Digital BW, The Print

Seems to me this was discussed here a while back, but since the
technology is moving so rapidly perhaps an update is in order.

I've been working with some architects on documenting buildings for
National Register nominations. I've been doing b/w darkroom prints, 
for that purpose but I've read such positive things about BO archival
qualities that I suggested this option to the architect. This morning
I got on the National Register website and was please to note they do
accept digital prints that meet the 75 year standard.

See: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/policyexpansion.htm#further 

I didn't see the carbon BO process listed but would like to suggest to
the people at the Register that this be added to their list of
acceptable submissions. There is a statement in their policy that they
encourage people to submit new processes to them since they can't keep
up with all the changes.

Can anyone suggest how to approach the Register and make a case for BO
prints? I'm convinced, myself, of their archival properties, but I'd
to get my 'ducks in a row' before I contact them.

This is very exciting news, that the Register is moving in this
direction. I'm convinced we, here, have something positive to offer
them if we do it right.

Thanks all!

Paul

Perhaps I should've titled this thread "100% Carbon Pigment Printing".

Paul, I'd contact Jon Cone, and others in the field of selling the inks and
simply ask for the data. You should be able to show the 75 year / Wilhlem /
whatever that the data supports 75 years. That may only be for specific
paper, ink combinations that have been tested. RIT might even have some data
on a variety of combinations.  

 

Eric Neilsen

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

SKYPE ejprinter

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Whiting
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:35 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: anyone using BO prints for National Register
applications?

 

Perhaps I should've titled this thread "100% Carbon Pigment Printing".

 



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

Hi Paul,

 <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:

> I've been working with some architects on documenting buildings for
> National Register nominations. ...

> I got on the National Register website and was please to note 
> they do accept digital prints that meet the 75 year standard.

Most of the techniques used by forum members should easily meet this 
standard.  It would be interesting to see what they require.

With today's best materials and heavy reliance on expensive Wihelm 
testing, I fear it's going to take more than what I or other 
individuals will probably be able to do to have much effect.

> See: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/policyexpansion.htm#further 

I didn't have any success with their links.

> I didn't see the carbon BO process listed but would like to 
> suggest to
> the people at the Register that this be added to their list of
> acceptable submissions. There is a statement in their policy 
> that they
> encourage people to submit new processes to them since they 
> can't keep up with all the changes.

I wonder if they'd do the testing?

> Can anyone suggest how to approach the Register and make a 
> case for BO prints? 

Since neither Wilhelm nor RIT have tests of what we use, I mostly 
used generic information on my PDF relating to the issue.  
See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Lightfastness.pdf

I'd done enough of my own testing to generally conclude that the 
Epson MK, K2-PK, K2-LK, as well as MIS Eboni and PK, and Piezo Museum 
MK were all very good and better than the colors (cyan is great in 
some light but not with airborne problems).  Wilhelm tests were 
consistent with what I'd found, so I didn't need to go further.   

Who knows what this Register would want, however.   


> ... I'm convinced we, here, have something positive to offer
> them if we do it right.

I think you're right, but whether it's worth the work for any 
individual is a harder question.  If those who sell don't have enough 
incentive, the issue may become academic -- literally.  A professor 
suggested to me that a young associate professor who is looking for a 
niche might be interested in our processes -- what are probably in 
the category or "alternative" processes at this point.  So, that is 
one area I might look at.

In any case, the issue is interesting.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks, Eric and Paul,

Erick: That's a good suggestion, but I guess I know the ground here a
little better so will probably stick with this forum for now.

Paul:

> Most of the techniques used by forum members should easily meet this 
> standard.  It would be interesting to see what they require.
> 
> With today's best materials and heavy reliance on expensive Wihelm 
> testing, I fear it's going to take more than what I or other 
> individuals will probably be able to do to have much effect.

Seems to me your findings should be equally acceptable, especially
after I've read your .pdf you mentioned. Maybe I should send the
Register people that document, for starters?

> I didn't have any success with their links.

Sorry... actually I didn't try them till you mentioned it, and I too
had some trouble.
 
> I wonder if they'd do the testing?

I could certainly ask ... 
 
> Since neither Wilhelm nor RIT have tests of what we use, I mostly 
> used generic information on my PDF relating to the issue.  
> See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Lightfastness.pdf
> 
> I'd done enough of my own testing to generally conclude that the 
> Epson MK, K2-PK, K2-LK, as well as MIS Eboni and PK, and Piezo Museum 
> MK were all very good and better than the colors (cyan is great in 
> some light but not with airborne problems). 

The Register lists Ultrachome inks as acceptable... but doesn't this
process involve some use of the color carts, which I understand makes
this process less archival than 100% carbon?

> I think you're right, but whether it's worth the work for any 
> individual is a harder question.

I'm willing to initiate a contact, neophyte that I am.

> incentive, the issue may become academic -- literally.  A professor 
> suggested to me that a young associate professor who is looking for a 
> niche might be interested in our processes -- what are probably in 
> the category or "alternative" processes at this point.  So, that is 
> one area I might look at.

My former roomate is a post-doc in organic chemistry, now works at
NIH. Might give him a call, he might have some contacts.
 
> In any case, the issue is interesting.

It truly is... as I said before, I think this community really has
something to offer the world of archival documentation of historic
sites and structures. The Register mentions putting the images on a CD
but I would go them one further and suggest they recommend gold CD's.
They're not as expensive as the term sounds and are supposed to last
much longer than every-day CD's.

Paul

Sorry, Eric, I put a "k" on your name in that last post!