|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Michael Keller wrote: > > John, is it possible that the print didn't really _fade_ but that the no-name (and > presumably acidic) matte yellowed the paper? I have seen yellowed papers that were > stored only a few years in manila folders. > > John Goerger wrote: > > > I am looking at a print that was done in 1974. It is the Constellation. > > It was painted by Alan Price and is number 182/500. > > It was printed by Triton Press in NYC, unfortunatly, they are no longer > > listed, any list memebers ever heard of them? It was copyrighted by NEW > > MARKET GALLERY. It is printed on BFK rives 250gsm paper. The part of the > > image that was not under the matte is a rather creamy yellow white and > > the part that was under the matte is very yellow almost the color of a > > mannila(?) envelope. I don't know what the original color of the print > > was but I am comparing this to a piece of BFK Rives I received as a > > sample about 2 months ago. The New BFK is much warmer than our > > GUARDIANú paper. and the paper from the 26 year old paper is much warmer > > than the new sample, almost verging on Yellow. The part of the print > > that was under the matte(a no name matte)is now yellow. This print was > > displayed in an office at weber valentine that has a large picture > > window that faces due north. The glass is plain old window pain glass. > > While the image still looks good, it does appear to be a bit washed out > > and faded, unfortunatly, I have no way to compare this, to know if that > > is the case or not. Also, I'm not sure of the method of reproduction, > > because this is a limited edition print, not the original. What does > > this say about the subject? That could be, I did a pH test on the matte and it is about 6.5. The BFK appears to be about 6.9, but the new sample I have seems to be about 7.2, These were not done with cold extraction , just a pH pen test. And Like I say, I'm not sure about wether it faded or not, I don't know what it looked like back in 1974. It just appears a little washed out to me. The blues which are the major part of the print, are worst. In the picture, it is a sunny day but the ocean looks like slate, which would imply a cloudy day. Unless the artist painted it this way on purpose it appears that the blue prigments or dyes, or what ever this print was made of have shifted and or faded. However, all in all its not a bad looking print and it is 25-26 years old. - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users