Digital BW, The Print

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) 

Yes, Epson Enhanced Matte famously "yellows" but that is a only way of
saying it loses its extreme white brilliance, quickly shifts toward
cream (and seems to stop). That it loses its whiteners says nothing
about its archival potential, especially since we have no accepted
definition of "archival." Change doesn't mean "not archival." 

I'm confident that the EEM's I've printed will "last" handsomely for
100-plus years. But when I saw the quick shift toward cream
("yellowing")  I went to another cheap paper that began at least as
white as EEM and has kept that white for at least two years (as long
as I've used it). 

That was the recently discontinued alpha cellulose Moab Kayenta.
Moab's new, cheap replacement isn't as nice tonally IMO, may not be as
"sharp," but it the samples I've seen start out equally white.

Where do archival tests fit in? Nowhere IMO. No value at all. 

A photographer has to be nuts to deliver a print with comments about
archival longevity...and if he mouths claims by Wilhelm he has to be
archivally nuts, since none of us has a clue about the validity of
Wilhelm tests, and since we all seem to doubt his claims.

IMO the ONLY infinitely "archival" photo product is our digital file,
and that will remain beautiful as long as neither we nor our kin don't
fail to back-up and copy properly onto whatever digital medium becomes
the new reliable standard following reliance on backed up/distributed
 HDs or, arguably/dubiously, DVDs. 

Happy New Year...

Oooh...I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion but I  
couldn't resist....

I, personally,  do not trust digital files to last beyond our years.  
We still don't know if CDs, DVDs, hard drives or anything prone to  
magnetic damage will last. Some already aren't. Then there IS the  
reality of what technology will exist, what readers will be able to  
read these, and will anyone really be backing stuff up all their  
lives, etc without accidentally deleting something?

Negatives are tangible. The image is right there in your hands to  
see. You don't need a print to know what you have.  For me,  that is  
the only evidence of my photographic work that I know will still be  
around. And once my husband and I go, there is no kin, so I better  
get these negatives to the Museum of Modern Art pronto :D

PS - Off thread -  I made my first acrylic transfers from Zeus'  
prints today (sorry, that is what I named my R2400).  The acrylic  
didn't seem to lay on the same way as the previous inks, probably  
because of the dyes, but I will see once I soak them what happens.

AnnMarie

AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net




On Jan 2, 2008, at 6:40 PM, djon43 wrote:

> IMO the ONLY infinitely "archival" photo product is our digital file,
> and that will remain beautiful as long as neither we nor our kin don't
> fail to back-up and copy properly onto whatever digital medium becomes
> the new reliable standard following reliance on backed up/distributed
> HDs or, arguably/dubiously, DVDs






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

I am glad djon wrote that the shift is more towards a cream than a yellow. When I think of paper that has yellowed the first thing that comes to mind is the old newsprint I have that is decades old. That is what my personal fear was...that a print on the matte paper will make that drastic of a  shift in a short period of time. 
  thanks for the good post
  frank

djon43 <djon43@...> wrote:
  <<<<<Yes, Epson Enhanced Matte famously "yellows" but that is a only way of
saying it loses its extreme white brilliance, quickly shifts toward
cream (and seems to stop). That it loses its whiteners says nothing
about its archival potential, especially since we have no accepted
definition of "archival." Change doesn't mean "not archival.">>>>


"The luckiest dogs are those with clipped tails....they're the ones who won't be chasing their own arses."
       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

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

--- 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. 

I am not sure when the term "archival" entered usage referring to 
works 
of art, photography, etc.  However, the concept was enshrined almost 
from the very beginning.  The early roots of photography and much of 
its heyday were during a time when the concepts of "long lasting" 
and "here today but likely gone tomorrow" were understood by many 
artists and the public.  

Early paper prints through mid 20th century were either made on 
cotton rag paper or very high quality wood pulp paper with the 
preferrence for the former.  When they weren't, the fading and 
discoloring was pretty obvious, pretty fast and the 
photographer/printer had to leave town fast if he hadn't moved on 
already.

The washing regimes used in most photographic paper printing 
processes further enhanced the longivity of the prints by removing 
many of the acids present and soluble impurities likely to contribute 
to lessening the prints life.



> A photographer has to be nuts to deliver a print with comments about
> archival longevity...> 
> 

I would say that anyone contemplating purchasing such a print would 
be 
nuts not to first ask about its likely degree of permanence and to 
not 
insist on a warranty of such.  That much is "caveat emptor" at any 
rate.

Mark MacKenzie

Hello Djon43,

>Where do archival tests fit in? Nowhere IMO. No value at all. 

For me a valid requirement is acid free.  EEM is not acid free, so at
some period, 5, 10, 20 years, whatever, an EEM print will likely
develop those yellow-brown acid spots so common on old photos and
documents.  

Kayenta (bless it's discontinued soul, I mourn it's loss) is acid
free.  I think that's a significant difference.

I agree about EEM.  It's change is short lived and it's quite fade
resistant.  But it's not pretty, rather dirty looking, after the
change, and acidic.  So I would never gift or sell a print on it.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- 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.

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.
>

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]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, AnnMarie
Tornabene <fairy69@...> wrote:
>
> Honestly, djon, you deserve a huge hug for this post :)


And I think Arlene deserves some sort of award for the funniest post
of the year...even though we're only a few days into it.  Her's will
be hard to beat.  I especially love the "weird intravenous hospital
ward"! 
I have it tacked up here at my desk and can't read it without laughing.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm