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). 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. During this setting
time, the ink may transfer from the paper surface to the unfinished cedar
(which is full of the oil that gives it the characteristic smell), leaving
marks on the cedar that is absorbed into the surface. It would be very
difficult to remove this ink stain.
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.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I've just bought a very nice cedar-lined chest for the bedroom. The card
> > that came with it warned against putting "printed material" inside.
> >
> > Is this something to do with a fire hazard, or is there another reason
for
> > the warning. I was thinking about storing photographs (among other
things)
> > inside.
> >
> > G
>
> There will be some outgassing of aromatics in cedar. It can damage paper
> and photos. Cedar dispels insects and that is why it is used for chests
and
> closets to store material, especially wool, so that same stuff will be
> floating around your photo paper and be absorbed.
> --
> Ed
> http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
>
>
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.
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.
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?
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >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..
>
>
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >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)
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've just bought a very nice cedar-lined chest for the bedroom. The card
> that came with it warned against putting "printed material" inside.
>
> Is this something to do with a fire hazard, or is there another reason for
> the warning. I was thinking about storing photographs (among other things)
> inside.
>
> G
There will be some outgassing of aromatics in cedar. It can damage paper
and photos. Cedar dispels insects and that is why it is used for chests and
closets to store material, especially wool, so that same stuff will be
floating around your photo paper and be absorbed.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
"Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>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..
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >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)
"Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?
In his post where he said he'd probably store photographs in it.
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:20:00 -0500, "Eric Tonks"
<etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote:
>I don't think "printed material" fits photographs.
Indeed not. Photographs are much more fragile.
>I also don't thing that
>the offgassing from the cedar would hurt any paper
It will hurt an awful lot of paper, Particularly coated papers, such
as the outer jackets of paperbacks.
>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.
That's a terrible idea. Ziploc (and other) bags are full of
plasticisiers, which are doom and disaster for some printed materials
and definitely for photographs.
Photographs are best stored with paper as an interleaf. Inside a
close-fitting cardboard box is the best way though - unless you're
handling an album, or you're looking for exceptional storage, then an
interleaf is excessive (but not harmful).
BTW - Be careful with "acid free" papers and photographs. Most "acid
free" archival paper isn;t just free of acid, it's also buffered with
a base to stop it becoming acid in the future. This is a good thing
for most materials, but for colour photographs an excess of a base is
nearly as bad as an excess of acid. Use an _unbuffered_ acid free
paper.
Should you want more, one of the most accessible simple guides to
archival storage is at:
http://amol.org.au/recollections/
"Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
> 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.
I'm even more astonished after reading this post than I was yesterday. You,
of all people, should know better than to make the recommendations you did
make. You prefaced the statements with "I think", but I don't think you did
think.
Some ( but not all) plastics are OK with film. Unless you know the
specifics, it is better not to say you "think" it is OK. You make good
point that the photos may not be in the best condition due to the processing
methods, but that does not eliminate the need for care, only enhances it.
Instead of 50 years, sloppy processing may cut it to 25, but why do
something that will cut it to 10 years? Or less.
A general answer that is easy to understand would be, "Don't do it or you
can get damage over time."
>
> PS: Do you know what "microfilm pox" is, and what causes it?
PS: Yes, I do.