Pictures stored in extreme temperatures update--now stiff and slightly curled?

[francis_dantuono]

<p>As I stated in my original thread,<br>

I left all my photo albums in the back of my moms car for three weeks, long storty, where they sat in over 100 degree temperatures at times. There is no fading but a lot of the pictures feel stiff and curve or curl slightly like this ( sort of bent at the tops and bottoms slightly. In light I can see the image through the back of the photo.</p>

<p>How much longer now, then, till they begin to crack and degrade fully? What else can I expect?</p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>How much longer now, then, till they begin to crack and degrade fully? What else can I expect?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi, I'm doubtful there will be much long-term effect unless there is some effect from the plastic.</p>

<p>You might feel better knowing that a typical large-scale processing machine will typically dry the prints at about 180 degrees F.</p>

<p>Also, in my work, I've been involved with long-term fade testing of photo materials. One test we did was to run print samples in a test chamber at about 140 deg F for several months. Although noticeable fading generally occurs, the changes stop when removed. As a wild guess, you may have removed a few years from an expected lifespan of 50 or 100 years, depending on the specific material.</p>

<p>I'm sort of doubtful that the inherent stiffness of your prints changed, although the curl may make it seem that way. You might want to try putting a few of the prints under (or inside) a heavy book for a week or so, to see if they flatten out.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well, no fading is a good thing.</p>

<p>It could well be that the moisture was driven off from the paper fiber in the heat, causing the photos to shrink very, very little. Then when the plastic re-hardened, it became stable/flat for that extremely low moisture content. When the paper fibers eventually took on more moisture from the air, swelling them, the plastic failed to stretch, so the prints curled. They'll probably reach a stable state of curl, and that's where they'll stay, until they work their way back to a state of flatness after being stored flat for an extended period. I seriously doubt they will crack, as it would take much greater temperatures to degrade the plastics.</p>

<p>Of course I could be wrong. If they're important photos, scan them to be safe!</p>

<p>EDIT: I think Bill C has the best info for you!</p>

[francis_dantuono]

<p>It's almost as if the paper they are printed on is now thicker. Like I said, a normal print feels slightly floppy--you can flop it around, you know. These now feel sort of hard. They'll flop slightly if you shake them, but not much. And the top and bottom of the images has a slight, very very slight, curl, like this shape: ( but not as dramatic.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Ryan, I would not be concerned about a print with as much curl as an open parentheses character. Back in the days before resin coated papers, I would sometimes see prints much curlier than that, and I very commonly see modern, RC prints with that much curl!</p>

<p>Also think about film, which is more delicate than a paper print. Film is often very curly, and nothing about the curl impacts the longevity of the medium.</p>

<p>A curly print will feel stiffer than a flat print. No surprise there. Take a sheet of paper, and wind it into a tight tube, until it curls. Then judge how it feels compared to an un-curled sheet of paper. The curled sheet will feel stiffer because of its shape.</p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>[sarah] A curly print will feel stiffer than a flat print. No surprise there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly! I probably wasn't too clear about flattening prints in a book; my idea was that Ryan can take the now-flat prints and compare the stiffness. I don't have much doubt that they'll be back to normal.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If you don't mind experimenting with a couple of your older photos you might try a couple of tricks to relax the curl. Use the steam or vapor from a clothes iron or steamer on the back of one or two prints - don't make direct contact, just use the steam or cool water vapor. If you don't have one of those, a spray bottle with a very fine mist on the back of the print might do as well.</p>

<p>As some folks mentioned in the previous thread, the quality of the photo print processing may be a greater factor than the exposure to heat. I have hundreds - perhaps thousands - of old family photos dating back to the 1800s. Many were stored rather indifferently in cardboard boxes in a non-air conditioned metal storage barn at my grandparents' home for decades. The only color photos to show any significant fading or color shifting were prints from bargain basement portrait studios at places like Sears. Color prints from decent studios like Olan Mills have held up just fine (not to make any commentary on their style of portraiture, only on their quality control). So have most of our Polaroids and 4x6 or so color prints from 1970s onward that were processed at decent labs.</p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>The only color photos to show any significant fading or color shifting were prints from bargain basement portrait studios at places like Sears. Color prints from decent studios like Olan Mills have held up just fine (not to make any commentary on their style of portraiture, only on their quality control).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's of no great significance, but I'd guess that your fading prints were more than likely from PCA than Sears Portrait. PCA spent a number of years using a certain Agfacolor paper with serious image stability problems. (See page 275 of Wilhelm's 1992 book, <em>The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs</em>, available for free download.)</p>

<p>Here's an excerpt from (page 286) that might surprise you: "Color prints currently [circa 1992] supplied by mass-portrait companies such as ... CPI Corporation (which operates studios in Sears Roebuck retail stores, Olan Mills, Inc.,... are also likely to be more stable than the more expensive prints sold by traditional studios."</p>

<p>ps: Ryan mentioned in a different thread that the photos were 1990s-era color prints, which means that they are all RC; moistening of the back, while useful for "fiber" paper, doesn't do much for RC paper.</p>

[francis_dantuono]

<p>Why is RC paper bad in terms of this?<br>

Yes, they are 1990s Era Color Prints.</p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>Why is RC paper bad in terms of this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi, do you mean for moistening the back? Well, the term RC (resin coated) means that the paper base is coated on both sides with plastic. So it is substantially waterproof.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>You might consider scanning them before they get worse. There are plenty of flatbed scanners on the market you can use for this. </p>

<p> Of course that would be a very tedious process. On a good note, if color prints are kept in a light tight/air tight compartment there is a better chance they will not fade out. An Album is pretty much light tight, but not exactly air tight. </p>

[francis_dantuono]

<p>What will "worse" consist of, though is the question, and how long until "worse" happens?<br>

I am considering having them professionally scanned. It will be a lot of money but I would think a worthy investment.</p>