Digital BW, The Print

Seth,

Wow... obviously you are more versed in this topic than I, but I had some similar misgivings the more I looked at those guidelines. They just didn't add up, but I wasn't able to articulate why, not having the background you do.

It's odd, because years ago when I first submitted darkroom  prints as part of a Register Nomination, I understood and agreed with their requirements. They were pretty clear and understandable, and I was able to produce acceptable darkroom prints. This would have been back in the mid '70s. Like many people here, I gradually, with hesitation, moved more and more into the digital world. 

Thanks to people like Paul Roark and Clayton Jones, I became convinced that the carbon ink print was a worthy step to make. I use the 3MK carbon inkset in an Epson R1800... I've submitted a test print to Mark at Aardenburg and it's doing very well. (Hats off to Mark too, I must add.) I believe the longevity of the carbon print is a worthy challenger to the darkroom print. But as you pointed out, the current Register guidelines for a print are a step back from the darkroom days.

The hitch is long term storage. I still feel more comfortable with a film backup, although I did medium format, not large. I did pretty well at it, had a variety of lenses, but did my perspective control in the enlarger. The digital file strikes me as inherently volatile. I was not able to run with the big boys doing large format but I certainly understand and respect that level.

What to do? How does one go about working for an improvement in their guidelines? And how do we preserve digital files? That's where I have to defer to an older, safer storage medium such as film. The carbon ink prints I make will last, I have no problem there. But what about my "negatives", ie the digital backup to the print?

No easy answers, for now anyway.

I really appreciate your giving an articulate voice to my fears.

Regards,

Paul


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Seth Rossman <seth@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>