Preservation Framing

Pang Shu

Grumbler
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
29
Loc
USA
Ok, let's say I frame a print using PPFA approved preservation practices. How many years, under normal circumstances, until fading becomes apparent? Has there been any time acceleration tests using UV Glass? UV glass protects from the vast majority of harmful UV rays, but it's not completely protected. So, is there any information out there?

Thanks in advance for any help.
 
I'd recommend inquiring at Tru-Vue for specific results of testing. Not long ago I had some questions about acrylic and was furnished with a wealth of information by the Cyro folks. These manufacturers have paid for the testing and seem happy to have an opportunity to share the results.

In a forum like this you'll likely get as many opinions as people who are logged in. (Mine is that there are too many variables to give any sort of numeric answer to your question - what type of ink or paint on what type of paper or board, etc.)

Welcome to the Grumble.
 
And to add to what Meghan said... it also depends on what kind of light the art is exposed to, how much light, and how long each day the art is exposed to the light.

Too many variables.

I guess the best answer is that it will last longer than art not framed to PPFA, or FACTS standards than art not framed properly.

Also UV glass protects from Ultra Violet light, not bright light. Bright light will fade art almost as quickly as UV.
 
You probably won't have whole lot of luck getting test results from TruVue or any other manufacturer. The tests and their results are proprietary and they're not anxious to give them away. Besides that, they could be taken as a guarantee and anyone who does not get the same results with their artwork could end up suing them.

As Meghan pointed out, there are far too many variables to consider. I spoke to someone recently whose customer was concerned that his framed magazines had faded, despite having used conservation glass. He pointed out, correctly, that the nature of the art had a lot to do with it. Magazines and other ephemera are MEANT to last only a short time, and are made with the cheapest inks and paper possible. Therefore they will break down and fade eventually, albeit at a much slower rate.
 
Funny that this should come up now.

And may I say Pang Shu, many of us on the Grumble are VERY tired of people who hid who they are, and where they are from.... USA? Yea, that narrows it down.

But back to glass....

As I said, funny; because I just finished a 1 year test of glass.

I used Pharoh Blue mat board. AR, ConClear, and 100 year old glass I had laying around....

Now we have heard all the hype about the UV block in the 200-400 cycle range (blues) and how it is far superior.....

South facing window gets sun all day in winter, and only 9 hours in summer.....

even with a spectromitor at the college: NO decernable degridation of color under ANY of the three glasses...

Much as Terry Skidmores research bore out and Don Pierce threw out as houy.... because it didn't fit in with his perception for FACTS.

I still sell more ConClear then regular... it's a profilaxis sale. And a little CYA. And a precieved added value. IMHO.

But what do I know. TruView ain't publishing research and FACTS aint doing any, so I have to do my own.

Now the Ph levels of some of the fillets are a real eye popper....

and then there is the "Acid Free" board that hit the 8.5 mark on the ph paper not once but consistantly 8 times. :D

do your own research people.
 
Gosh Baer is your sunlight "safe" there? I see 5 year old faded matboards all the time. To the best of my knowledge none of them were put in a window either.

Of coarse it could just be my eyes as I don't have access to a spinctorgraphometer thingy (sorry I don't mean to get all technical).

But I have too for a while wanted to do some test.

I found a company that sales the blue wool cards for tests just like this. They are kind of expensive but help determine fading better than blue matboard. The link it bookmarked at the store though.

Like Terry noted in her research, I doesn't make sense upsaleing cc then puting a sticker on the back that says "If any light whatsoever touches this art it will still fade."
 
My disclaimer reads more like, "If any light whatsoever touches this art it will still fade, but it will take a whole lot longer."

That pretty well nails it down.
 
In order to do meaningful research you'd have to make a procedure that would eliminate all other potential factors such as temperature, humidity and air, and probably other I'm not thinking of. I'm sure that the glass producers have spent a dollar or two on that already.

I know that in wood, oxidation plays a role in color change - although with most woods it darkens, not fades, it.
 
David, I'm sure the glass companies have done this research also. I bet that the result of the tests doesn’t add as much value to the glass as framers are convinced is there.

This reminds me of the display in every single hardware store. It’s the basement sealer. You know the one with two cinder blocks with water pouring like a sieve out of one block and the one with the "treatment" is dry as a bone. They have a product that benefits your basement and they want the whole world to know!

On the flip side we get little or nothing from glass companies. Heck I even peeled my Tru-vue display apart (you know the one with one side faded and the other in pristine condition?) It’s a fake. As I suspected it was printed that way. Why?

I think it was Ron who said after one of his tests, "...but if you leave it in the window for more than a few days, you will have a perfect example why NOT to use CC."

I'm about 5% convinced that UV filtering offers a tiny bit of protection that general common sense doesn't. I'm just really on the fence as to rather this is worth the double, triple or quadruple the price to frame most items.

The most reasonable argument I’ve heard to support this practice is “It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we have.” A leather seat in cars is not perfect but overall it’s the best seat covering available. However, millions of consumers choose to settle for second best. Is that because the benefits don’t outweigh the price?

Carry on!
 
Relative Damage of Different Solar Wavelengths

Work by numerous scientists, including Albert Einstein, has proven that the shorter the wavelength of solar radiation, the greater the fading damage potential. Therefore, ultraviolet radiation is the most damaging, followed by the shorter-wavelength visible light. Visible light at wavelengths above about 600 nm as well as near-infrared radiation seems to cause very little fading.

The most authoritative research on quantifying fading damage was done in the early 1950's by the United States National Bureau of Standards (NBS). This research was undertaken for the U.S. Library of Congress, in order to design a glass filter to protect the original copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The NBS found the relationship between the wavelength of the radiation and the relative damage to be as indicated in Figure 2.

Using this relationship, scientists have calculated that blocking all of the ultraviolet radiation portion of the solar spectrum would not eliminate fading damage for most fabrics, but will slow down the rate of fading by a factor of about three. That is, a fabric that will fade by a certain amount in 3 years under normal solar exposure could take about 10 years to fade to the same point if the ultraviolet radiation is eliminated.

sharp2.gif



This also makes interesting reading
http://www.ukiyoe-gallery.com/sunfade.htm

And this
http://shotei.com/articles/fading/fading.htm

Add this to your list of reading
http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf24.htm
 
I'm glad you agree!

Actually those are both very good reads. They say what I'm thinking better than I can.
 
"...but if you leave it in the window for more than a few days, you will have a perfect example why NOT to use CC."

I'm not sure who said it but I have done my own test and Conservation clear DOES protect it and has continued to for the past 3 years.
 
Originally posted by Baer Charlton:
...South facing window gets sun all day in winter, and only 9 hours in summer.....
even with a spectromitor at the college: NO decernable degridation of color under ANY of the three glasses...
If precise scientific equipment could not perceive any degradation of color after one year of light exposure -- regardless of the glazing used -- then there's something wrong.

But here are a few thoughts...

1. Preservation grade matboards, lignin free & acid free, are made of alphacellulose and generally have colors from pigments, not dyes. These pigmented-color matboards will resist fading much better than nearly anything we would put under them.

2. Fading from light is determined by two factors: Time of exposure and intensity of the light. Therefore, direct sunlight exposure for a few days could be more harmful than artificial light exposure for a few years.

3. No test of fading potential could predict the results in any real-life situation. It would be something like predicting how long it takes to cook an egg on the sidewalk. The right answer might be a time range of 3 minutes to 3 years. If the sun is bright, the sidewalk is dark, and the temperature is high, it will take less time than if the day is cloudy, the sidewalk is white, and the temperature is low. That's about as good as it gets.

Colors on some artworks and photographs are more prone to fading than others, and the paper (or other support) is also a factor. So is age. Light in certain frequencies is more damaging than other frequencies. The intensity of light on one wall of a room is usually different than the light on another wall -- so moving the picture across the room could change everything.

4. Fading is a problem for framed artworks, and the best protection against fading from light is 98% UV filtering glazing.

5. Glazing manufacturers' claims about their products -- all of the manufacturers and all of their claims -- are thoroughly supported by light-related research that has been around for decades. It's not rocket science, voodoo, or anything beyond our comprehension. We shouldn't doubt information that is so easily confirmed.
 
"No test of fading potential could predict the results in any real-life situation."

What about testing in the real world?

Here are the cards I mentioned earlier. They will show the slightest amount of fading.

Other than the percentage of blocked UV rays blocked, what claims have they made?

I re-read the original question (and I hope that person has more to say). The question was certainly not the value of UV filtering like I have made it. Please accept my apology. I know I'm tempting the Framing gods by even questioning the value of UV filtering glass. I have UV glass and use it when I think the benefit of doubt is in line. But that’s all I feel like it is, "the benefit of doubt". I wish I knew in my heart what I was really offering my clients.

The only way that will happen is after I do my own tests. I'll try the cards before I rule it a gimmick or salvation. I know which way I lean for now.
 
Some 5 years ago I framed the same newspaper article and full colour photo in two different methods. These are constantly put into direct sunlight, although by no means measured amounts of time.

One is framed with a UV protective glazing material, Rag mats and backing, hinges and the whole works of fanciness. The other is glued with a starch-based adhesive (a popular one here) to a recycled board with a coated surface, it has a paper mat and regular glass. Both mats were cream.

So far the one with the paper mat shows signs of degradation in that the core of the paper mat has browned and the surface has faded, the image is just as clear and definable on each and the paper itself shows no difference between the two. I do believe that both have degraded but I do not have a control piece stored where I can find it (but one day it will appear again!!!).

By no means is this conclusive, nor was it meant to be. It was initially done as an example to sell more preservation materials, so far it doesn't make for much of example is all...
 
Originally posted by Jay H:
"No test of fading potential could predict the results in any real-life situation."

What about testing in the real world?
Other than the percentage of blocked UV rays blocked, what claims have they made?
The blue "Textile Fading Cards" are color indicators, used to determine when fading has occured. And like all fading from light, the color indicators are purely subjective; accuracy depends on the viewer's ability to distinguish slight color differences.

You could see that one card is lighter than another, but could anybody say that one blue card is 20% lighter than another blue card? How could you be sure it isn't 15% lighter, or maybe 30% lighter?

For your own test, you could place those cards into frames with various glazings. Put all of the frames in exactly the same lighting conditions, at the same time, for exactly the same time period. Afterwards, compare the amount of fading on each card to the "control" card.

That would give you an idea of how the various glazing choices compare, in protecting those cards from fading, relatively.

However, You would not be able to say one glazing is twice as good at reducing fading as another, because you wouldn't be able to determine that one card is exactly twice as blue as another card.

Also, the test would not give you any indication of how any other item would fade in exactly the same light for exactly the same time.

And that is an important limitation. Any other item might react to the same light more than the cards did, or maybe less. There is no way to predict the results for real-world applications.

The folks who make and sell glazing for framing (not only glass, but acrylic, too) could not provide any fading information more useful than their products' ability to block a certain percentage of UV light. There is no other light-fading-related information to give; no other claim to make.

What other information do you think might be available & useful for framers?
 
I was looking for an idea on how much longer UV filtering glass would protect artwork over regular glazing. Whether is's three times more protective, or some other quantifiable measurement. It seems that we all have differing views on the effectiveness of UV filtering glazing, and I'd like to see some more scientific test data on this subject.
 
I understand you Jim and I agree, for the most part. Fading isn't the same thing as math.

But I don't think its totally subjective either.

Pang, like Jim I don't know of anyway to prove "this will fade 1.25% per year in when exposed to 70 ft/candles for 8 hours a day (your typical office)." The materials used will vary drastically. Also heat and humidity can affect fading.

Take a look at THIS chart at the bottom of the page. This might help.

They have grouped items in to 4 catagories of vuneralbility. This company also suggests that you do just exactly what Baer did.

"It may happen that visually similar objects react differently from each other when exposed under the same conditions. This makes it almost impossible to predict, without performing specific experiments, how long an object can be exposed with the minimum risk of deterioration."

Notice they don't say "Put CC on it and throw it in the air."

Jim, have they ever said how long the UV filtering lasts?
 
For what it's worth, here is an experience I had in my own home. When our kids were small (1 yr)
we had photos taken by a regular photo studio. Each of these photos were black and white and were hand tinted, which was common back in those days. When they graduated from High school they had color photos taken. These were mounted side by side with the baby photos and put up on our wall. They have been exposed to a lot of sunlight and until a few years ago were under regular glass. During that time the color photo has faded to almost nothing but the hand tinted black and white has not changed one bit.
I agree with whoever said it that the composition of the item has a lot to do with the amount of fading experienced.
 
Because each item we frame is unique in its suceptibility to fading, it is not posible to exactly quantify a set degree of protection or a time factor for fading. Even if the amount of "protection" offered by UV-filtering glass may be minimal for certain items, it is probably better than no filtering, UNLESS it makes the customer complacent about overall light exposure. It is up to us to explain that harsh light WILL fade and embrittle papers and art media. The coatings do the best they can, but controlled exposure will help even more. It's a trade-off for the need to have light in order to appreciate (see) one's art. Whether any degree of protection the filtering might offer is worth the difference in price we quote is ultimately up to the client. (Just as leather seats in the car MAY provide a little more comfort than a scratchy fabric; even though they cost hundreds more, plenty of people decide to buy them.)
We just have to be careful not to make promises the glass can't keep. If someone leaves our shop believing that, because they purchased CC glass, they can hang the piece in the solarium and expect it to retain its beauty, we haven't done our job...and they'll come back to bite us in the...well, you know.
kaffeetrinker_2.gif
Rick
 
There is no simple answer to how long extra UV protect will work for…….simply because NO two locations where UV protect is used will present the same light conditions…….I would suspect that this is one of the reasons that there is no great definitive details around about the time line on UV protect………..the question you pose is like the question “How long is a piece of string”

For example, there are water colour paintings in one of the national galleries in Dublin that are only put on display for a few days in the winter for fear of fading…..
 
"Reports that say UV protection hasn't happened are always interesting to me,
because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

So the answer is no?
 
Originally posted by Jay H:
...Jim, have they ever said how long the UV filtering lasts?
The UV protection in CYRO OP-3 acrylic is permanent, and the UV "TruGuard" coating on TruVue glass products is permanent. Both of these manufacturers say the UV filtering protection does not wear out over time. I don't know about all the other glazing makers' products, but I would guess they are similar.

That is, in accelerated life tests and in real-time tests alike, no degradation of UV filtering has occurred.

For years I asked about longevity of the UV filtering protection every time I could get to an expert, just to see if the answers were always consistent. They were, except one glass representative replied with a smile, "The UV filtering coating will work perfectly unless you remove it." That seemed like a silly answer, but he said there have been occasions when TruGuard-coated glass has been installed backwards -- with the coating on the outside instead of the inside. In that case the coating would be damaged by dusting & glass cleaners. So, be sure to put the coated side inside, where it will not be damaged.
 
I don't recall anyone mentioning on this thread yet, that in picture framing applications, all light is damaging.

In other words, the light filtered by UV protection, in the 300-400 nanometer range (just beyond the visible spectrum), is not the only culprit. Visible light is damaging, too.

Fading also occurs in visible-light frequencies over 400 nanometers, but not as rapdily as in the higher, non-visible light frequencies.

And lower frequency light, toward the infrared range, causes increased molecular activity, which results in heat buildup, advanced aging, discoloration and embrittlement.

All frequencies of light can cause damage of one kind or another. So, the only way to get 100% protection is to keep the frame in the dark. However, that tends to inhibit the view. :rolleyes:
 
First let me say thank you for all the helpful advice.

So, what I have heard from your replies is that UV filtering glazing decreases the fading of artwork due to UV radiation. However we have no idea as to the actual effectiveness due to multiple variables (environment, materials, art suseptability to light, air pollution, etc.).

So what I can tell my customers is...

In harsh conditions, UV glazing seems to offer little to no added protection; while in ideal conditions, it may prolong the life of your artwork. However, don't hold me to any of these promises as there are many other variables at work that we can't control.

I'll try to concentrate on educating customers on what these ideal conditions are, instead of just slapping UV Glazing on it.

Thanks again for your help!
 
That is what I have heard also.

The longest guarantee I have heard from window film makers and UV filters for lights is 15 years (3M says it doesn't loose its filtering but won't guarantee it).

It sounds like they need to get with the glass people who have found a way to make it permanent.

Of coarse the same companies recommend that you hang art in dim hallway or a room with light filtering curtains. I’m sure under that condition the film would last what would seem like forever. At that point one could argue the need for glass altogether.

I’m teetering on the edge of arguing and its silly. I’ll drop it only to say that I think Rick is right on with, “We just have to be careful not to make promises the glass can't keep.” I’m guilty and that day is long over.

So was the framer who sold this bag of goods to the customers in Dermot’s links.

“Until just recently, I was an advocate of framing my shin-hanga prints and displaying them. I felt that by using UV filtering glass and avoiding bright places, I was justified in trading a very minimal damage in return for the ability to be surrounded by my beauties. This is no longer the case…..”

My pitch now goes something like this, “There is some things that can EXTEND the life of the art.” Every adjective in the glass/light/fading discussion is about your limited life with the art that will be destroying on your wall. I’m guessing that some framer sold the guy above with a catchy line like “sunscreen for your art.” We have to be remarkably careful to not be misleading and to do that we need to first not mislead ourselves.
 
Hi Pang-I'm guessing you aren't much of a fan of UV glazing?

I think a safer comment might be that, no matter what conditions your art will face, UV glazing will provide more protection than non-treated glazing.


If the project requires protection or not might easily be a more debateable (and contentious) issue.

I don't think that Dogs Playing Poker or Scarface poster are great candidates. But, if you want to see which one will last longer, bet the UV glazed will.

Not that this is a good thing or not.

But, I'm guessing you pretty much had a strong opinion on this already
 
Originally posted by Pang Shu:
...So what I can tell my customers is...

In harsh conditions, UV glazing seems to offer little to no added protection; while in ideal conditions, it may prolong the life of your artwork. However, don't hold me to any of these promises as there are many other variables at work that we can't control.
That's not quite right, Pang Sue. Here's what I say to customers about light damage and UV-filtering glazing:

"All light is damaging, so it's important to limit the light intensity and time of exposure. Our 98% UV-filtering glazing (glass or acrylic) is the best protection against fading from light. There is no better protection available at any price."

There are no "ideal conditions" for frame display; every environment has some hazards. So, that term could be misleading.

It would be wrong to say the UV filter doesn't work in "harsh conditions", because it has the same benefit in all lighting conditions. Even in the most damaging light, the UV filter will remove 98% of the worst fading light. Nothing will absolutely stop fading, but UV filtering will slow the fading.

UV-filtering glazing will prolong the life of the art in any lighting conditions. That may turn out to be 50 years instead of 10 years, or it may be 5 years instead of 10 months, or 5 months instead of 10 days.

It is honest and true to guarantee that 98% UV-filtering glazing is the best protection against fading from light. There's plenty of documentation to support that statement. But for any given lighting conditions, customers must also understand that fading will still happen, only much more slowly than if ordinary glazing were used.

UV filtering is a positive benefit, so we should present it to customers in positive terms, not negatively.
 
If UV glass helps to slow down fading/aging of artwork, then that's good enough in my book.

This is what I tell my customers- this glass only helps to SLOW DOWN the inevitable.

And that's pretty darn important. ANY fading isat the least highly undesirable and the slower it happens, the better.

I remind folks that fading is irreversible. The glass does not cost them that much more. Fifteen or thirty dollars more to protect a piece of art worth (now) even only $100.00 is still a good deal.

I don't see how it matters that it can't be measured mathematically, just that it helps makes it worth it, imho.

edie the itstilladdsup goddess
 
I framed a newsprint with split glass, UV one side regular the other.

Stuck it outside in the sun in the summer for three weeks.

Regular glass side yellowed, looked like crap, UV side looked much better. Some yellowing, but nowhere near what the regular glass side had. Is UV perfect, no, is it better than regular glass, IMHO yes.

Why didn't the other peoples pictures fade, degraade like mine? Don't know, do they have double glazed windows with Low-E filtering between the panes, probably. Do my customers have better windows than I do, probably. Do I still default to UV, oh yeah.

Why? Perception, personal preference, I think it works.

And I've reframed too many posters that are faded out, and the only original colour I can see on them is what was under the mat, or more often what was under the lip of the metal frame!

Should you use it with your customers? You decide. Just know that when they come to me, I'll use UV, and I'll notice the extent of fading that your use of regular glass exposed their works to! I promise I won't point fingers, I'll use the "they used the best materials they were aware of" CYA line.

BTW I do the newsprint thing every year, and I make sure that you can read the date on the paper so they have an idea of how old the paper is, and how fast it can fade!
 
Guardian Industries put on a very informative (and free) lecture in Atlanta a few years ago that Wally and I attended and they explained in very basic terms what generally damages art and how that damage can be minimized. Of course UV glazing was the star of the show but the lecture covered most of the elements of damage to framed art and which ones were controlled with UV glazing.

As Jim Miller stated, the protection of the silica based layer of UV blocking agents remains constant regardless of the light intensity or duration. Obviously, you cannot control the effects of heat and moisture with UV glass but it does increase the longevity of the artwork from damage by UV radiation based on the starting quality of the materials used in the creation or duplication of the artwork.

Framerguy
 
According to the Larson Juhl catalog,
Tru Vue Premium Clear glass is 45% UV Protecting
CC is 97% UV protecting. So by my calculations that would make CC a little over twice as effective than regular clear with all other factors being equal. Or in simplar terms 97/45=2.15. and AR is 78% UV protection.
 
I'm sorry for any confusion, and I'm really not trying to be negative regarding UV Glazing. I do believe that it is better than regular glazing, and it is a way to prolong the life of art.

I was looking for some studies, tests, or research that would give me some actual data as to the benefits of UV Glazing. Like this: Under normal conditions, we have found that UV glazing will add 15 years of life to your art. I see now that this can not be determined due to varying degrees of enviromental variables.

Sometimes it's a hard sale, like the leather conditioning spray at the shoe store. Sure, it may protect my new shoes, but for how long? 2 weeks or 2 months or 2 years?
 
Pang Shu,

I use UV as my default glazing. It may be more expensive, but it is in my eyes a better glass for my customers artwork. If the customer balks at the framing price then I can offer regular glass. When they see that the price isn't that more less they tend to go for the UV.

If I defaulted to regular glass and the customer balked at the price they definitely won't be willing to go higher!

Try it for a week and see how much jobs get UV on them.
 
Pang Shu,

As I put it to a customer today: "Light and all that is a knife-fight. Now regular glass is your fathers pocket knife, ConClear is more like Mick Dundees croc sticker.... which would you rather have in that knife fight.
 
Originally posted by Baer Charlton:
Now regular glass is your fathers pocket knife, ConClear is more like Mick Dundees croc sticker
Very interesting analogy. I'd be more concerned about who was wielding the knife than what knife they had. I've seen may times that the professional with an amateur tool will do a much better job than an amateur with a professional tool. The tool is only part of the battle. Proper training and use of it is often (not always, though) more important. I think that's what this thread is all about.

Nevertheless, I'd rather be Mick Dundee with his croc sticker than my father with his pocket knife in a knife fight....
 
Since this thread is heading South anyway, I don't mind telling you that the notion of my father with a pocket knife is creeping me out.

When I was a kid, I spent a lot of time with my dad in his woodworking shop and I got a lot of slivers. His idea of how to remove a sliver was to excavate around it with his pocket knife. ("Tweezers? We don't need no stinkin' tweezers!")

To this day, he still carries a pocket knife though he can barely see and he's had more than a couple confiscated by airport security. ("Do I look like a terrorist to you?")

I usually get him a new one each Father's Day.
 
Originally posted by Ron Eggers:
Since this thread is heading South anyway, I don't mind telling you that the notion of my father with a pocket knife is creeping me out.

When I was a kid, I spent a lot of time with my dad in his woodworking shop and I got a lot of slivers. His idea of how to remove a sliver was to excavate around it with his pocket knife. ("Tweezers? We don't need no stinkin' tweezers!")

To this day, he still carries a pocket knife though he can barely see and he's had more than a couple confiscated by airport security. ("Do I look like a terrorist to you?")

I usually get him a new one each Father's Day.
Personally I am a fan of nail clippers to get out slivers. You can nip away at the skin until you get to the offender, then, with care use the same tool to pull the sliver out. Hard to slip and cause a bigger owee too!

James
 
For splinters I prefer using a pin. Smaller entrace wound and all that. Can follow up behind the splinter......

Makes me hink about Harry Anderson on SNL years ago. The side show geek skit here he jams that monster long hat pin in his arm, all that fake blood. God what an image to carry around in your head!
 
Try the specialized splinter removing tweezers that come in a brightly colored plastic sleeve. You can often find them as impulse items in the checkout at Home Depot etc. These actually do work. They come to a very precise sharp point. Brand name is Splinter Expert.
:cool: Rick
 
In the spirit of twisting a perfectly good thread:

Don't any of you framers out there use wood glue on splinters? Let it dry, peel it off and the splinter is magically extracted. Or maybe you're all masochists...? :eek:

edie the peelingglueisfuntoo goddess
 
Filtering UV will stop around 90% of the darkening
of lignin in poor paper. It will not stop the
near blue part of the visible portion of the specturm from bleaching cellulose, nor will it
prevent the fading of organic colors. It can not
be presented as a magic bullet that will prevent
change in framed items, rather it will, as has been said, slow change, but many items should not
be exposed to light and copies of them should be
put in the frame, in their stead.

Hugh
 
Back
Top