Digital BW, The Print

Steve wrote:

"... 70+ 100+ years ratings for most of these inks are bunk. ...

I would not go quite that far.  You said it correctly at the end of your
post -- specifically:

>The bottom line is these projections are good only as
>relative comparisons ...

I think this is correct, and I also think all the testing is getting us much
better materials.  But, don't leave any of these prints in the sun.

>...Wilhelm revamped his entire testing method ...

It's a moving target.  I think he is moving more toward the "accelerated
aging" tests that are used.  But here there are even fewer standards.  There
are major assumptions and defects with all of these accelerated tests.  But,
they are better than nothing.  It is at least helping us evaluate the
choices that are out there, and it's much more rigorous than anything that
was done with the older, traditional materials.

I hope the points I've been making about my own testing have been heard loud
and clear: The simple light-box and south-window tests appear to be valid
ONLY for similarly-composed pigments.  They cannot hold the humidity where
it needs to be (not to mention other air-borne oxidizers).  As such they
exaggerate the relative performance of some (uncoated) pigments because they
dry them out, and humidity/moisture are prime culprits in the fading.  These
bright-light tests may have been most useful in simply seeing how much dye
was in the particular inkset.

So, with respect to the coated UltraChromes and Epson Archival pigs, there
are probably NO affordable comparative tests that can accurately see the
advantages of the coatings that keep the moisture and other air-borne
substances away from the pigments.

I think we may have reached the point where the cheap testers (including
what I, MIS and Cone have, as far as I know) cannot accurately even compare
the best pigments.  I think all we might be able to say is that the pigment
appears to be a "class A" material.  (Some writers in the
preservation/conservation area seem to use "class A" to describe materials
that they believe are good for 100 years -- to the extent anyone can tell.)
That is, in effect, what Wilhelm is starting to do.  As best I can tell, the
PiezoTone NW and selenium midtones, UltraChrome black pigments, and Epson
Archival pigments are in this class.  (I assume the Museum black is there
also, but I have not tested it.)  I would not rate any of the older pigments
as "class A" pigs.

Mike wrote:

>I now have prints that are 3 years old that show a very substantial
>amount of warming and fade.

The warming is, obviously, a problem with older quads.  They warmed a lot.
But the newest pigs have it fairly under control, as far as I can tell.

All inks fade.  However, so do the silver prints and everything else.  I was
looking for statistics on un-toned silver prints, and about all I found was
in the 150 year range.  If that is true, the best of the current pigments
may be close to the un-toned silver print.  Again, however, I doubt any of
our testing is up to the task of even a comparative fade evaluation of these
very different emulsions.  (Kodak has a lot of material on these problems on
its site also.)

I was reading a piece by one of the RIT gurus on preservation, and it
appears that the 1:19 selenium toning many of us did for years (based on
AA's practice) is not enough to protect those silver prints.  So, the AA
prints are all at risk also.

The worst Ansel Adams prints I ever saw were severely degraded by the fact
that the retouching materials had not held up.  It had nothing to do with
the silver fading.  Ironically, a digital print would have avoided this and
looked much better.

The RIT guru was saying that the atmospheric pollutants, not light, may be
doing the most damage.  That is part of my recent interest in encapsulation.

>Inkjet printing will eventually be truly archival, but for now and
>the near future, be prepared to replace prints should they change
>color and or fade.

You've seen where I'm going -- Epson Archival pigs.  They still warm a hair,
but it's not very significant.  These pigs might be in the un-toned silver
print class (and probably better at resisting air pollution), which is not
too shabby.  I fully intend to (try to) sell these (and not lose any sleep
over whether they will fade unreasonably fast).

>I no longer will sell a digitally produced print.

Mike, is there really any way to be sure your prints are any better than the
best archival pigments?

We all thought the 1:19 selenium-toned silver prints were "forever" also.
The old UN-tested dogmas may not be much better than the newer over-hyped
inkjet representations.  All of the old photos that come my way are
obviously faded, but they are still interesting and have value also.

No doubt the older pigs (all of which turned out to have dyes in them)
warmed and faded noticeably in regular display, whereas the silver and
platinum don't appear to, but I really wonder how most of the older
materials would hold up in a rigorous comparative test (which is probably
exceedingly difficult to do).

Mike, I assume (like you, I'm sure) that the platinum and toned silver
prints (if properly processed -- a big IF) are still the leaders -- perhaps
by a significant margin.  I think the market prices do and will reflect this
assumption.  However, I'm feeling rather comfortable with the Epson Archival
pigs on truly archival matte (not EAM/EEM).

(By the way Mike, we miss your regular and excellent posts.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com