Lights (was: Re: Smithsonian gets it wrong)
ajp166 at bellatlantic.net
Sat Nov 12 17:58:29 CST 2005
>Subject: Re: Lights (was: Re: Smithsonian gets it wrong)
> From: William Donzelli <aw288 at osfn.org>
> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:40:51 -0500 (EST)
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>> So given the choice, what lighting *is* good?
>> I'm just thinking that we might have to replace lighting at the museum
>> one day - so maybe keeping other options in mind is a good idea,
>> providing they're not horribly expensive....
>I have a book, called "the Care of Art Objects" (I forget the author) that
>outlines all of this.
>Lots of interesting content in that book - things you would never know
>(like why oak shelves should never be used in archives) - but then again
>these folks actually plan on keeping things as close to forever as
>aw288 at osfn.org
Well for computers especially those with exposed and unshuttered EPROMS
any exposure over time to UV light _may_ be problematic. Generally speaking
UV is har on a lot of things and florescents are fairly rich in UV, some
more than others. That and it tends to distort color rendition if cheap
lamps are used.
More information about the cctalk