Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
In article
<42a61390$0$27873$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,
"Caitlin" <caitlin_online_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Fred McKenzie" <fmmck@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fmmck-0706051028150001@acac3d42.ipt.aol.com...
> > Mounting behind glass, laminating and spray-coating are ways to reduce the
> > effects of UV. However, there is still UV getting through, and you only
> > reduce the process a relatively small amount.
> >
> > Suppose a print fades to an unacceptable level after a week of exposure to
> > direct sunlight. By "protecting" it, you may extend that to eight or ten
> > days.
>
> In fact it will increase it's life significantly more than that. But you are
> right that it will still fade.
I would expect lamination to be about as good as mounting behind glass for
UV protection, and it would keep out air. I don't think spray-on UV
coatings would be very effective by comparison.
It is hard to do a test in direct sunlight around here since it rains
quite often! A while back I did a crude test by putting three prints
inside the rear window of my car, which sat outdoors in the Florida sun
while I was at work. In other words, they were protected by a layer of
glass.
In about 1 week, the print from a Canon BJC-85 was noticeably faded. In
about 4 weeks the print from an Epson C-60 (pre-durabrite) was faded.
After one year, the print from an Epson Photo 2000P (pigmented ink)
appeared to be unfaded unless you compared it with a control print that
had been kept in the dark.
My point is that there are other factors more critical to print life than
a protective coating. The paper used for the print also affects life of
the ink. In the case of my year-old prints in the hot car, their surface
had turned to chalk, and was easily damaged by a fingernail.
Fred