Digital BW, The Print

Paul-


Let me preface my comments.
During a break from phojo work, I was the photographer for a major, 
well-funded historical society in the mid-80's.  I mean they owned 
original Audubon books, original letters from Billy The Kid, an original 
of the Declaration of Independence, etc.

During that time I worked along side one of the top photo conservators 
in the country.  She even helped me design and test a C-41 "blix" system 
using Kodak chemicals that Kodak kept responding "It won't work or we'd 
have done it."  It was used by the Associated Press until they went to 
digital.

I've been around these people. ~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~ end group email -->

That said, it looks to me as if they have LOWER standards than we (as a 
community) have.

5MP point-and-shoot?  Gimme a break.  That they would even mention PAS 
is a key.

"Acceptable resolution" is 2MP?

As to archival Gold disks, who makes these any more?  I still have about 
200 left from when Kodak quit making them.  I would question the dye 
technology, though, since it has improved so much since Kodak Gold.

Sharpies on a CD/DVD?  That's been a no-no for archival disc storage for 
a long time.  They may be okay on inkjet printable discs, but gel is 
safer at that point.

printing at 300 dpi?  Why would you?  We know better.

Their paper choices are all glossy.  Without GLOP, this would probably 
be an acceptance issue with them for inkjet.  It seems like the 
pre-digital mentality for newspaper reproduction.  But, since they have 
the file on disc, what would be they issue?  I don't think they truly 
understand archival survival rates.  Especially since lab printed prints 
are acceptable.  There aren't too many machine fed prints--color or B&W 
that get true archival washing and treatment.  Fact!  We darkroom folks 
know that.

It does not look as though they understand OBAs either.  Another place 
you can educate them.

Printer inks.  They have no concept (it appears) of carbon-based rather 
than dyes.

The use rights section is scary.  This comes from my phojo side!!  "But 
not limited to" is a rights grab, although non-exclusive.  Keep in mind 
the National Park Service not only publishes a lot, they sell a lot in 
their stores.  NPS actually has regulations on who may sell photographs 
taken in parks, though you have to dig a little to find it.  It's pretty 
unenforceable, but it's there.

I applaud your efforts at educating them on carbon prints.  IMHO Wilhelm 
ratings are questionable if that is their basis.  As far as dark storage 
fading goes, Wilhelm really cannot test that.  I'd rather see Aardenburg 
or RIT Image Permanence Institute testing results.

Also, I wonder if Alexis is an archivist in the true sense--training and 
experience.  The email is "contractor'" so you (we) may have a long road 
to turn them from some test they "read" somewhere.

Some ammo:  The National Anthropological Archives sells inkjet 
prints--ON MATTE PAPER.
                         The Northeast Document Conservation Center 
lists inks almost verbatim.  They do, however, state the long term 
stability of pigment over dye AND the use of 100% cotton rag over 
resin-based. They ARE "sleeping with" Wilhelm from all appearances.

You'll love this!  A November 2011 article about "Heritage Documentation 
Programs (HDP), part of the National Park Service" paper at 
http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/standards/PhotoGuidelines_Nov2011.pdf states:

Camera recommendations: A large-format view camera with ample movement 
for perspective correction
must be used. Acceptable film formats are 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10...."
Paper:  "Resin-coated papers of any kind are not archival and will not 
be accepted for inclusion
in the HABS, HAER, and HALS collections in the Library of Congress."  
ROTFLMAO!!

Written by the NPS photographer.

Nuff said.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]