It’s a blog not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Yes, that’s right the All About Images Blog is not a scientific journal.
Yesterday, I posted an update to my original report on album straps: “June 23, 2014: Youngevity’s Our Memories For Life albums use PVC for their straps; yet the albums are supposedly “100% photo-safe and archival.”
This information was from a reliable source. It is a starting point for further discussion, not a scientific treatise intended to be the final word in photo safety. If you have information to the contrary, you are welcome to post it here. I don’t have a problem with differing views. What I do have a problem with is people who want to suppress the discussion or people who feel that the subjects I want to talk about are somehow inappropriate.
About Mark Mizen
I have over twenty years professional experience in all aspects of photography and digital imaging. I am Chair of the ISO WG5 TG2 committee responsible for physical properties and durability of imaging material and am currently with HID Global working on systems for security printing for IDs, licenses, and credit cards. Previously, I was Director of Digital Development at Creative Memories from 2009 to 2012 and was responsible for the Creative Memories digital products and services. I also established and directed the Creative Memories Technology Center, which evaluated new products prior to product introduction, assisted with production difficulties, and provided technical information to support product sales.
This entry was posted in Scrapbooking
and tagged blog
, Our Memories for Life
. Bookmark the permalink
I always rely on you f or the scientifically based truth. Thanks for posting!
Do you have a suggestion as to how to get rid of the fungus on the original straps as it is becoming more apparent on my original CM albums.
Agree and I appreciate your bringing it to our attention.
Our Memories for Life specs call for NO PVC and they have requested manufacturer/supplier’s response to confirm.
Hope you’ll share the results/response with us. Thanks!
Your blog, you choose the subjects. Period!
Here is Rhonda’s reply that was deleted.
Hello Mark, I remember when you and your wife Linda took Mac and I to dinner. WE have always been friends. Therefore, may I ask why you don’t come to me directly with your concerns? That is what friends do. You know that I would never authorize any product to contain anything that would harm photos. If our products have an issue, it would be an accident, not a blatant disregard for photo safety. Mark, when you do things like this, it looks like you are just looking for attention for yourself rather than the truth. I am asking people to pray for you. The Lord loves you and I care about you too. Rhonda
I did not delete Rhonda’s original message. I never saw it and have no idea what happened to it.
The objective of the All About Images blog is to provide information on photo safety and related topics to the general public, not to provide testing services for companies that are unwilling to devote the resources to carrying out the tests themselves. Companies that value product performance will engage technical experts prior to product introduction, not after. Failing to do so, when you do not personally have the expertise to evaluate your products, is a blatant disregard for photo safety. What is particularly offensive is the claim “100% photo safe,” with what appears to be no tests to support this claim.
Thank you, Mark. I’m glad there are still people who care about photo safety and have the ability to do the testing. Thanks for sharing your expertise with all of us.
I appreciate your objectivity in reporting on issues of photo-safety.
Perhaps Rhonda realized how unprofessional it was to post what should have been a private email or phone call. Whatever the reason for it being deleted the damage to her image is, once again, tarnished. And what was your purpose is posting this Lynn? It just makes Rhonda look bad,
It does not make Rhonda look bad, it calls to light, that just maybe Mark may not have his facts correct. In no way do we really know that what we were shown or what he said is the truth. I would like to see the proof from an independent testing lab, not someone with an ax to grind.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much
Lynn, do you really think Mark would risk his professional reputation by falsifying results? Or that he’d put himself at legal risk of being sued for libel and tortious interference with the ability to do business by deliberately falsifying results?
So, seriously, Lynn…by ALL means feel free to contract your own independent testing. Again…Mark has proven himself over the years to a lot of us. He’s been the voice of reason. I’ve never had reason to question his professional judgement. And ask anyone…I’m not exactly a pushover in the trust department. Rhonda, on the other hand, has a track record of NOT being particularly reliable in her information or knowledge base. You can decide that Mark is somehow to blame for this situation…but that doesn’t make it remotely true.
Yeah, it does make Rhonda look bad Lynn, that’s dirty laundry that shouldn’t be aired. And just how were you able to copy, save and paste this when it was supposedly deleted? It seems awful fishy to me that you’re doing all of this on Rhonda’s behalf. Makes you a bit suspect if you ask me.
Mark Mizen is a highly respected scientist, why on EARTH would he put his professional reputation at stake by publicly falsifying information?
I am not doing anything on her behalf. I am sure that the truth will prevail in the end.
Seriously? The sheer vanity of “I am asking people to pray for you.” and “the Lord loves you and I care about you too” are enough to question the motives. And I agree with Bobbie…how did YOU become the only one to see Rhonda’s post? And Amy…what makes you think Mark is going to risk his professional reputation to intentionally put out misleading information (when he never has before, I might add)?
The old adage of “follow the money” rules. Who has anything to gain or lose in this situation? Not Mark. He isn’t being paid to test the products NOR is he paid by any of us who read his blog. Rhonda, however, has the potential “axe to grind”. She’s the one who’s professional reputation may well be tarnished by NOT insisting on having products she is “developing” tested properly. SHE has that responsibility. She and Youngevity. NOT Mark. Let’s just be VERY clear on that point.
Clarify–I was agreeing with Amy. Reiterating her point. Not asking her. 🙂
Thank you. While I am no longer a consultant with CM or A&Z, I do still want to preserve my photos and I do appreciate all the information you share on your blog. Thank you, again.
I am SO thankful that you do what you do, Mark! I am no longer selling product, but for my own family albums, I want to know what I can safely use and what I cannot. My 14+ years with Creative Memories taught me to care about what I put into my albums and near my photographs. I always felt comfortable using any of the CM products because of the company’s photo-safe product standards. I will NOT go blindly purchasing product from ANY company unless I feel I can trust their photo-safety claims. The information that you have provided on MANY sellers has helped me determine what I will and will not use. THANK YOU!
Thanks for your honesty and keeping us up to date with what’s safe for my photos.
Please keep doing what you do for us all Mark ….we value you and your research more than anything else for our own albums and supplies.i am no linger a Consultant after nearly nine years with CM , but love that we stay in touch with you still ! just keep doing what you do so well …..we all appreciate it A LOT Mark !
Do the straps even touch the photos?
Bottom line for me is that it’s been proven for years that I can trust what you say about photo safety. Please continue to do what you do so well. You’re appreciated.