Digital BW, The Print

The one day I check in to read this list and I see my name come up!! So I
should probably respond.  By the way it is unbelievable how this group has
grown and it is fascinating to see how many variations in use there are now
in monochromatic printing. I do not think that any other niche has ever
received so much attention from such a wide variety of vendors!


re:

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

> The reason I was curious about how warm the Septone warm inks were is that
> if there are coloring toners in it (which there would have to be if it was
> warmer than the Ultra Tone ["UT"] grays), then its longevity would probably
> be somewhat compromised.  From what I can tell, the new, pure carbon inks
> are better than the color pigments that are used to do the toning.  For
> example, I'd say the PiezoTone carbon/sepia is a toned ink.  According to
> Jon Cone's latest lightfastness table the PT Carbon Sepia fades at about 3
> times the rate of the PT warm Neutral, which probably has the least amount
> of colorant in it.



Neither PiezoTone Warm Neutral nor Carbon Sepia is a "toned ink".  They are
both made from a single 100% carbon pigment. Both use the same single
pigment. There is not two, nor is their a different pigment in either
formula. The same single carbon pigment is shaped differently to arrive at a
different color. This type of technology was unique to PiezoTones when they
were introduced. I do not know if others have adopted the technology
required to shape micro-pigments.

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/info/1000-hours.html

The above has the rates of fade for the PiezoTones as well as EPSON
UltraChromes and both MIS-FS and Sundance Warm Neutral inks. The fade rate
for PiezoTone Warm Neutral averages less than 1% to just over 2%. The fade
rate for PiezoTone Carbon Sepia averages less than 2% to just over 2.6%. The
difference in fade between Warm Neutral and Carbon Sepia PiezoTone inks is
actually negligible because the fade rate for both is well below that of
human perception. So the different color arrived by shaping the pigment has
no effect on fade. Rather the fade rate can only be measured by an
instrument which is not a human eye!

5% is the threshold for average human perception of fade.
Incidentally, 30% is considered the endpoint in testing from both Wilhelm
and RIT, yet considered as  an unacceptable amount of fade for nearly all
b&w photographers.

In comparison to the PiezoTone inks, the MIS-FS Warm Neutral inks average
fade rates from 8.15% to just over 13.8%, and the Sundance Warm Neutral inks
average fade rates from 13.8% to just over 23.5%.

PiezoTone Selenium and Cool Neutral inks however, are both two-pigment
systems. Yet, they still average from less than 2% to 3.8% fade which is
still well below human perception of fade. The two pigments combine to make
a single perceived hue. I think that these might be what Paul considers
"toned" inks. But they are really comparable to our single pigment inks in
fade resistance.

In general, there is both a wide range in the quality of pigments used in
the various inks on the market today as well as a wide variation in the
manner in which chemists design inks. It is possible for two companies to
use single pigment systems and not have comparable inks in relation to fade.
Also, it is possible for a company to "tone" carbon with another pigment and
not have as good a fade resistance as another company which "tones" carbon.
Quality and standards vary widely in both the pigment industry and in ink
manufacturing. This accounts for the wide variations in ink performance. Few
publish patents so mostly chemists are on their own.

Paul points out that pure carbon is better than color pigments. In general,
this is correct, but when one looks at the fade rates of the EPSON
Ultrachromes which average from 3.7% to just over 16.9%, it is noticeable
that black is not the most stable component of that set. Magenta is. I
beleive that by looking at the fade rate numbers, UltraChrome was designed
to test well in industry tests which examine "yellow fade". Cyanine is
normally the most permanent pigment in a CMYK set. Yet cyanine is the
poorest performer in the UltraChromes and I have never seen that before.


UltraChrome Photo Black has a fade rate of 6.36% and Matte at 6.02%.
Piezography Museum Black has a fade rate of 5.23% and Piezography Portfolio
Black has a fade rate of 7.3%.  The preceding blacks have a slight fade that
is just over the human threshold. The blacks from the MIS-FS warm neutral
and Sundance Warm Neutral did not perform as well and were 13.8% and 15.12%
respectively.

All of the inks described in this reply have received ratings by testing
"authorities" that are considered to be over 100 years. None of the inks
reached end points of 30%. This is why I prefer side-by-side testing which
shows actual density volume decrease, so that a user can pick out an ink
which does not have any discernible fade from one which does have
considerable fade even though both have been designated as 100 year inks.
This type of information is more meaningful than "years ratings" which do
not differentiate between such wide performances and do not clearly state at
which point below 30% did the ink fade to. I believe that currently,
industry tests are leaving the user a bit in the dark because they do not
permit the manufacturer to publish certain data, and it is that certain data
which is relevant in relation to the rating. This data can and shoud be used
by consumers to understand how two inks compare.

Ink manufacturing is changing rapidly. Some companies are making inks that
"test" well and others are attempting to make inks which simply just do not
fade. The latter being much more expensive to manufacture and seemingly
unnecessary considering the leading authorities on testing permit a 30% fade
before reaching and endpoint. I am not sure who is actually looking out
anymore for the consumer.

Testers like Paul and others who have set up their own kits and even
makeshifts are slowly combining to reveal much about today's inks. Other
independents are beginning to invest in Xenon chambers which have control
over temperature and humidity and allow a full spectrum of harmful
illumination. I would never dissuade anyone from taping prints onto windows.

But it is essential and mandatory that side by side testing use the EXACT
SAME methods and software as well as paper and printer and printer settings
for each sample. That is critical in evaluating side by side performance of
competing inks.

If we compare the performance of all of the inks mentioned in this reply to
those which were available 10 years ago, no digital artist or photographer
would have believed it possible. I am not certain if everyone here realized
that the original IRIS inks were rated for only 3-6 months. A subsequent ink
set was rated 2-3 years. I eventually made two ink sets for IRIS which
received 13-15 and 21-23 years from Wilhelm and on both occasions my entire
staffs were treated to celebration dinners. Sometimes it is good to put
things in perspective to see how well we are doing. Also, it is widely
accepted at the George Eastman House that silver will outlast the paper that
vintage photos are printed on. So much work is being done there to save
works in their archives. Very little from 100 years ago and even 50 years
ago can be stabilized to the point where they can be displayed in the manner
that testing authorities assure us our inkjets can! Therefore, we are
actually closer to our goals than we realize. Or perhaps they are completely
wrong.
 ;-) Lets not beat ourselves up too much.

With that said, naturally I am hoping that more photographers want inks
which just simply do not fade!    :)


best  regards,


Jon Cone
Piezography inks and software

Jon,

Interesting information.  Thanks for the post.

I have noticed that different, allegedly pure carbon inks have different
tones.  Do you have spectrophotometer C,Y,M readings for the carbon-sepia
(e.g., 50% density patch on EEM)?

It occurs to me that the newest pigments are getting to the point where
someone like you ought to test your PT inkset against a silver print.  Have
you done this yet?

I assume that the toned silver print still has the edge on lightfastness,
but the paper base, as you note, is the weak link for that technology.  My
reading indicates that even pure cellulose will be attacked by the
atmosphere and start an acidic, snowballing cascade of byproducts.  As such,
for the best longevity, buffering is needed.  Yet, with the silver print wet
processing, no buffer can be in the paper (as far as I know -- after all, we
use an acid stop bath).  The inkjet papers, on the other hand, can and
usually do have buffering.

Thus, in addition to the light-fastness testing, it would be most
interesting to see some comparative accelerated aging testing, where they
usually cook the paper in a dark, high-humidity atmosphere.  (Of course, I
think there is even less agreement on the accuracy of these tests than of
the fade tests.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
___________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Cone [mailto:piezobw@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 3:07 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)


The one day I check in to read this list and I see my name come up!! So I
should probably respond.  By the way it is unbelievable how this group has
grown and it is fascinating to see how many variations in use there are now
in monochromatic printing. I do not think that any other niche has ever
received so much attention from such a wide variety of vendors!


re:

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

> The reason I was curious about how warm the Septone warm inks were is that
> if there are coloring toners in it (which there would have to be if it was
> warmer than the Ultra Tone ["UT"] grays), then its longevity would
probably
> be somewhat compromised.  From what I can tell, the new, pure carbon inks
> are better than the color pigments that are used to do the toning.  For
> example, I'd say the PiezoTone carbon/sepia is a toned ink.  According to
> Jon Cone's latest lightfastness table the PT Carbon Sepia fades at about 3
> times the rate of the PT warm Neutral, which probably has the least amount
> of colorant in it.



Neither PiezoTone Warm Neutral nor Carbon Sepia is a "toned ink".  They are
both made from a single 100% carbon pigment. Both use the same single
pigment. There is not two, nor is their a different pigment in either
formula. The same single carbon pigment is shaped differently to arrive at a
different color. This type of technology was unique to PiezoTones when they
were introduced. I do not know if others have adopted the technology
required to shape micro-pigments.

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/info/1000-hours.html

The above has the rates of fade for the PiezoTones as well as EPSON
UltraChromes and both MIS-FS and Sundance Warm Neutral inks. The fade rate
for PiezoTone Warm Neutral averages less than 1% to just over 2%. The fade
rate for PiezoTone Carbon Sepia averages less than 2% to just over 2.6%. The
difference in fade between Warm Neutral and Carbon Sepia PiezoTone inks is
actually negligible because the fade rate for both is well below that of
human perception. So the different color arrived by shaping the pigment has
no effect on fade. Rather the fade rate can only be measured by an
instrument which is not a human eye!

5% is the threshold for average human perception of fade.
Incidentally, 30% is considered the endpoint in testing from both Wilhelm
and RIT, yet considered as  an unacceptable amount of fade for nearly all
b&w photographers.

In comparison to the PiezoTone inks, the MIS-FS Warm Neutral inks average
fade rates from 8.15% to just over 13.8%, and the Sundance Warm Neutral inks
average fade rates from 13.8% to just over 23.5%.

PiezoTone Selenium and Cool Neutral inks however, are both two-pigment
systems. Yet, they still average from less than 2% to 3.8% fade which is
still well below human perception of fade. The two pigments combine to make
a single perceived hue. I think that these might be what Paul considers
"toned" inks. But they are really comparable to our single pigment inks in
fade resistance.

In general, there is both a wide range in the quality of pigments used in
the various inks on the market today as well as a wide variation in the
manner in which chemists design inks. It is possible for two companies to
use single pigment systems and not have comparable inks in relation to fade.
Also, it is possible for a company to "tone" carbon with another pigment and
not have as good a fade resistance as another company which "tones" carbon.
Quality and standards vary widely in both the pigment industry and in ink
manufacturing. This accounts for the wide variations in ink performance. Few
publish patents so mostly chemists are on their own.

Paul points out that pure carbon is better than color pigments. In general,
this is correct, but when one looks at the fade rates of the EPSON
Ultrachromes which average from 3.7% to just over 16.9%, it is noticeable
that black is not the most stable component of that set. Magenta is. I
beleive that by looking at the fade rate numbers, UltraChrome was designed
to test well in industry tests which examine "yellow fade". Cyanine is
normally the most permanent pigment in a CMYK set. Yet cyanine is the
poorest performer in the UltraChromes and I have never seen that before.


UltraChrome Photo Black has a fade rate of 6.36% and Matte at 6.02%.
Piezography Museum Black has a fade rate of 5.23% and Piezography Portfolio
Black has a fade rate of 7.3%.  The preceding blacks have a slight fade that
is just over the human threshold. The blacks from the MIS-FS warm neutral
and Sundance Warm Neutral did not perform as well and were 13.8% and 15.12%
respectively.

All of the inks described in this reply have received ratings by testing
"authorities" that are considered to be over 100 years. None of the inks
reached end points of 30%. This is why I prefer side-by-side testing which
shows actual density volume decrease, so that a user can pick out an ink
which does not have any discernible fade from one which does have
considerable fade even though both have been designated as 100 year inks.
This type of information is more meaningful than "years ratings" which do
not differentiate between such wide performances and do not clearly state at
which point below 30% did the ink fade to. I believe that currently,
industry tests are leaving the user a bit in the dark because they do not
permit the manufacturer to publish certain data, and it is that certain data
which is relevant in relation to the rating. This data can and shoud be used
by consumers to understand how two inks compare.

Ink manufacturing is changing rapidly. Some companies are making inks that
"test" well and others are attempting to make inks which simply just do not
fade. The latter being much more expensive to manufacture and seemingly
unnecessary considering the leading authorities on testing permit a 30% fade
before reaching and endpoint. I am not sure who is actually looking out
anymore for the consumer.

Testers like Paul and others who have set up their own kits and even
makeshifts are slowly combining to reveal much about today's inks. Other
independents are beginning to invest in Xenon chambers which have control
over temperature and humidity and allow a full spectrum of harmful
illumination. I would never dissuade anyone from taping prints onto windows.

But it is essential and mandatory that side by side testing use the EXACT
SAME methods and software as well as paper and printer and printer settings
for each sample. That is critical in evaluating side by side performance of
competing inks.

If we compare the performance of all of the inks mentioned in this reply to
those which were available 10 years ago, no digital artist or photographer
would have believed it possible. I am not certain if everyone here realized
that the original IRIS inks were rated for only 3-6 months. A subsequent ink
set was rated 2-3 years. I eventually made two ink sets for IRIS which
received 13-15 and 21-23 years from Wilhelm and on both occasions my entire
staffs were treated to celebration dinners. Sometimes it is good to put
things in perspective to see how well we are doing. Also, it is widely
accepted at the George Eastman House that silver will outlast the paper that
vintage photos are printed on. So much work is being done there to save
works in their archives. Very little from 100 years ago and even 50 years
ago can be stabilized to the point where they can be displayed in the manner
that testing authorities assure us our inkjets can! Therefore, we are
actually closer to our goals than we realize. Or perhaps they are completely
wrong.
 ;-) Lets not beat ourselves up too much.

With that said, naturally I am hoping that more photographers want inks
which just simply do not fade!    :)


best  regards,


Jon Cone
Piezography inks and software



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Thanks Jon for the insight.  And, thanks for adding a little reality to all of this.  We are really just on a journey, and at this point, it has certainly been a success.
 
TB


Jon Cone <piezobw@...> wrote:
The one day I check in to read this list and I see my name come up!! So I
should probably respond.  By the way it is unbelievable how this group has
grown and it is fascinating to see how many variations in use there are now
in monochromatic printing. I do not think that any other niche has ever
received so much attention from such a wide variety of vendors!


re:

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

> The reason I was curious about how warm the Septone warm inks were is that
> if there are coloring toners in it (which there would have to be if it was
> warmer than the Ultra Tone ["UT"] grays), then its longevity would probably
> be somewhat compromised.  From what I can tell, the new, pure carbon inks
> are better than the color pigments that are used to do the toning.  For
> example, I'd say the PiezoTone carbon/sepia is a toned ink.  According to
> Jon Cone's latest lightfastness table the PT Carbon Sepia fades at about 3
> times the rate of the PT warm Neutral, which probably has the least amount
> of colorant in it.



Neither PiezoTone Warm Neutral nor Carbon Sepia is a "toned ink".  They are
both made from a single 100% carbon pigment. Both use the same single
pigment. There is not two, nor is their a different pigment in either
formula. The same single carbon pigment is shaped differently to arrive at a
different color. This type of technology was unique to PiezoTones when they
were introduced. I do not know if others have adopted the technology
required to shape micro-pigments.

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/info/1000-hours.html

The above has the rates of fade for the PiezoTones as well as EPSON
UltraChromes and both MIS-FS and Sundance Warm Neutral inks. The fade rate
for PiezoTone Warm Neutral averages less than 1% to just over 2%. The fade
rate for PiezoTone Carbon Sepia averages less than 2% to just over 2.6%. The
difference in fade between Warm Neutral and Carbon Sepia PiezoTone inks is
actually negligible because the fade rate for both is well below that of
human perception. So the different color arrived by shaping the pigment has
no effect on fade. Rather the fade rate can only be measured by an
instrument which is not a human eye!

5% is the threshold for average human perception of fade.
Incidentally, 30% is considered the endpoint in testing from both Wilhelm
and RIT, yet considered as  an unacceptable amount of fade for nearly all
b&w photographers.

In comparison to the PiezoTone inks, the MIS-FS Warm Neutral inks average
fade rates from 8.15% to just over 13.8%, and the Sundance Warm Neutral inks
average fade rates from 13.8% to just over 23.5%.

PiezoTone Selenium and Cool Neutral inks however, are both two-pigment
systems. Yet, they still average from less than 2% to 3.8% fade which is
still well below human perception of fade. The two pigments combine to make
a single perceived hue. I think that these might be what Paul considers
"toned" inks. But they are really comparable to our single pigment inks in
fade resistance.

In general, there is both a wide range in the quality of pigments used in
the various inks on the market today as well as a wide variation in the
manner in which chemists design inks. It is possible for two companies to
use single pigment systems and not have comparable inks in relation to fade.
Also, it is possible for a company to "tone" carbon with another pigment and
not have as good a fade resistance as another company which "tones" carbon.
Quality and standards vary widely in both the pigment industry and in ink
manufacturing. This accounts for the wide variations in ink performance. Few
publish patents so mostly chemists are on their own.

Paul points out that pure carbon is better than color pigments. In general,
this is correct, but when one looks at the fade rates of the EPSON
Ultrachromes which average from 3.7% to just over 16.9%, it is noticeable
that black is not the most stable component of that set. Magenta is. I
beleive that by looking at the fade rate numbers, UltraChrome was designed
to test well in industry tests which examine "yellow fade". Cyanine is
normally the most permanent pigment in a CMYK set. Yet cyanine is the
poorest performer in the UltraChromes and I have never seen that before.


UltraChrome Photo Black has a fade rate of 6.36% and Matte at 6.02%.
Piezography Museum Black has a fade rate of 5.23% and Piezography Portfolio
Black has a fade rate of 7.3%.  The preceding blacks have a slight fade that
is just over the human threshold. The blacks from the MIS-FS warm neutral
and Sundance Warm Neutral did not perform as well and were 13.8% and 15.12%
respectively.

All of the inks described in this reply have received ratings by testing
"authorities" that are considered to be over 100 years. None of the inks
reached end points of 30%. This is why I prefer side-by-side testing which
shows actual density volume decrease, so that a user can pick out an ink
which does not have any discernible fade from one which does have
considerable fade even though both have been designated as 100 year inks.
This type of information is more meaningful than "years ratings" which do
not differentiate between such wide performances and do not clearly state at
which point below 30% did the ink fade to. I believe that currently,
industry tests are leaving the user a bit in the dark because they do not
permit the manufacturer to publish certain data, and it is that certain data
which is relevant in relation to the rating. This data can and shoud be used
by consumers to understand how two inks compare.

Ink manufacturing is changing rapidly. Some companies are making inks that
"test" well and others are attempting to make inks which simply just do not
fade. The latter being much more expensive to manufacture and seemingly
unnecessary considering the leading authorities on testing permit a 30% fade
before reaching and endpoint. I am not sure who is actually looking out
anymore for the consumer.

Testers like Paul and others who have set up their own kits and even
makeshifts are slowly combining to reveal much about today's inks. Other
independents are beginning to invest in Xenon chambers which have control
over temperature and humidity and allow a full spectrum of harmful
illumination. I would never dissuade anyone from taping prints onto windows.

But it is essential and mandatory that side by side testing use the EXACT
SAME methods and software as well as paper and printer and printer settings
for each sample. That is critical in evaluating side by side performance of
competing inks.

If we compare the performance of all of the inks mentioned in this reply to
those which were available 10 years ago, no digital artist or photographer
would have believed it possible. I am not certain if everyone here realized
that the original IRIS inks were rated for only 3-6 months. A subsequent ink
set was rated 2-3 years. I eventually made two ink sets for IRIS which
received 13-15 and 21-23 years from Wilhelm and on both occasions my entire
staffs were treated to celebration dinners. Sometimes it is good to put
things in perspective to see how well we are doing. Also, it is widely
accepted at the George Eastman House that silver will outlast the paper that
vintage photos are printed on. So much work is being done there to save
works in their archives. Very little from 100 years ago and even 50 years
ago can be stabilized to the point where they can be displayed in the manner
that testing authorities assure us our inkjets can! Therefore, we are
actually closer to our goals than we realize. Or perhaps they are completely
wrong.
;-) Lets not beat ourselves up too much.

With that said, naturally I am hoping that more photographers want inks
which just simply do not fade!    :)


best  regards,


Jon Cone
Piezography inks and software


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Jon,

Very informative post. I had thought that both the PT-WN and Carbon Sepia
were pure carbon but with the information overload we now face on the topic
of quad printing the memory fails! Carbon can take so many different crystal
geometries it makes good sense that you could capitalize on that to create
different hues of ink.

Nice compilation of comparative fading data. I agree with you completely and
adamantly that comparative testing is the only information that is of real
value to the end users. The "display life years" numbers seem pretty
worthless as you have no idea or control over how your prints will be
handled once they leave your possession. All we can do is compare the fading
of one set of materials against another under identical circumstances. We
can then base our decisions on the facts and our artistic desires in an
informed manner.

One thing I wanted to point out regarding the your Sundance ink fade
results. I assume your test of "Sundance Neutral Warm" is a test of the
original formula which Sundance is still selling under that name. Hiram
French told me that the Neutral Warm gray inks in the Septone set are a new
formula chemically similar to their Neutral Cool inks. Hiram said that the
original formula barely made the 50 year RIT standard (30% fade) but that
the new inks showed minimal shift at the hundred year mark. So the Septones
and their Neutral Cool appear to be a new generation of inks but we don't
have any comparative testing results. I hope that you have a chance to give
the Septones a try and add their fade data to your page.

I also strongly support Paul's suggestion to add some silver fiber prints to
the comparative testing to give us a reference point. Given the amount of
interest in RC inkjet papers recently, it would also be interesting to see
how these papers hold up in comparative trials. Given the problems with RC
silver papers this should be of concern to anyone using them.

Thanks,
Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Cone [mailto:piezobw@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 3:07 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)
>
>
> The one day I check in to read this list and I see my name come up!! So I
> should probably respond.  By the way it is unbelievable how this group has
> grown and it is fascinating to see how many variations in use
> there are now
> in monochromatic printing. I do not think that any other niche has ever
> received so much attention from such a wide variety of vendors!
>
>
(snip earlier)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

> Jon,
> 
> Interesting information.  Thanks for the post.
> 
> I have noticed that different, allegedly pure carbon inks have different
> tones.  Do you have spectrophotometer C,Y,M readings for the carbon-sepia
> (e.g., 50% density patch on EEM)?


We do not publish our spectral information for the inks. It is easy enough
to find out if an ink is alleged or not by giving them to an independent
chemist at a good university who will probably do it for free.

FYI, EEM turned yellowish brown rather rapidly (at 100 hours) in our tests
and we have abandoned it as an "archival" paper. It may allow EPSON inks to
"test" better, but the paper discoloration is too gross to be considered as
a long-term material. I would appreciate hearing your view on that paper in
that regard and if you have seen that in your tests.



> It occurs to me that the newest pigments are getting to the point where
> someone like you ought to test your PT inkset against a silver print.  Have
> you done this yet?


I have been doing some research into historical mediums lately and part of
that led me to spend time in the archives at the George Eastman House in
Rochester (which I think are very extensive with many examples of extremely
high quality). So I have been looking at a great deal of vintage photography
that is "supposed" to last for many, many generations. The reality is that
the substrates are sensitive to the environment. It is becoming more and
more apparent as I dig, that the proverbial silver print that is supposed to
last centuries may be a theory. I mean that in regards to being exposed to
light and the elements. I am not a archivist, though I have been conversing
with many about this, but it appears that much of the conventional silver
prints are on substrates which act like sponges. Those examples of silver
prints in which the silver has not faded or reacted have essentially been
kept out of the light and out of the air and in dark, dry contact with
stable cotton paper (and usually inadvertently so.)

Submitting silver prints to accelerated light tests usually cracks their
surfaces anyway. 

I have been able to see, by looking at vintage silver and vintage
carbo-process prints, that the carbo-process appears to be a more fade
resistant medium. Yes - you read that correct. I have seen a many faded
silver prints.

I am thinking more and more that we are going to have a very long-lived
medium, this quad phenomena. I also think that many of these coatings may
come back to bite us in the a**. Too many options out there. Good papers
with poor coatings. That is where we should be putting our attention.
Coatings.

This may be where my first quad system had a better edge than the EPSON quad
systems. My IRIS quad inks were able to be printed on uncoated acid-free,
printmaking paper and my software generated enough optical density that they
were as black as today's coated inkjet examples. The continuous-drop hertz
inkjet technology did not require coatings to build OD. With an EPSON the
total ink needs to be kept down to 130%+-. With my earlier quad process I
could approach as much as 400% total inks without bleed. My early quad and
DigitalPlatinum IRIS prints may outlast because of the more purer paper
substrate. The inks may not take as much exposure to light as the PTs, but
the paper is inherently more stable and is not as hydroscopic as today's
coated papers. 

I will try and leave a note for some future archivist or a visitor to an
archive to get me a message in the after life! ;)



> I assume that the toned silver print still has the edge on lightfastness,
> but the paper base, as you note, is the weak link for that technology.  My
> reading indicates that even pure cellulose will be attacked by the
> atmosphere and start an acidic, snowballing cascade of byproducts.  As such,
> for the best longevity, buffering is needed.  Yet, with the silver print wet
> processing, no buffer can be in the paper (as far as I know -- after all, we
> use an acid stop bath).  The inkjet papers, on the other hand, can and
> usually do have buffering.
> 
> Thus, in addition to the light-fastness testing, it would be most
> interesting to see some comparative accelerated aging testing, where they
> usually cook the paper in a dark, high-humidity atmosphere.  (Of course, I
> think there is even less agreement on the accuracy of these tests than of
> the fade tests.)
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> ___________________________________
> 


Paul, the more I learn about vintage processes...
...the more I understand that they are not as stable as we were led to
believe.

On the other hand, this pressure on digital photographers and artists to be
"as permanent as" traditional medium has forced us to make materials which
may be more permanent than traditional mediums. I hope that I am not
sounding like we are doing too much. I think that we are setting our goals,
as we should, not at the same level as that which preceded us, but above it.

All good stuff.


by the way I saw one of the few known perfect examples of a preserved
albumen print by Edward Muybridge of all people and it is nothing like what
I had associated with the medium - it looks more like a heavily selenium
toned silver print on bright white paper - curiously it was an enormous
western landscape rather than one of his motion studies - every albumen
print I have ever seen has had a creamy white to yellowish white albumen
paper surface with purple toning which appears more like staining - that is,
the purple appeared to be the stain rather than the more neutral parts of
these prints - the reality is the purple tone had a tendency to fade towards
neutral while the albumen coated paper turned creamy and yellow with
exposure to light

So few traditional silver prints also retain their original state. Yet we
put enormous pressure on our medium. Now that we know we can, I suppose we
should try and be more fade resistant than our predecessors.


Jon Cone
Piezography inks and software

> I have been doing some research into historical mediums lately and part of
> that led me to spend time in the archives at the George Eastman House in
> Rochester (which I think are very extensive with many examples of
> extremely
> high quality). So I have been looking at a great deal of vintage
> photography
> that is "supposed" to last for many, many generations. The reality is that
> the substrates are sensitive to the environment. It is becoming more and
> more apparent as I dig, that the proverbial silver print that is
> supposed to
> last centuries may be a theory. I mean that in regards to being exposed to
> light and the elements. I am not a archivist, though I have been
> conversing
> with many about this, but it appears that much of the conventional silver
> prints are on substrates which act like sponges. Those examples of silver
> prints in which the silver has not faded or reacted have essentially been
> kept out of the light and out of the air and in dark, dry contact with
> stable cotton paper (and usually inadvertently so.)
>

Coming from the archives world, I have mentioned this a few times on here,
but it has generally been dismissed... :-)

The above is one of the major reasons behind the development of digital
standards for archiving photographs - to save the many many silver based
images (and other types) that are rapidly deteriorating and to enable them
to be shown and used in some form.

Other than storage in the most ideal of conditions (and probably expensive
sub-zero storage at best), more and more silver based images will continue
top deteriorate, with the rate of that deterioration only increasing

tim

Tim, Jon,

Thanks for the very interesting information. It will be incredibly ironic,
after the negative reception of inkjet prints by the collectors and
publications such as Lens Works and B&W, if carbon pigment inkjet prints
turn out to be more stable than silver fiber.

I always thought that the gelatin would be the weak link in silver printing
since it is an organic substance produced from meat processing by products.
Isn't it even less stable than the paper? I know it is very hydroscopic and
gas permeable. Of course I suspect most quality inkjet papers are size with
gelatin so we may be in the same boat.<G>

I wonder ultimately if storage and display conditions are not more critical
than the medium chosen. (I vividly recall a 12" tall stack of boxed silver
fiber prints the termites got to. They ate everything. Paper, gelatin and
silver without discrimination! Looked like a Swiss cheese.) All in all,
photography is art on paper and expectations of centuries-long print life
seem more than a bit ridiculous.

Tim, I have read arguments that no form of digital storage can be considered
archival since it is dependent upon a machine for retrieval. What is the
current thought on this?

Martin Wesley
http://www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:28 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)
>
>
>
> > I have been doing some research into historical mediums lately
> and part of
> > that led me to spend time in the archives at the George Eastman House in
> > Rochester (which I think are very extensive with many examples of
> > extremely
> > high quality). So I have been looking at a great deal of vintage
> > photography
> > that is "supposed" to last for many, many generations. The
> reality is that
> > the substrates are sensitive to the environment. It is becoming more and
> > more apparent as I dig, that the proverbial silver print that is
> > supposed to
> > last centuries may be a theory. I mean that in regards to being
> exposed to
> > light and the elements. I am not a archivist, though I have been
> > conversing
> > with many about this, but it appears that much of the
> conventional silver
> > prints are on substrates which act like sponges. Those examples
> of silver
> > prints in which the silver has not faded or reacted have
> essentially been
> > kept out of the light and out of the air and in dark, dry contact with
> > stable cotton paper (and usually inadvertently so.)
> >
>
> Coming from the archives world, I have mentioned this a few times on here,
> but it has generally been dismissed... :-)
>
> The above is one of the major reasons behind the development of digital
> standards for archiving photographs - to save the many many silver based
> images (and other types) that are rapidly deteriorating and to enable them
> to be shown and used in some form.
>
> Other than storage in the most ideal of conditions (and probably expensive
> sub-zero storage at best), more and more silver based images will continue
> top deteriorate, with the rate of that deterioration only increasing
>
> tim

> Tim, I have read arguments that no form of digital storage can be
> considered
> archival since it is dependent upon a machine for retrieval. What is the
> current thought on this?

Oh God - it's a never ending argument like film vs digital or nikon vs
canon, and you can't shift those on either side...

point is, re-formatting of all sorts of different things - sound tape, video
etc is a normal part of an archives work and process. Re-formatting digital
image files should be no different.

Second point - if the choice is between negatives that have or may be
turning to vinegar/dust (cf. the Bettman Archives and Corbis' underground
cavern) and a digital file of that negative that you have to reformat every
few years - what's the choice?

Here's a quote from a friend who has (as you can see) been involved in the
internet from the beginning (being one of the "founders" of Usenet for one
thing, and now involved in Google):

"Digital can be archival. It's just not automatic yet. I have digital
archives that date back to 1967, which is when I first started keeping
digital information that mattered to me. It is now 36 years later, and I
still have all of it. Today my digital archives are about 100GB; I think
that they didn't exceed 10MB until 1970.

The "secret" is very simple. Make a copy onto two different media every 5
years. At least one of those media will still be around in 5 more years, and
you can repeat the process.

Currently my digital archives live in 3 forms: IDE hard drives that are
turned off and sealed DVD ROMs (33 ROMs hold everything) DDS3 DAT tapes (10
tapes hold everything)

I also keep everything online on regular servers.

At some point in the future some new storage technology will come along, and
I will copy my archives onto that. I suspect that if I die before a truly
archival technology comes along, my children will have no trouble reading
any of the archival media and continuing this tradition of copying should
that be what they want."

Archives do this kind of stuff all the time in all sorts of media. So the
old "you won't be able to read a CD in 6 years time" or "they won't be able
to open a tiff file in 2020" argument is moot. Bear in mind as well, as much
stuff from archives is lost from fire, theft, flood, earthquake etc as from
deterioration, then with digital, copies can be stored in more than one
place.

And on that, I'm not going to argue any more on the archiving digital
issue...!

tim

Hi Martin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Wesley [mailto:mwesley250@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 8:07 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)

> I always thought that the gelatin would be the weak link in 
> silver printing since it is an organic substance produced 
> from meat processing by products. Isn't it even less stable 
> than the paper? I know it is very hydroscopic and gas 
> permeable. Of course I suspect most quality inkjet papers are 
> size with gelatin so we may be in the same boat.<G>

I think most of the modern inkjet and water color papers are sized using
a synthetic material named "Aquapel", not gelatine (even if they use the
term "gelatine sized").

Regards,
Loris.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Loris Medici" <lorism@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 8:25 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)


> Hi Martin,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Wesley [mailto:mwesley250@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 8:07 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)
>
> > I always thought that the gelatin would be the weak link in
> > silver printing since it is an organic substance produced
> > from meat processing by products. Isn't it even less stable
> > than the paper? I know it is very hydroscopic and gas
> > permeable. Of course I suspect most quality inkjet papers are
> > size with gelatin so we may be in the same boat.<G>
>
> I think most of the modern inkjet and water color papers are
sized using
> a synthetic material named "Aquapel", not gelatine (even if
they use the
> term "gelatine sized").
>
> Regards,
> Loris.


Loris, that is a water repellent, if used it will be just part of
the total size. It is used for the same reason in concrete.
Instead of gelatine most papers are sized with PVA nowaday, it is
a synthetic gelatine that can have different grades of
hydrolisation that translate to different grades of hygroscopy
when dry.

Both gelatine and PVA in the digital papers may suffer of fungi
growth in the future, there are no silver or other heavy metal
traces left like in analoge processes to slow the growth and the
gelatine isn't hardened by other chemicals either. Hardening may
have negative effects that the layer will crack faster but on the
other hand it makes that layer less hygroscopic and by that less
prone to any organism growth. If the ultimate in archivability is
needed (especially outside archives) a fungicide may be a better
answer than hardening the gelatine size and coating. Of course a
coating that seals the image side will also help in that aspect.
However there's still no answer on how good the bond of inkjet
coatings is and how extra protection coatings affect that bond,
could be better or worse on the long run.

Ernst

Hi Ernst,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 11:52 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Loris Medici" <lorism@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 8:25 AM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)
> 
> > I think most of the modern inkjet and water color papers are
> sized using
> > a synthetic material named "Aquapel", not gelatine (even if
> they use the
> > term "gelatine sized").
> >
> > Regards,
> > Loris.
> 
> 
> Loris, that is a water repellent, if used it will be just 
> part of the total size. It is used for the same reason in 
> concrete. Instead of gelatine most papers are sized with PVA 
> nowaday, it is a synthetic gelatine that can have different 
> grades of hydrolisation that translate to different grades of 
> hygroscopy when dry.
> ...

Thanks for the useful information you've provided... But I have to
insist that aquapel alone also can be used to size paper.
Serious/important watercolor paper manufacturers such as Fabriano and
Whatman claim their papers are sized using aquapel and also see the
"description and use" section of this document:
http://www.herc.com/indspec/Data_Sheets/Aquapel%20752-1.pdf

Best regards,
Loris.

At 10:07 PM 8/26/03 -0700, you wrote:
>Tim, Jon,
>
>Thanks for the very interesting information. It will be incredibly ironic,
>after the negative reception of inkjet prints by the collectors and
>publications such as Lens Works and B&W, if carbon pigment inkjet prints
>turn out to be more stable than silver fiber.
>
>I always thought that the gelatin would be the weak link in silver printing
>since it is an organic substance produced from meat processing by products.
>Isn't it even less stable than the paper? I know it is very hydroscopic and
>gas permeable. Of course I suspect most quality inkjet papers are size with
>gelatin so we may be in the same boat.<G>
>
>I wonder ultimately if storage and display conditions are not more critical
>than the medium chosen. (I vividly recall a 12" tall stack of boxed silver
>fiber prints the termites got to. They ate everything. Paper, gelatin and
>silver without discrimination! Looked like a Swiss cheese.) All in all,
>photography is art on paper and expectations of centuries-long print life
>seem more than a bit ridiculous.
>
>Tim, I have read arguments that no form of digital storage can be considered
>archival since it is dependent upon a machine for retrieval. What is the
>current thought on this?
>
>Martin Wesley
>http://www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
>http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:28 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)
> >
> >
> >
> > > I have been doing some research into historical mediums lately
> > and part of
> > > that led me to spend time in the archives at the George Eastman House in
> > > Rochester (which I think are very extensive with many examples of
> > > extremely
> > > high quality). So I have been looking at a great deal of vintage
> > > photography
> > > that is "supposed" to last for many, many generations. The
> > reality is that
> > > the substrates are sensitive to the environment. It is becoming more and
> > > more apparent as I dig, that the proverbial silver print that is
> > > supposed to
> > > last centuries may be a theory. I mean that in regards to being
> > exposed to
> > > light and the elements. I am not a archivist, though I have been
> > > conversing
> > > with many about this, but it appears that much of the
> > conventional silver
> > > prints are on substrates which act like sponges. Those examples
> > of silver
> > > prints in which the silver has not faded or reacted have
> > essentially been
> > > kept out of the light and out of the air and in dark, dry contact with
> > > stable cotton paper (and usually inadvertently so.)
> > >
> >
> > Coming from the archives world, I have mentioned this a few times on here,
> > but it has generally been dismissed... :-)
> >
> > The above is one of the major reasons behind the development of digital
> > standards for archiving photographs - to save the many many silver based
> > images (and other types) that are rapidly deteriorating and to enable them
> > to be shown and used in some form.
> >
> > Other than storage in the most ideal of conditions (and probably expensive
> > sub-zero storage at best), more and more silver based images will continue
> > top deteriorate, with the rate of that deterioration only increasing
> >
> > tim


Guys,

This topic gets batted around continually on photo lists.  One aspect of 
archive ability  is that the material must have occasional attention by 
archivists.  That would include transferring digital material to newer media.

Why is it that black and white photographs receive more attention - call it 
obsession - regarding  keeping properties? Conventional color photos aren't 
expected to last and lithographic and even "fine art" prints and 
watercolors are understood to change over time.  I think a relative 
standard to other media based on how well they respond to archival 
correctives is all that is necessary. The silver print (kept in a nitrogen 
atmosphere inside Yucca mountain)  shouldn't be the bench mark for every 
kind of print.

AZ