This is the last I will say.

The original poster asked about a simple message that came in a cedar chest.
It recommended not storing printed material in the chest. Where did he ask
about archival storage of photographs? A cedar chest is probably acceptable
but not the best storage for woollens, to avoid moths, as the story goes. It
is not the best storage for archival prints, paper records nor photographic
media, so all our debating is moot. Whether the poster can put printed
material (which is ink on paper) is up to him. The cedar chest is not going
to be worse than many other methods of storage (used cardboard carton!) used
by people, but is not recommended by anyone as the best for long permanent
storage.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Eric Tonks wrote:

You are wrong on many fronts and making a case out of what I did not
say.
First of all, I have been in the printing business and photo business
for
40 years, I know much about papers, and ink. The term "printed material"
is a common term for papers that are printed on a printing press, and
not
used to refer to photographic prints.

Litho and letterpress inks are oil base, whether they use linseed oil,
soy
oil or other drying oils, they still dry slowly, especially newsprint
inks
which are cheaply produced and the final drying can take weeks or months
if ever. A major problem with printers is when inks don't set quickly
enough to prevent smudging or transfer with post-press handling, the
final
drying is slow, which means the inks can transfer to porous surfaces
such
as cedar.

Whether the paper is acid based or non-acid is not involved in this
discussion, only you brought it up. Yes, conditions do affect archival
storage. But this is a cedar lined box, the conditions that the box is
stored in will have a bigger affect on the life of the "printed
material"
than the box itself.

Plastic bags may damage photographs, yes, so will many things. However,
many sheet papers and films are packed in plastic bags. Processed film
negatives are returned in plastic holders, the prints are in plastic
lined
envelopes.

I'm not sure your point here. The shelf life of unprocessed photographic
papers is measured in months, not decades, the duration of archival
storage
is measured in decades or centuries. The fact that a plastic carefully
selected by the manufacturer of the paper, which manufacturer is generally
a chemical house of some repute in its own right, is safe for the brief
period of time between manufacture and expiration of the paper does not
mean that that same plastic is suitable for archival storage.

As for negatives being returned in plastic holders, I'm not sure what that
proves other than that plastic holders are cheap and convenient for the
processor.

Probably the greatest cause of photos to loose their image or
to go dark is improper processing. Many photo prints and negatives are
processed so quickly by auto-replenishing equipment that often the
chemicals are partially spent if the operator does not check on a
regular
basis. The wash water is not exchanged frequently enough for the amount
of
material processed so that the fixer is not removed. Fixer residue is
the
cause of many photo materials deteriorating and can cause other
non-photo
items to start deteriorating. Yes, I have bought, operated and managed
large film processing equipment.

Lose prematurely maybe. But archivally speaking it takes special
processing
to achieve real permanence.

There is much for you to learn before you can tell me that I don't know
anything. I prefaced my statements with "I think" because there are far
too many factors involved to present every possible condition, rather
than
the general enquiry made by the original poster. I tried to make a
general
answer that would be relatively easy to understand.

PS: Do you know what "microfilm pox" is, and what causes it?

Are you talking about an error of processing or are you talking about
something that occurs in properly processed film stored for long periods
of
time?

Regardless, the fact that you might have picked up such a piece of trivia
does not demonstrate that you have general expertise.


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Eric Tonks" etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM wrote in message
...
I don't think "printed material" fits photographs. I also don't thing
that
the offgassing from the cedar would hurt any paper (except make them
smell
like cedar).

It does not matter what you "think", what matters is the reality of the
situation Ask any librarian about the deterioration of books printed
on
acid paper, stored improperly, contaminated by poor envirnment. Please
take
the time to learn about the compostion of photo paper, the coatings,
the
silver, the colred dyes and other things that may be present in a
simple
photgraph, be it black and white or color.

The problem that they may be warning you about is the ink on
printed paper. Many oil based inks dry slowly, the same way that oil
based
paints dry, they absorb oxygen and the oils harden.

Most inks today are soy based and dry fast. Of course, old manuscripts
may be oil based, old letters may be dye based inks or vegetable
coloring.


You may want to seal any photographs into ZipLock bags to keep the
photo chemical residues from harming any other materials you place in
the
chest.

The Ziploc bags may also ruin the photos. I have a darkroom and I've
done
some serious photography. Please don't suggest anything you don't know
for
FACT. Terms like "I think" or "it may" don't hold water to the real
facts
of
archived materials. Your suggestion could wipe out a family history,
memories from the old country, or valuable prints. It won't happen in
a
week but it WILL happen.

I may sound a bit harsh, but your post is so far off it can cause
serious
problems for a family in a few years when all the memories and history
are gone..



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)