have had Customer who felt i was slighting them when i didn't use the same .
It is not the practice nor the agreemnet of what needs what type of treatment but the SYMANTIC problem that causes confusion with framers and worse the public. However don't just reread Orton's post Try rereading our lenghty AEZ comments about the treatment of Croosstitch and how it meet or didn't the C/P standards and why ,for some of this was involved in this disagreement.
BUDDY
 

CharlesL

PFG, Picture Framing God

In Memorium

Rest In Peace



Joined
Apr 9, 2001
Posts
7,255
From
Clayton, NC
[ 04-10-2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: CharlesL ]
 

Rebecca

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Posts
3,339
From
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
I should absolutely be doing my income tax which is why I am procrastinating like crazy and putting 2 cents in where it's not really needed
.

Sometimes strict logic brings us to stronger or more rigid positions than we really believe in or practice. In conservation I was taught that everything is a compromise - there is no Platonic Ideal, because this is the real world, not an abstract one.

Of course there will always be compromises in framing, just like there are compromises in most storage and display systems.

My own particular take is, if it's just as easy and not much more expensive to do it "right" (and the definition of right will always be changing), you might as well do it right. Sometimes it's just habit that keeps us from trying new, and possibly better, ways.

BTW, I don't know if I'm the conservator Wally is talking about, but it does sound like something I'd say. ;) My personal feeling about UV filtering glazing is that it's great stuff used in situations where there are low to moderate levels of UV. I don't think there's much point to it in areas with high, unfiltered light levels(eg facing a south window) as visible light will take its toll quickly enough regardless of any UV filtering. They might as well save their money for replacement art.

I think a danger of UV glazing is that it can give a feeling of false security, and might lead some to display their art in areas that are too bright, when they wouldn't otherwise.

That's just me though - I doubt there's an official conservation decree on the subject.

Rebecca
 

Ron Eggers

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Thread starter
Joined
Jul 6, 2001
Posts
16,932
From
Wisconsin
Rebecca, my dust cover labels - which are continuously evolving - say, "Avoid hanging the art in sunlight or strong room light. Conservation glass filters 97% of the UV, but the remaining 3% is cumulative and destructive."

It's not enough, but I like to leave room on the label for my name.
 

Lance E

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 31, 1999
Posts
3,869
From
Hamilton, New Zealand
Business
Imageland
Maximum Preservation Framing is only ever going to be "Moderate Preservation". The simple fact that an object is being displayed indicates that it will be be given to a state of advanced deterioration. If there were to be a "Maximum Prservation", it would not include framing for display, therefore removing the need to frame.
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,195
Great point, Rebecca. Do you think that you will ever see any glass vendor ever say that?

I think the "false sense of security" comes from them. Take a look at the POS display showing half of the print faded big time with regular glass while the other side looks great, covered by UV glass, of course.

Of course, this is designed to help us sell more of their product.

What is your expert opinion on the real efficacy of UV glass given normal light conditions found in most average homes? Do you feel it really provides meaningful protection? I have a fair amount of valuable art and memorabilia all with UV glass and I really can't imagine that I will install thick drapes and 40w bulbs in the lighting.

What does your research tell us the extended life cycle of art is when the only variable is the type of glass?

I don't mean to seem like I'm trying to pin you down, but I am more than a little than concerned, not only for my own possessions, but for the implications towards the things we sell.

You mentioned hanging in low to moderate levels of UV. How does one determine what are acceptable levels? Is there some type of watt/cubic ft variable? In Az, we typically have tinted windows and solar screens with extended eaves to reduce primarily heat load from the sun. Most homes don't elsewhere, but with everyday normal in-house lighting is this acceptable levels of UV?

I appreciate your views on this. I'm afraid that we might not be giving the best advice to our clients in what we imply about how good UV glass really is. And having said that,is there a better altenative considering that almost all the clients I sell to will have similar situations in the homes.

Maybe Patti Dumbaugh from Tru-Vue will weigh in.

I really am under the impression that UV glass is a significant deterent to damage when compared to reg glass. I hope that is an accurate appraisal.

I would love to hear some type of meaningful data comparing the same print/same light in a side by side comparison where we see something like "The print with reg glass showed remarkable fading after 1000 hours while the print glazed with UV glass showed the same level of remarkable damage after 3000 hours" or something like that.

I expect the probable answer is "There are too many variables to make such a comparison" yet it seems that when we looking at an Epson wide format printing system, they seemed to have just such data when comparing inks stated to be long life vs standard.

I sure hope you can shed some expert opinion on this
 

Jerry Ervin

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Jul 13, 2001
Posts
8,117
From
North Carolina ... The Picture Frame Capital of th
Originally posted by Ron Eggers:
Personally, I think the vast majority of my work falls in the category of "moderate preservation."
I totally agree! The "maximum" that you would do could not involve framing it in any form.

Hopefully all the HH people are not the pig headed or uninformed.
 

JPete

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Charter Member
Joined
Jan 1, 1997
Posts
1,993
From
Huron SD USA
Rebecca, We had one of the POS as Bob mentioned displaying the regular glass and the UV. I dropped it and broke the glass and we made up our own display. We placed it in the window where it got a lot of sunlight and within 2 weeks we could see the difference. Now the print was maybe not great quality but it still shows the value of the UV. How many hours exactly, you do the math. It was probably August and the sun quite high and more north so our large overhanging eaves shade more than in December with the sun lower.

As to the A-ez. I've had mine almost a year and I wouldn't give it up.

Conservation, preservation discussion will go on forever as better products develop. In one of the home sections of the paper within the last year was a story about framing and they quoted a conservator that did not meet most of todays standards. The article may have been many years old for all I know. Do no harm within the bounds of the customers budget. ;)
 

John Gornall

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Posts
358
From
An Island in the Pacific
Suggested reading from the Fine Art Trade Guild UK:

http://www.fineart.co.uk/

Look at "Framing Standards and Specifications"

In our shop we have used this as a guidline to write our own standards (5 levels) of framing.

At the highest level we use a conservator for a final report and approval of the framing techniques we have chosen for the job in question. This conservator often does the hinging for us on delicate pieces. Makes me very comfortable.
 

Rebecca

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Posts
3,339
From
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
I'm not saying UV filtering is useless, I just think that it is not a panacea, or substitute for thoughtful lighting. JPete's test is great, and shows that in this case it made a difference in as little as two weeks. But what will the difference be between UV glass and regular glass samples in such a harsh environment in two (or more) years?

I've never done the test, so my opinion is purely speculative, but my guess is that both samples would be in pretty poor condition.

Another experiment might be to compare UV filtering glazing vs regular glass in a variety of lighting situations, for 5 yrs or so, and then compare the samples to a control.

One conservation scientist who I love to read because he is such an original thinker and amusing writer, is Tim Padfield. He makes the point that aside from UV, it is the high energy blue end of the light spectrum that we need to worry about.

This is a snippet from one of his publications on light:

"1. Even a dim light destroys objects at a rate that is unacceptable in a museum, where five hundred year durability should be a reasonable aim.
2. Ultraviolet absorbers confer a useful degree of protection but do not, as surprisingly many people believe, give total protection against fading.
3. An orange filter that removes the blue part of the spectrum is more protective... but hopelessly distorts the colour rendering. This suggests that a pale orange filter that the eye does not notice will be beneficial. An incandescent lamp provides exactly this illumination, being very weak in blue radiation."

Also: "...the uv filter gives considerable protection: roughly equivalent to halving the light exposure. The orange filter gives better protection, roughly equivalent to reducing the exposure to one sixth, depending very much on the dye."

This is the whole article: http://www.padfield.org/tim/cfys/fading/light_i.php

This is another of his articles which reviews problem of blue vs orange light: "The lux is a poor predictor of photochemical damage": http://www.padfield.org/tim/cfys/lightmtr/luxerror.php

Finally, I think Bob will like this article (or at least the title!) "The role of standards and guidelines: are they a substitute for understanding a problem or a protection against the consequences of ignorance?" http://www.natmus.dk/cons/tp/ppubs/dahlem.pdf

If you get hooked on Padfield, here is his site:
http://www.padfield.org/tim/cfys/

Happy Reading!

Rebecca

[ 04-11-2004, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Rebecca ]
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,195
Hi Rebecca-I tried to download the file from natmus but got an error stating file does not exist. I was sure hoping to see your data. I always think you have a reasoned approach.

I think we all agree that UV glass is superior to reg glass when protection is necessary. But, is this area so specific and scientific, that maybe it is beyond what we ought to preaching? Especially when it comes to parroting the data provided from the vendors?

I think we will take the high road and simply state that "UV glass will provide more protection than Reg glass".

The rest is just too subjective to conditions beyond our control
 

nona powers

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
Joined
Jun 15, 1999
Posts
735
From
san diego
I have been pulled into this discussion on HH and thought I would post some more of it here. You all were so instramental in saving FACTS. The argument has come down to FACTS or PPFA and I say both can work togethger, FACTS can be usd by the PPFA.
Nona

FACTS was conceived to protect art but its true value is in the practice of those concepts. At the Chicago meeting, it was determined that there are four advantages to the business of framing if framers use FACTS concepts.

1) To assist framers by providing consistent terminology and guidelines to properly do preservation framing.

2) To assist framers in the marketing of preservation framing by providing a standard to refer to, I frame to FACTS standards

3) To assist framers in protecting themselves from possible liability by operating within the generally accepted framing practices within the industry

4) To help grow the custom framing industry by adding credibility, confidence and education about preservation framing.

The industry has been plagued with terminology that is meaningless and very confusing. Before FACTS the Guild Guidelines had been written but there was basically no paper trail to say why they were correct, if in fact they were. The Recertification committee is and has been made up of a small group of dedicated people with limited resources in time and availability of research material. When I chaired the Consumer Guide to Conservation Framing Committee in the San Diego Chapter PPFA in the mid 80's in an attempt to clear up the terminology issue so we could talk to consumers clearly, there was very little information to base decisions on and most of it was not reliable because it came from manufactures literature or from a framer who had "heard". Don Pierce managed to put together FACTS and he walked the tightrope that was required to get the manufactures to put up the money for the work but not offend any of them and produced a wonderful tool that framers can use. All framers. It's not perfect, but a much better document and less biased, in my opinion, than the English document is. At the moment because so many framers supported FACTS, the manufactures are taking it seriously again. Could the PPFA committee duplicate the efforts? Probably but it would take so much work and effort and frankly money, that there is no way it will happen. The PPFA has too many other things it can be working on for framers like the business of framing, education, advertising, why duplicate what has been done so well. The PPFA and FACTS committees can do the work that is needed to clear up some of the areas that need work. I would love to see the FACTS web site much more user friendly. I would like a website where all framers can get up to date information about materials, techniques and terminology. I would like to see several things improved.

FACTS can be independent because it is not tied to any trade shows, is not dependant on advertising dollars and the manufacturers are limited to how much they can provide support and as long as framers are dedicated enough to their craft to care about standards and will pay their $30 a year, the manufacturers will stay supportive. The key is framers support. Without it we will not have independent factual documents and we will not have the support of the rest of the industry.

I've been quiet about FACTS this last year because I wanted to see where the board would take it. I have a proposal the board is considering right now to create a committee called Framers for FACTS. The committee's job will be to figure out how to improve FACTS, make it more useful for framers and to provide tools we can use at the sales counter. All of this is not in opposition to the PPFA it supports the PPFA, it has many PPFA people working on accomplishing this goal. Having a non dependant body to provide factual information about materials and the consequences of techniques is crucial to framers.

You may not trust me because I'm a paid Nielsen Bainbridge consultant but a lot of people do because I have proven over and over to care about the industry, have for years and am not for sale. Ask anyone who knows me if I support the PPFA and how many hours through the years I have given to it with no return other than seeing the industry grow up and knowing I had a very small part of it.

The CPF and MCPF can use the material FACTS has developed to be the paper trail it needs because all of FACTS work is and will be based on clear paper trails. I want preservation framing to be defined for the retail framing world, not museums, not conservators, but that is my personal prejudice. The consensus will decide what it will be, not me or frankly you. It takes a consensus to make it work. FACTS can do that.

Nona Powers, CPF
Www.nonapowers.com
San Diego
 

Rebecca

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Posts
3,339
From
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Bob I'm sorry the link doesn't work for you - I tried it and it does for me. Don't know what's the problem there.

In a nutshell, yes it's better to filter out UV than not. But filtering UV does not mean the art is protected from light. For light sensitive media, if you have to make a choice (ie budget constraints) it makes more sense to display something in low energy type light (tungsten) than to UV glaze it and display in high energy light.

To quote Padfield, "The damage done by light depends on the intensity of the light and also on the distribution of the radiant energy over the visible spectrum".

Even with the UV filtered, direct sunlight has about 10X more energy than indirect sunlight, and indirect sunlight has about 5X more energy than tungsten.

Even if the UV filter halves the potential light-energy exposure, and you are displaying something that is light sensitive (watercolor, felt-tip, dyes, silk) you still need to think very carefully about the light source.

Rebecca
 
Top