Lights (was: Re: Smithsonian gets it wrong)

[Allison]

>
>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
>possible.
>
>William Donzelli
>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.


Allison