Digital BW, The Print

>>I've said this many times before...and I'll say
it again...it would also be nice to see some archivally printed silver
prints included in this testing as well...now whose processing and what
darkroom conditions is a big topic for debate...but any data along those
lines would be a help at this point.

Robert

Indeed it would be interesting to subject an inkjet and silver print to the same test, since a silver print is pretty much the archival standard, along with pt/pd.  I have a number of silver prints with some age on them (30-40 years)that look fine.  They were processed conventionally, nothing special (fiber paper, two-tray fixing, wash, hypo clear, selenium in various dilutions, effective wash in print washer, air dry on fiberglass screens, dry mount on pure rag museum board).  Our local museum has an early Moonrise that is displayed under wretched conditions, and to my surprise it looks to be excellent.  I've always assumed that a properly processed silver or pt/pd print, displayed under reasonable conditions (not in near darkness as museums are prone to do now) in a sealed frame, was pretty much bullet proof.  But I have no idea what would happen if it was subject to very high levels of UV or whatever, nor do I remember reading about any test like that.  I don't have it handy, but as I recall AA's "The Print" has some data on estimated print lives and archival-ness in general.

The big difference would be between fiber and RC silver prints.  I've never understood why anyone would use RC.  It is a royal PITA in the darkroom because you have to stop what you're doing and get it out of the wash, since excessive washing will cause problems.  You can leave fiber prints in a holding tray with a siphon all day long if you want.  Plus its laminate construction is bound to cause problems.  Plus it looks bad.  So I think the better comparison would be inkjet to a properly processed fiber silver print.

  --Ken

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