Doesn't conventional picture framing technique dictate that the glass in a
frame is mounted away from the print surface? Isn't that one reason for the
cardboard escutcheon? Or am I just being picky?
John (who's actually threatening to make some frames in the near future)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Keller
<snip>
Glossy photo paper can bond to
the glass covering the print. There's a lot of things that can unexpectedly
go wrong in 100 years.
-jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl Dunbar" <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Different way of seeing...
<snip>
>Why then do we do wet-darkroom printing? Longevity of the final
>print is one reason, but the primary reason remains the
>characteristics of a fine-art print. A high-quality fine-art
>print will "glow" in ways and have a depth which is nearly
>impossible to reproduce in digital. I've seen reasonable
>approximations, though.
>
This is what I'm getting at. "Reasonable approximations"... I want to see
one. The glow of a fine optical silver print is my standard. Then we could
talk about platinum and palladium...
And what IS archival in digital terms? The Epson dude told me 80-100 years.
Isn't 100 years the MINIMUM with optical wet darkroom? I haven't conducted
test on any of my prints, but I'd be surprised if the best would go much
longer than 100 years.
Earl
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|