Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> That is the difference between us. I would certainly like my 
prints to outlive me 
> by as long as possible. 

As would I, John, but I am not willing to get obsessive about it, 
and I most certainly am not willing to risk shortening my own 
productive years to do it. 

>> I have a friend who said the exact same thing 20 years 
> ago about her 20x24 polaroids done in Cambridge.  Now they are 
green and 
> she wishes she had them back , but they are gone. The type c 
prints died just 
> about as quickly. 

 I seriously doubt that overspraying either would have made them 
archival, and nobody ever made any archival claims about either 
Polaroid or C-prints. Both of those media are inherently incapable 
of being so. 
If there was an evaluation system in place back then, we were kept 
unaware of it, obviously for good reason. Which in turn led to 
Wilhelm & RIT testing, etc. We now have a much better idea of where 
things stand, so I have to ask myself: if a no color-component 
carbon ink gives a number of around 150-200 years of DISPLAY life 
(nobody interested in making artwork actually last that long keeps a 
piece on display constantly), how much trouble am I willing to go to 
for twice that? Obviously less than you.

>I've looked at a lot of fine prints that are from the 16th - 19th 
> centuries and I"m glad they outlived their authors. As to sprays 
and uv 
> varnishes, they are available in non-toxic non-solvent forms now 
so that is no 
> reason to avoid them.

Non-toxic? Are you sure? Who's information and claims are you 
trusting now? I think we're both old enough to have seen many such 
claims by industry/FDA/medical establishment get proven wrong, 
sometimes in just a few years, but almost always after a 
considerable amount of damage has been done. Do you really trust 
them?

>  We live in a throw away culture so that is what most 
> people respond to and that is fine for 90% of the photo based work 
being 
> produced. That work shouldn't last anyway and take up valueable 
earth space 
> above ground. 

Considering the volume being produced today, I'd put the number that 
deserves an early death even higher. But I notice we're both 
assuming that OUR output deserves to be in the small percentage that 
lasts forever????

>Wilhelm's figures could very well be off by 50%, they have 
> been in the past. 

Granted

>Finally, these coatings are far more important for color work 
> OR monochrome work that contains a color content. As Pauls numbers 
about 
> "carbon content" in ultrachrome pointed out from Epson's own data 
sheets, 
> there is carbon and then there is carbon...

All of this material has improved hugely in just the last 
generation; in another generation concerns about longevity may 
become purely academic. In the meantime, I'll take the approach of 
minimizing the color content, and reccomending display behind glass 
only. You do whatever makes sense to you, John, just do me the favor 
of not suggesting across-the-board spraying of all our work again, 
the hair on my arms stiffens just thinking about it... oh, no, 
sorry, that's overspray from the varnish...

Steve Karafyllakis

> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Nuts to that idea amigo; you wanna breath that garbage for the 
next few 
> > years, have at it-I'll settle for "uncoated behind glass", 
numbers. 
> > That pretty much covers the rest of my lifspan, the rest of most 
> > buyer's lifespans and most of their next generation. Enough 
already!
> > 
> > Steven Karafyllakis