Digital BW, The Print

I think here is the crux of digital as opposed to conventional chemical 
techniques.

Reprinting a chemical photograph is just as much work as doing the 
original, whereas churning out another digital print should be pretty 
routine.

Of course if several years have elapsed you will probably be using a 
different printer, and the new one might need the colour rebalancing.

On the other hand, it will almost certainly be superior to the old print, 
so the customer gets an improved product.

As for how long you keep the original file, well digital data doesn't 
occupy much physical space, and the amount it costs to provide the storage 
is dropping all the time.

As long as you make the effort to copy everything to the latest media from 
time to time then a lifetime guarantee should be perfectly achievable...

jackg@... (JackG) wrote:

>  Hi Steadman,
> 
> Yes, he felt color would not last and refused to offer it.
> 
> Let me mention one more thing about prints going bad.
> 
> About five to seven years ago I decided to close my darkroom and 
> contract
> out what little B&W  I was doing to my color/B&W lab for printing and
> finishing.  This decision was made because I was not doing as much
> commercial work as in the past and B&W portraits were becoming popular
> again. Most of the portraits I offer are traditionally retouched on the
> negative and then what can't be completed there is positively done on 
> the
> print. It was not practical for me to continue having the lab retouch 
> the
> neg, return it to me for printing and then send it back to them for 
> positive
> retouching, texture, mounting and protective "SPRAY".  I know there must
> have been some exceptions, but most of the B&W prints they made for me 
> went
> bad within one to two years. I have never had to replace so many prints 
> in
> all 35 plus years of business. Not only was it embarrassing, it 
> certainly
> had some financial ramifications. Every municipal judge that I 
> photographed
> over the past 5 to seven years had to be replaced. I do not know why 
> they
> kept using me when I had to reprint everything at least twice. This 
> business
> was started in 1945, we have B&W portraits and candid wedding prints 
> that
> have been out there for a long, long time.  What caused this problem? 
> You
> will not like the answer, NO ONE KNOWS!  Everyone blamed each other, 
> Kodak
> said it was the labs fault, the lab said it was the spray, etc. What 
> were we
> doing differently now that we had not done in the past, extensive 
> retouching
> and then SPRAYING it!  My guess was the spray caused the problem, I am 
> now
> paying for expensive laminates to hide the retouching, which alters the 
> true
> look of B&W.  The best answer I came up with before that was to have the
> retouching done digitally and then create a new neg that you did not 
> need to
> spray to hide the retouching. Then the lab stopped offering that service
> because of the unreliable equipment.
> 
> I am now in the process of having a 16 x 20 color portrait of a child
> restored. I would guess it is about 10 years old.
> I gave an estimate of approximately $500.  That is probably more than 
> she
> paid for the original, but I doubt if  I will make much money on it. The
> original studio that produced the portrait is no longer in business. 
> They
> were a fine studio that had been in business for over 50 years.
> 
> Now a philosophical question, if all the work you did 10 years went bad 
> due
> to no fault of your own, should you replace it for free or at least at
> material cost? The above example is going to cost a lot because I did 
> not
> have the original neg. and we are having to do it digitally. As we all 
> know
> computer time is expensive.
> 
> Want another can of worms, how long should you store negs or data disks 
> to
> replace prints???? I can guarantee you this, you do not store negs to 
> make
> money on reprints at a much later date.