Digital BW, The Print

on 11/2/2002 6:57 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> I have an original Epson inkjet print from 5 years ago printed on Arches
> watercolor paper.  It is in a frame, not exposed to direct light...hasn't
> faded a lick!  If it has, it is not very noticable.
> 
> The issue here is that it's about the IMAGE not the process.  Anyone
> investing in one of your prints is buying a piece of history...no different
> than buying one of the first albuman or platinum prints ever produced.
> 
> I think we need to put all this "archival stuff" in the right
> perspective...IMHO, I think WE are our biggest enemies...not the collectors
> or dealers.
> 
> Hope this make you feel better...Craig

 

I was at the Getty museum last night looking at an exhibition of Dorothea
Lange photographs.  Many were partially faded, others had been displayed on
bulletin boards, others mounted on cardboard or masonite.  They were all
collectable, yet clearly none of these prints were certified "archival".

And now that I think of it, why are we so concerned with the archivalness of
prints anyway?  The negative, or now, digital master is what needs to be
preserved.  Display prints are just that, display prints.  They should be
enjoyed over their useful life and kept in bright light for viewing.  I
suppose sometimes an archival copy can be kept in conservation storage for
investors.  But if one is truly investing for owning the only official copy
of something, than I think that investor should also own the negative as
well.

And yes my original epson ink/photo ex prints on epson photo paper still
look great, framed behind glass, yet exposed to light every day. And they
are going on 5 years old now.
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr