Yes. Make sure the separation layer is archival/acid free.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 12/10/2003 at 8:19 PM John Wheeler wrote:
>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 >
< 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 >
|