Digital BW, The Print

Hmmm, I'm thinking about this whole debate regards longevity in photographic 
materials  ---in art-speak the debate is known as entrophic vs. non-entrophic 
materials---  a well known example would be that of the works of Jackson 
Pollock.  Jackson used materials readily available in hardware stores at the the 
time consisting of common substrate materials using very cheap and poor 
mixtures ie. household paint.  Paint he did, and he made gorgeous work with 
what he used.  His works eventually were sold and accessed at millions of 
dollars.  People and investors spent all kinds of money for his work only to find it 
crumbling and the peeling work floating to the floor ( a last laugh for Jackson?).  
This presents a diablolical nightmare for art and museum conservators alike as 
well as for the investors and museums.  Now to get back on the subject of 
photography, really, what is a photo?  It is an insight into your mind, it is what you 
do with it that personalizes the work that makes it yours.  People want that.  
Look at Doug and Mike Starn, what with the poorly fixed and washed images 
scotched tape together; scotch tape yellows, poorly fixed and washed images as 
we all know will tend to acidify and stain over time.  What is it that people see?  
Personally I think it's gorgeous,  to larger scheme of things it doesn't matter or  
give two shits what I think.  It matters how other people relate to the work 
personally to themselves.  

For example as a craftsman, as a carpenter, as for the many other trades I've 
worked in as part of the transaction, I will guarantee my work and craftmanship 
up to a certain period of time.  It is a confidence instilling measure for my part and 
theirs for a certain degree of happiness all around.  Craftsmanship is the level of 
what you do to your work that makes you happy.  Is the craftsmanship the same 
as between Ansel Adams and Doug and Mike Starn? Of course not!  There are 
many different kinds of craftsmanship.  For example I have a cheesy old Epson 
740 using Espon inks and canned profiles.  I have some great prints coming from 
that machine.  Of course I see its inconsistancies and imperfections.  Does it make 
me unhappy?  Sometimes and of course not.  I take it at face value and make 
some great work from it.  I have a bunch of prints from it that show the evolution 
of my thinking.  All of the same image.  Some a little better than the next.  And I 
learn.  Do other people see that?  Perhaps on the most part, no.  Perhaps people 
intimate with the work will see process.  That is important.  Process is important.  
It shows your touch.  Photography touches on many different levels, two of the 
most important right now that I feel is tactile feel and what you see.  

Example, I love the works of Rembrandt van Rijn.  Why?  You can see the 
brushstrokes, an energy that is caught and magnetic (an extreme example? Van 
Gogh? Luician Freud? Willem DeKooning?) and what you can see.  Right now the 
injet printer spits out paper and ink that is your touch.  The example of Rembrandt 
is very relevant since his metal etchings are still in exsistance and printed and 
considered "originals."  It is his touch once removed.  I'm sure many of you will 
probably want to debate the finer points of this discussion.  However the subject 
here is entrophy vs. non-entrophy.  The subject is the now.  Right now the subject 
exsists, the paper exsists, the ink exsists, the image exsists, yours or anybody's 
for that matter.  (I'm sure quality and experimentation of the inks and papers 
have increased exponentionally over the years) Rembrandt's ink still exsists on 
the paper that was printed on many centuries ago.  Silver Gelatins and Inks are 
entirely different mediums as are the craftsmanships that go with it.

Jonathan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Atherton" <tim@k...> wrote:
> I was recently looking at a site for a lab that does carbon colour prints
> with an incredible predicted lifespan.
> 
> They had a link to the tests of there materials on the Wilhelm site, but of
> course it was dead.
> 
> I guess they got screwed...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@p...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:09 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Life was Epson 2200,1280 and quad tone
> > options -- Leave WILHELM out of this
> >
> >
> > Martin Wesley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Unfortunately Wilhelm has not bothered, as far as I know, to do
> > the obvious
> > >and to comparison test these new materials against standard photographic
> > >materials. His "years" are a matter of mathematical extrapolation and I
> > >believe that his "print life" is not with the image at 100% but rather at
> > >the point where it drops below some percentage of the original
> > image. 80% or
> > >90% I believe. Maybe lower. The RIT test is to 65% color retention.
> > >
> > >Wilhelm's research would be much more meaningful if the "life"
> > was expressed
> > >in comparison to a silver print. Did the Lysonic E or whatever
> > fade at the
> > >same rate as a silver print in the same test? That seems like a
> > pretty easy
> > >thing to measure and the fact that it has not been reported makes me
> > >skeptical. Besides Wilhelm has been missing in action for two years now.
> > >
> > >If Wilhelm ran all of his trials and calculated "print life" the same way
> > >each time, then the real value of his results is in comparing
> > one medium to
> > >another. I really don't think you can take his published year values and
> > >compare them to what you personally might get. Could be less or
> > it could be
> > >more. There are far too many variables. Only our descendants
> > will know for
> > >sure.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > As for Wilhelm, I posted this today on another list...
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Where's Wilhelm.?
> >
> > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/       ?
> >
> > The site is STILL under construction! The only thing that changes are
> > the images of construction equipment..
> >
> > Two years and counting...  LOL
> >
> > I am amazed that companies still report data from Wilhelm, when all of
> > his data seems completely unavailable to the public..
> >
> > He may have a great reputation, but since the EPSON orange-shift debacle
> > he seems to have no desire or intent to publicly disclose results...  To
> > me that makes his numbers utterly useless except as a marketing tool for
> > manufacturers.
> >
> > To all Henry's proponents... I will admit Henry had a great reputation
> > and provided for many years an important service to the printing
> > community, but, isn't two years LONG enough to put up some data? Or has
> > he given up on accelerated testing methods?  Meaning that we should
> > expect a 10 to 100 year wait (depending on the archivability of
> > particular inks and papers) to see real data from him?
> >
> > IMHO his two year absence and failure to publicly report data has made
> > his company an open joke.  I'm beginning to believe the site is there
> > solely to placate us, that Henry has NO plans to ever again PUBLICLY
> > release his data...  If so, he owes us all a note to that effect..
> >
> > Please note that I have addressed this e-mail to Wilhelm as well..
> > Maybe, with the absence of the Leben list, they will deign to answer
> > this open letter..
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > If I hear ANYTHING from Wilhelm Inc. I will let people know..  I'm just
> > NOT holding my breath...
> >
> > Keith