Digital BW, The Print

Blasterman:
I don't think anyone is confusing archival and archiving. When talking about prints they are quite related-- the longest lasting print possible.

Maybe you didn't get into carbon printing because of it's long lasting quality, but most serious photographers who are into "fine art" would like their images to last as long as possible. Having just worked on digitizing part of a fine art museum's photography collection, it's really sad to see what is happening to all of their Kodak "C" print images from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Of course Kodak back then said--"just make a new print". Now that's where archiving and archival get mixed up! A museum would like to have photographic prints that last a long time without being stored in a deep freeze, to keep the dark stored color prints from self destructing.

And I can tell you further, looking at the quality of prints that are 25, 50 or 100 years old is still important. It's important in the aesthetics and also in terms of evaluating the growth of the photographer and the media. Viewing an image on a monitor is not the same thing and never will be. So, while the short term emphasis for all photographers is how the image will look in the next show, many of us are also concerned that the images continue to look good far into the future for the patrons that buy our images. (but of course not all photographers care about the archival qualities of their images)

While in the "short term" we photographers are concerned about our digital files, (so we can make more prints, and make more money)our larger concern should be about how long the prints will ultimately last. This is our legacy, the gift of our vision, in the form of a print, to future man kind. For some photographers, the image is all that matters, not the print. Such a narrow interpretation of photography makes the image all too fragile in our digital age.

So what I'm saying, in the end, the print is still the main vehicle for enjoying the fine art of photography. Until museums join the digital photography revolution by paying for digital images, the print still is photography.

John Nollendorfs 
 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "blasterman789" <blasterman789@...> wrote:
>
> I've been reading this topic, and getting frankly a bit frustrated because we are confusing the term 'archival' -vs- 'archiving' and getting 'fine art' mixed in the fray. Because a medium is 'archival' doesn't mean it's ideal for archiving, and because it might look good on a wall doesn't mean it's good for archiving.
> 
> I didn't get into carbon / pigment ink-jet printing because the prints last 100years. Most of us I dare say got into this medium because of the controls and quality that result in the process as being a superior alternative to anything commercial or dealing with the mess of wet-lab printing. The fact these prints last a very long time is important, but not nearly as important as to how they look.
> 
> I'm not sure where we steered into the archiving conversation, but I have some serious issues with anybody claiming conservatory standards for a B&W medium because this is 2011 and not 1911. Back in the early 90's I worked on several projects archiving some local landmarks, and since our goal was to actually 'archive' the structures without the aid of digital we followed the goals literally. The photographer shot color E-6 on 4x5, and we printed those images on glossy Cibachrome to the best of our abilities where they are currently in dark storage. I do believe the National Archives followed a similiar routine for a few decades.
> 
> Those images will likely last a very, very long time, and when they are viewed 25-50-100 years hence they will still be very close to when we originally printed them because they are not being degraded by light. Plus, being glossy, they will actually be scannable with very high precision unlike matte or textured papers. No one is going to point at the images and ask "why did they shoot it in B&W? Didn't color exist in 1992?" 50 years down the road an art critic is not going to grade my prints on tonal value.
> 
> In regards to the digital debate, I dare say Ansel Admam's Department of Energy portfolio has been viewed far more times on the Internet than it has in physical form, and every image I've scanned or aquired since I started with digital 15years ago is on my current hard-drive. External drive storage is cheap, easily redundant, even in the terrabyte range, and migrating data isn't too difficult. I work in a variety of corporate data centers, and nobody uses optical storage anymore nor misses it. If you're worried about a nuclear EMP or solar flare from the sun wreaking your magnetic storage you might find more priorities in the aftermath than re-printing your images.
> 
> S Eaton