posted 12-12-2009 07:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacefest:
If they are prone to fading, like old KODAK paper, dark won't stop it. Nothing will.

---

But one could argue that light won't help them either. Every color photo fades over time. Making the right decisions about storage, however, can help prolong their life. Some of those vintage NASA photos that are 40-50 years old still look pretty good...if they have been stored properly.

posted 05-17-2010 08:47 PM               

Someday I will get around to proper framing of these items but for now, rather than have them sit unseen in boxes or envelopes I thought I might keep them in some kind of binder in those plastic sheet protector things.

Can anyone suggest a quality brand/concept for proper preservation and display?

posted 05-28-2010 12:45 PM               

Would storing the photos (signed or not) in a "near vacuum" retard their deterioration significantly? Say, for example, putting the binder, slip case, whatever, in one of those space bags and then vacuuming out the air?

What component(s) of our atmosphere degrade either paper or photographic emulsions? I'm sure higher humidity is more damaging. Does some sort of oxidization occur?

In lieu of a vacuum, would the use of a desiccant help?

posted 07-10-2010 11:03 PM               

The biggest surprise to me was that there is actually an ISO standard for the basic photo safety requirements for albums, frames, and storage materials, to include adhesives and papers, to be considered safe for long term storage. She is actually a consultant for a company called Creative Memories that specializes in this kind of thing.

If you want a good synopsis of the ISO 18902 standard, you can go to her website. Look under "Our Company" then click on "Dedication to Quality" and then follow a hyperlink "ISO 18902" in the text.

posted 03-15-2011 02:46 PM               

The photos are currently on a wall in a dry cool room and I have moisture (damp rid) bags in the closet to minimize humidity. They are not exposed to sunlight and the actual picture does not touch the glass but rather touches the mat on its edges. There is a part of me that loves the originals hanging there but I'm inclined to replace them with a high quality scan.

I was wondering what the general feeling is about displaying originals vs. using a quality copy and storing the original to maintain its mint condition longer. Also, I would appreciate everyone's best tip for storage and preservation. Thanks.

posted 03-15-2011 03:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by steelhead fly fishing:
I was wondering what the general feeling is about displaying originals vs. using a quality copy and storing the original to maintain its mint condition longer. Also, I would appreciate everyone's best tip for storage and preservation.

---

posted 03-18-2011 10:09 AM               

I would not get the same reaction looking at scans - after all, the thrill for me is looking at the actual item that was signed or flown, not at a copy of that item.

I spend a lot to have items framed archivally and the room receives no direct sunlight, but beyond those precautions these items are for my enjoyment and no one else's. To hide them away so they are in good shape after I'm gone seems counterproductive to why I collect.

posted 03-22-2011 09:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
I would not get the same reaction looking at scans - after all, the thrill for me is looking at the actual item that was signed or flown, not at a copy of that item.

---

posted 03-23-2011 01:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSpace86:
To me, collecting space memorabilia equates to learning how to obtain, preserve, and protect the items on my own, not the overall or future value.

---

posted 03-23-2011 05:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Que:
Any recommendation on a good scanner?

---

posted 01-23-2012 11:25 PM               

• Staples box says: PVC, acid and latex free, archival quality.

• Avery box just says Poly-Vu archival won't lift print pages.

posted 01-27-2012 05:04 PM               

I keep all my photos in frames, hanging on my wall so I can enjoy them. Many years ago, I had a Dave Scott hanging on my wall in a frame and moisture got into the frame, which fused the photo to the glass. I saved most of the photo, including the autograph itself, but there's a white circle near where the flag used to be.

That's the main reason I don't keep my photos in a binder these days. I also worry about the pages getting creased or folded somehow.

Now when I hang pictures, I make sure to purchase frames with mats, archival of course, to keep space between the photo and the glass. The glass is always UV coated to protect the photo from damage.

The frames I use are made by a company called Nielsen Bainbridge. An 8x10 frame can be found for around $15 anywhere. I've even picked them up from Bed, Bath & Beyond of all places. I have six Mercury and 10 Gemini photos in those frames.

I started running out of room on my wall, so for my Apollo photos, I decided to put each crew together in a single frame. Those frames are virtually identical to the 8x10 frames I purchased, but they all had to be custom made. I found a place in Austin called Balcones Frames that does great work for me. They do all my custom frames, including my six lunar surface pans. They also cut the holes in the mats, which can be different sizes depending on whether the photo has a border or not.

posted 01-27-2012 06:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by schnappsicle:
I've been getting their UV Plexiglass

---

A year or so back I had an opportunity to purchase an uninscribed Deke Slayton WSS litho that had been removed from a frame made up with UV plexiglas.

I think the framed print had come originally from Novaspace who as we know use top notch materials and do an excellent framing job.

There was a very distinct 1/4" dark "border" inside the white edge to the litho clearing showing the portion of the litho that had been covered by the matte.

The rest of the litho had clearly faded.

posted 10-14-2014 11:02 PM               

I've noticed that when my binder isn't full enough, the sheets that I have the photos in bend if I don't give them a sight tug every time I close the binder.

Is this normal or do I need to find new binders?

posted 10-15-2014 12:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shuttle Endeavour:
I was wondering if anyone had any experience storing autographs in fireproof safes?

---

posted 10-15-2014 03:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Mulheirn:
In my opinion, UV plexiglas is of limited use, if anything lulling people in to a false sense of security.

---

I'd missed your earlier comment here, Rick. For me, and perhaps others, it's an important topic.

While not UV Plexi, I've recently been through a process to convert all framed/shadow-boxed/hung items - autographs or otherwise - to Museum Glass. Wasn't cheap given the total square footage of glass replaced.

I think both materials claim a 98-99% UV block rate, and I've even double-layered some items, but would hate to learn it's an empty promise.

This older thread covered the topic with some good input from Kim but perhaps there is an updated view.

posted 10-16-2014 01:43 PM               

More broadly, some items 'under glass' are not amenable to traditional scanning and reprinting (Apollo food packets, manuals/checklists, flight hardware, etc.).

I looked into this a bit more since my concern about efficacy of UV glass or Plexi is one of general conservation. Rick's experience was a real catalyst!

Among other good resources, the Image Permanance Institute provides a nice backgrounder on archival framing/glazing and light-damage mechanisms.

As you'd imagine, acid-free everything and UV-blocking materials are all highlighted.

I did find some (old) experiments that suggests UV materials are basically ineffective, though it was usually an unstable print directly in the window. One person's take was that UV glass is like sunscreen - it buys you time in the sun but not immunity. Make the experiment harsh enough and you will see damage/fading, UV-block or not.

Others point out that visible light adds its own damage factor, and this of course is virtually unfiltered, thus the relative transparency of UV glass or Plexi. Likewise heat from any source drives degradation so watch out for IR as well.

At the risk of stating the obvious, unless you store it all way, your material is best preserved only by archival materials all around and strict limits on direct, indirect, and artificial light. The latter is one reason I added shades on mostly-shadowed windows and went to low-UV/IR LED lamps for the cabinet and room housing everything.

Temp and humidity control are also critical whether items are displayed or stored (see also 'Dark Fade' in the referenced resource).

Could be missing something but I imagine "double-paning" with UV materials would also be a help. UV transmission goes from ~1-2% to 0.1-0.2%, reducing cumulative UV effects by ~10X.

I'm just not ready to swap originals - and in some cases it isn't practical - but with attention to room darkening, religious use of Museum Glass (or similar), double-glazing in places, climate control, and LED lighting, hopefully the long-term impact on an array of object-types will be minimal.

posted 10-20-2014 08:37 AM               

I use the "tuck lock" sleeves for 8x10s and postal covers. These sleeves are open on 2 short sides, and are heat sealed on one long edge and have a flap closure on the other long edge. I am always concerned about sliding photos and lithos into a tight sleeve... scratching the surface or bending a corner. This is not a concern with tuck lock sleeves. Plus, items look great in the crystal clear, heavy mylar enclosure.

Once in the mylar sleeve, I store my photos in archival quality photo boxes. I typically use this method for more expensive items worth a few hundred bucks or more.