Subject: Effect of light on fine art materials
Frank A. Reynolds <fr0c [at] andrew__cmu__edu> wrote: >... >I am interest in knowing whether the wattage, or the color >temperature of a lamp, is the more detrimental factor. And if >fluorescent lamps are less harmful than tungsten lamps? Actually >we are trying to determine the effect of color scanners on artworks >and such information would be helpful when considering the light >sources used in different models.... Most scanners today are using cold cathode lamps. The article: Farace, J. "Scanning Devices," in Shutterbug's 1998 Photographic Buyer's Guide (on newsstand's now and could be ordered from Shutterbug), pp 97-101, has a very comprehensive list of scanners which includes the bulb type. Cold cathode lamps are similar to neon, which is related to fluorescent tubes. Thomson, G., The Museum Environment, Butterworth-Heinemann, New York & London, 1994, 2nd edition, pp. 168-174, has data tables and curves for various incandescent and fluorescent lamps used in museums. I have not measure UV output from scanner lamps, but intend to do so at the next Seybold meeting in Boston (3/99). My results on light intensity measurements for scanners have been published on-line at: <URL:http://www.rlg.org/preserv/diginews/diginews2-5.html#technical> Light Intensity Comparison Chart Scanner exposure 0.0000009 to 0.0000386 Mlx-hrs Year's worth of sunlight 115 to 290 Mlx-hrs Day's worth of sunlight 0.3 to 0.8 Mlx-hrs Day on a museum wall 0.0006 Mlx-hrs Life of an artwork 4.3 to 10 Mlx-hrs My findings were that scanner light intensity was very low, even with the most aggressive modern scanners (Heidelberg Topaz), and that the UV component would also be very small. Timothy Vitale Preservation Associates 831-684-2731 *** Conservation DistList Instance 12:45 Distributed: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 Message Id: cdl-12-45-001 ***Received on Wednesday, 18 November, 1998