5 levels of framing question

[stcstc]

Now with all this discussion of standards, i went looking at the levels. was pointed at them by robo and notyouraverageframer

on reading the conservation level it specifically mentions photographs (doesnt say the type of prints)

on the window mount and backing it says

For photographs unbuffered mountboard should be used (This is only available in Cotton Museum quality.)

can someone explain to me the reason for this, i think i understand it, but looking for clarification, the slight bit that confuses me, is that by not mentioning the print type, surely not using unbuffered board would have different affects on the different kinds of prints, this klinda confuses things. Or do i just not understand it correctly

[Nigel Nobody]

Steve,
Unbuffered mats/mounts should be used on organic/protein based materials such as photographs made and processed from film, and silk items, because the buffering agent can have adverse effects on those substances.

[kev@frames]

does this include "inkjet" or "giclee" (digitally) reproduced images on paper media, or does it only apply to traditional (chemical) produced photographs, which might well form the majority of most framers' photographic work? (considerng that these types of photographic images are usually easily relaced/reproducable may have a bearing on the application of "rules of commonsense" to the Framing Levels).
Is it the photographic paper or the printing medium that is the issue - or do you just go with "better safe than sorry" if in doubt?
Im not sure the levels of framing have been written with modern digital printing media being included in the term "photograph", as they have existed in their current form long before the age of the affordable digital inkjet printer.

[Nigel Nobody]

Just traditionally produced photographs can be adversely affected by the alkaline buffering. Silk and wool can also be affected. I don't know how much or over what period of time. Just that alkaline buffering can affect protein based items.

I think you're probably right about the levels being written before the advent of digital printing methods. That could be an area that needs updating so the difference between those two types of photographs and buffering issues are noted.

[stcstc]

Ah,thats exactly why i asked. why specifically photographs were mentioned and without the type of print

[Roboframer]

A grumble discussion, two conservators giving their two bob's worth. http://www.thegrumble.com/showthread.php?1630

[Jonny2morsos]

I have noticed the following with photographers I deal with.

1. Some smaller prints up to 10 x 8 are printed in house on dye sub printers.

2. Small photographs are printed using chemical processing.

3. Larger prints over 20 x 16 are inkjet printed.

In my experience the avarage High St photo studio has no idea about mounting photos and generally attaches the to the mount with sellotape!

[stcstc]

wow robo thats an interesting thread

and i have now learned someting else

ALL pva glue is acidic.

because of this should we not be using it between mounts for example, like when sticking a double mount together?

[Roboframer]

I wouldn't worry about double mounts, you only need a few dots here and there and nowhere near the bevel nearest the artwork

Wrapped bevels may be diferent as the material is thin and against the artwork. Starch paste is cheaper than PVA anyway so if it's an issue .....

[stcstc]

oh ok cool

i wasnt sure if it should go anywhere near the mountboard after reading the thread on the grumble, nevermind the edges

[Mary Evans]

Just to say I've been away for a few days, during which time this post has moved on. Maxwell is in a far better position than I am to answer questions about the general direction the Guild hopes to go, and I am very supportive of his plans. I'm still reading and interested in all comments, but will stick to answering framing and GCF issues

I think it's great that this post has produced so much interest, and some very valuable points for the Guild to consider.

Mary

[Mary Evans]

Sorry - meant to put the above post on "GCF Framers Committee reply to points raised".
Will now read this thread.

Mary

[Mary Evans]

I agree with Nigel Nobody (am I right that you are really Ormond Williams – I get very confused with the TFF names?). As I understand it, traditionally produced photographs and protein based materials, such as silk and wool, can be adversely affected by alkaline-buffered boards. I have always assumed that with photographs it is the substrate rather than the inks which were relevant – so a photo printed on to paper I would treat as art on paper with buffered boards. But I’m not a conservator so if this isn’t correct I’d be really interested, because that was the best knowledge we had when we wrote the Framing Levels and maybe we do need to update. Photographs (particularly old ones) are a whole complicated subject on their own and I’m the first to admit that we, on the Framers Committee, are not experts by a long way.

I too was interested in the thread on the Grumble. Has anyone considered using EVA adhesive rather than PVA? It is just as easy to use. At Guild Museum Level framing the requirement between a double windowmount is either starch paste or EVA. It is a conservation product, but not suitable for use on artwork at Conservation Level, only for other tasks within the frame. Getting a bit more technical, it also is less harmful than PVA as regards outgassing – ie the gases that are given off from acidic or inferior materials and which can harm artwork within the very restricted confines of a picture frame.

Mary

[Nigel Nobody]

Mary,
You are correct about my name. I post it as my signature so that people don't assume my real name is Nigel Nobody.

EVA adhesives are a bit of a mystery. There seem to be many types. These are a few comments just from Wikipedia, about EVA, that show some of the diversity and some confusion of the adhesive:
Hot melt glue sticks are made from EVA with some resins and waxes added.
EVA is one of the materials popularly known as expanded rubber or foam rubber.
EVA emulsions are polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) copolymers based on vinyl acetate (VAM) internally plastized with vinyl acetate ethylene (VAE).

The last one seems to say that EVA is PVA. I'm confused already!


I've tried EVA liquid adhesive, which look similar to PVA, from a few places. The versions available here in Australia do not bond as easily with heat as one provide by Franks Fabrics (USA). I'm quite satisfied that Frank's is non-acidic and it is certainly the best adhesive for fabric covered mats.

[Roboframer]

At Guild Museum Level framing the requirement between a double windowmount is either starch paste or EVA. It is a conservation product, but not suitable for use on artwork at Conservation Level, only for other tasks within the frame. Getting a bit more technical, it also is less harmful than PVA as regards outgassing – ie the gases that are given off from acidic or inferior materials and which can harm artwork within the very restricted confines of a picture frame

From the Guild's Museum level ...

"Sometimes it is advantageous to retain an original windowmount (possibly gilded or decorated). In this case preferably a 1200 micron, but at least 500 micron, Cotton Museum quality mountboard barrier should but cut to fit the underside of the windowmount to within a few millimetres of the window or a few millimetres beyond the opening"

I'd be happier with a few dabs of PVA between mounts than keeping an old mount - which is probably not conservation quality, and even if it was would no doubt be well past it's useful life. If I put anything back in a frame that had soaked up years and years worth of carp, I wouldn't be calling it a conservation (or 'museum') job.

I doubt that many, if any framers depend on any wet adhesive alone to bond mounts (at any level) anyway - you'd have to wait for it to go off before you can handle it - I think most just use ATG tape and others use a combination of ATG tape and some wet adhesive - the wet adhesive to make a good bond and the ATG to hold things in place while it goes off/so you can cut/handle it

Most double (or more) mounts are cut bonded together - manually or on a CMC, as opposed to being cut individuallly and then lined up by eye - stuff that!

The recommendations are contradictory - it's not OK to use PVA to bond mounts together due to outgassing risks, but it is OK to incorporate a 100 year (or whatever) old mount full of you-know-what.

REPLACE the old mount, complete with any washlines etc, with a nice fresh conservation (or 'museum') one and earn more money to boot. You simply cannot claim that a frame job incorporating a mount that was probably acidic when it was new and is now soaked with pollutants, as a museum/conservation/preservation job.

[stcstc]

does the bit about keeping the old mount not mean keeping them ie rather that throw it away,and not about suggesting putting it in the frame

[Roboframer]

No - read the blue text again.

[stcstc]

ah yea sorry i misread it

[Roboframer]

It's a bit mad really, a brand new cheap-as-chips, bought by the pallet load standard mount board would be less harmful, but if you incorporated that in to a museum level job you'd be laughed out of the Guild!

[Not your average framer]

Hi Ormond,

Following your questions about EVA, I think you may find the following extract of interest, it is part of a product datasheet from the Timecare website. As you say EVA is a pretty broad classification. You will notice that this product has passed the silver tarnishing test which is of particular significance when framing early photographic produced with silver gelatine print papers.

It's been in use for quite some time and has achieved fairly universal acceptance. I first came accross it during the time when I worked as a bookbinder and paper conservator in the antique books and documents field. It's available from Aqadia in the UK, but if my memory serves me correctly Conservation Resources may have a branch in Australia and I'm fairly sure that they would stock it too!

Evacon-R Conservation Adhesive

A specially formulated Neutral pH, Non Plasticised, Reversible Archival Paper Laminating Adhesive. Now available in small quantities.

The adhesive was originally specified by Stuart Welch and designed by a leading adhesive chemist for laminating our Timecare Heritage Museum Boards, Conservation Boards and Premier Archival Die Cut Boxes and Envelopes.

In 1983 Stuart found that there was no thoroughly specified laminating adhesive which took into account questions of pH, plasticisers, fungicides and acid hydrolysis. With the guidance of the late Fred Marsh and in conjunction with the adhesive chemist, it was decided that an EVA type adhesive best fulfilled the requirements of conservation with the practicalities of laminating.

The adhesive is designed to be as safe as possible for all kinds of storage uses including photographs. It has passed the Silver Tarnish Test and is less susceptible to acid hydrolysis than the more common PVA adhesives which can break down and emit Acetic Acid Vapours. These vapours can be particularly harmful to boxed items trapped in a microclimate. The resistance to hydrolysis of the EVACON-R is probably due to the random blocks of ethylene which affect the stereochemistry of the system. The incorporation of a small quantity of calcium carbonate also helps to stabilise the system.

EVACON-R adhesive, is a Water Soluble, Non Plasticised, pH 7.5, Ethylene - Vinylacetate Copolymer Emulsion suitable for laminating papers and boards, boxmaking, envelopes and general bookbinding work.