Digital BW, The Print

Honestly, djon, you deserve a huge hug for this post :)

AnnMarie

www.annmarietornabene.net



On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:25 AM, djon43 wrote:

> Obsession with "archival" began sometime in the Seventies, primarily
> as for marketing hype, by Zone IV workshop. Same hype issue today.
>
> The most basic standard in the Seventies was 100years with minimal
> change. There was no measurement beyond visual. There was more concern
> about negatives than prints, of course.
>
> It's false to say that earlier work faded rapidly OR that people chose
> between cotton rag or woodpulp paper. Routine Eastman Kodak
> recommendations for processing and wash were highly reliable and most
> photographers adhered rigorously to them.
>
> Virtually nobody knew what kind of pulp was involved.
>
> There was zero worry about photo paper acidity except in museums.
> Ansel wasn't worried, Weston wasn't worried, Avedon wasn't
> worried....for good reason.
>
> Many of us have fantasies about the importance of our images and we
> have ever-increasing ignorance and entirely unfounded superstitions,
> such as about magnetism and hard drive storage.
>
> If we sell prints we want them to last for some sort of long time,
> properly framed. If someone asks "is it archival" you better hope
> you're dead before they learn otherwise IF you've used the "archival"
> lie. We can't even say what we mean when we use the term...can we?
>
> Will we blame Wilhelm? Did he certify our prints in some way?
>
> I think it's dishonest to use the term "archival" in a sale because
> nobody here has a real basis for the word. Wilhelm won't back us up
> and we can only guess, as Clayton has, how he arrived at his erratic,
> perhaps-bogus numbers.
>
> IMO it's honest sometimes to say "the print will likely last with
> minimal change for several lifetimes, but there's no guarantee." More
> than that seems pure hype.
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Atherton"
> <timatherton@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
> > <djon43@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Our ancestors' prints lasted nicely for 50 years without much  
> care,
> > > and remarkably well in many cases for 100-plus without "archival"
> > > crossing anybody's lips.
> > >
> > > Average-good prints from 1890 can be scanned and printed  
> beautifully
> > > today...sometimes looking better than new...I say that on the  
> basis of
> > > lots of my own family's images and many that have come to my
> > > collection ranging from 60 to 100 years (eg from Austria,  
> Russia, and
> > > China)
> >
> > Those of course are the ones which survived - plenty haven't.
> >
> > I've seen hundreds of old prints and negatives brought in to photo
> > archives which are basically only good for the garbage.
> >
>
>
> 



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