Digital BW, The Print

Peter,

You wrote:

>...it seems that the entire issue of the archival nature of the
>current state of black and white digital printing is up in the air.

It does appear to be a moving target.  Some materials have turned out to be
less archival than was represented.  For paper, there is no accepted
standard accelerated test procedure and no standards.  So, it is especially
hard to evaluate.  However, I think the materials exist today to do work
that will last a very long time, if properly cared for.  That said, the
toned silver print is probably going to have a distinct advantage for a
little longer.

>...The results I'm getting with MIS VM inks are fabulous.
>Framed and behind glass I cannot tell the difference from my old
>Ilford fiber prints.

I agree.  I'm still going to use Epson Archival Matte for my display prints
because I like the paper's looks.  I'm profiling other supposedly more
"archival" papers, but who knows what the true life of any of these things
are.  Where really long life is needed, I'll probably use Eclipse Satine
now.

>... what can I honestly tell the people that want to
>buy my prints??? I print on EEM and am beginning to wonder ...

Wilhelm has apparently told at least one audience that 65 years is probably
a safe paper life for EAM/EEM.  The 30 year EEM life stated on the
UltraChrome literature (U.S. only -- elsewhere it is more like 75 years),
was apparently due to a Wilhelm test and based on yellowing of the paper --
presumably from acid.  An expert in the field is going to test the paper
soon.  Hopefully we'll know soon just how much lignin is in EEM.

So, right now, no one can be sure how long the paper will last.

>...  I've been telling people that the
>images should not fade up for 50-75 years.

That is probably close.  The standard VM inks will warm a bit at first but
then stabilize and fade slowly in light.

>Maybe I should be saying 30 years...

I'm not sure the 30 year figure for the paper is accurate.  The standards
have not been developed from what I can tell.

>... I am not going to attract any
>serious collectors or galleries with prints with a life of 30 years!

For the serious collectors, use cotton-based paper.  Even if the PhotoRag
fades faster, they will be more inclined to take care of it and not have it
on display that long.  Where I don't need the dramatic blacks, I'm going to
use Eclipse Satine for these people.

No inkset or paper is going to be on the top for very long.  I expect to
change materials as they are improved.

>I don't want to be getting phones calls 30 years from now saying my
>prints have disintegrated and that they want their money back because
>I uttered the word "ARCHIVAL".

Blame Epson.  The worst prints I have are my Kodak B&W RC prints that they
represented were as good as fiber-based prints.  (Actually, I don't think
most of my buyers are going to be alive 30 years from now -- and I'm not so
sure about myself.)

I think if a collector/serious purchaser approaches me about buying prints
that are on EAM/EEM, I'll tell him/her I can do prints on cotton/rag paper
if that is preferred.

>Should I be using Brightcube Eclipse Satin or Hahnemuhle Photo Rag,
>Dmax be dammed?

Many prefer the look of Photo Rag for he final print, using EAM/EEM just for
proofing.  I intend to be ready to print on a number of papers so that I'll
have one that will, hopefully, be appropriate and look good for whatever use
comes along.  For most uses, I think EAM/EEM is still an excellent paper and
value.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com