Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,635   Posts: 1,648,135   Online: 1155
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,688
    Images
    20
    I agree that it's a fixing/washing issue. In addition to exposure to light, there may be an issue of the microenvironment inside the frame that's accellerating the process that causes the staining, which could explain why you're not seeing it in the prints that are not framed.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  2. #12
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,331
    I'm not sure if it'e been mentioned already but to go along with the fixing/washing that has been brought up. I agree. One thing that I was guilty of early on was not that I didn't fix properly or that I didn't wash enough but that I was being too frugal and using fixer too long. The stuff had depleted and within weeks and months, I was seeing deterioration in the print.

    I agree that it's probably too early for environmental issues to show up. So my advice is keep track of your fixer depletion and wash archivally.


    Michael

  3. #13
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Slightly on topic.... "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures" is available for download at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html . Despite the title, there is a lot of info on B&W permanence and the use of different mounting methods & materials too.

    Cheers, Bob.

  4. #14
    chuck94022's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by David Henderson
    ...

    The mounts were admittedly bought in a hurry and are Daler-Rowney white-core ph neutral mount board. This is not claimed to be archival . But the damage is not confined to areas of the prints near the board and there is no apparent damage to the substantial area of paper actually in contact with the board. All the problem lies within the mount window where the image is.

    ...
    I would agree with others that it sounds like a fixing/washing problem. However, you said two things that caught my attention. First, you said you had the prints made. This sounds like you went to a professional printer. If so, you probably have some recourse with them.

    Also, as noted above, you seem to indicate that the print itself is not mounted on a board (behind the print), but just attached to the window board (on the front). Is this the case? If so, what is in contact with the back of the print? Or is it just floating with nothing between it and the wall?

    I'm just trying to get a better picture of what you have.

    -chuck

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Datchet, Berkshire UK- about 20 miles west of London
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    342
    To pick up on the questions raised in your replies.

    Yes, I am aware I have recourse to the lab if its their problem which is looking increasingly likely. However I do want to be reasonably sure and informed on this not only because I have a good relationship with them but also because I have well over 100 similarly specified prints here in boxes. The issue doesn't stop with those I have on the wall, for doubtless some of those I have in boxes would deteriorate similarly when framed.

    Some of the prints now discolouring/blotching/fading were several months old when I framed them, using a method I expected to change in a few months. They had however been stored in boxes to that point, in the same room in which they are now displayed.

    The prints are taped loosely to a window- mount (overmat in USA-speak?) to hold the print in position. A margin of about 1/2" of the photo-paper shows between the edge of the window mount and the edge of the print. The prints are not touching the glass. Behind the print is a board supplied by Nielsen which has several clips that spring into place behind the frame and hold the whole package firmly together. Bear in mind please that there is no visible damage or staining to the paper at all- just to the printed area itself - and that the damage to the prints is not confined to the edges.

  6. #16
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    The mounting method you mention seems flawed. It sounds like there is no archivally sound material between the back of the print and the back board of the frame which is usually hardboard (which is almost certainly acidic), however, not enough time has passed for that to be relevant - probably...

    Is there any discolouration to the part of the print covered by the mount board - i.e. parts not exposed to direct light and is all discolouration on the print side and not on the back of the print?

    I just noticed you are in the UK so my suggestion of Photographer's Formulary's residual hypo test kit is a bit moot. I don't know anywhere to get such a kit in the UK, however, you can use a drop of 10% selenium toner on the white border of a print. If the drop turns red/brown after a couple of minutes the print is insufficiently fixed. If it is clear, or a VERY feint colour then the fixing was OK.

    Bob.

  7. #17
    George Papantoniou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Athens
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    992
    Images
    122
    I'd agree with Bob, that the hardboard (if it is in contact with the back of the prints) is the source of the problem.
    I still have to tell a story that an Ilford technician once told me, about a series of mounted prints that went bad (bronzing, as they call it) overnight. They (Ilford) were called to find out what happened, and they realised that the reason for the bronzing was that the carpets in the hall the prints were hung were cleaned the day before the bronzing occured. The detergent used to clean the carpet probably released chemicals in the air that entered the frames and infected the emulsion, causing a strong oxidation of the silver. He also told me that the worst environment for photographic prints to be hung in is beauty salons (salons de coiffure), because of the harmful chemicals used on the client's heads...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by David Henderson
    Other prints from the same batches kept in archive boxes
    and/or photo-paper boxes are OK so far.
    Perhaps coincidence. Those stored were first in a batch; a batch
    gone bad with spent chemistry. Dan

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin