Preserving Prints

Hello,

I want to preserve some of my digital pictures in "hard copy" format , i.e. prints , I am thinking LONG TERM preservation here.

Which type of print is likely to last longer , colour or monochrome , taking into account modern printing methods and inks.

My thinking is that monochrome prints are the way to go for longevity.

I do realize that modern "ink" prints are unlikely to last as long as traditional photographic prints.

Electronic storage methods do not interest me.

What are people's thoughts on this.

Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks.

...

 

Which type of print is likely to last longer , colour or monochrome , taking into account modern printing methods and inks.

 

My thinking is that monochrome prints are the way to go for longevity.

 

I do realize that modern "ink" prints are unlikely to last as long as traditional photographic prints.

 

...

Use paper and ink with clear statements with regards to longevity from known manufacturers, this typically means matching paper and ink from the same manufacturer.

Monochrome will likely maintain its information longer. Especially if exposed to light.

Conventional color prints had terrible fading properties, modern inkjet is much better in that regard.

Not all photographers did fully treat their conventional prints correctly, while an FB B&W print may have proven archival properties superior to the theoretical longevity of inkjet, I have purchased BW prints which are deteriorating already after few years presumably due to poor fixing and/or washing that proves the longevity is no better than the "operator".

Keep your prints in a dry, dark place, where they can breathe.

Color is inherently fugitive, but some types of color can be very durable -Color separation allows archival B&W to be reconstituted into color whenever it's needed.

B&W can be archival, but even there there are limits. On the other hand, papyrus from ancient Egypt survives under the right conditions.

Here's a lead in to the Wilhelm studies

For much, much more on color stability see Wilhelm Imaging Research

This can't be answered without referencing a type of ink and the method of storage.

Most inexpensive printers use dye-based inks. These can look very good, but they aren't particularly durable. Archival inkjet prints are made with pigment inks. If you use high-quality inks, these will be more durable than old commercial color prints.

A hugely important variable is storage, in particular, exposure to UV light, which is a powerful fading agent. If you aren't displaying them, you can store them in archival (acid free) boxes, separated by acid-free tissue paper. Stored that way, they will last much longer than if exposed to light. if you are going to hang them, you can substantially increase their life by using UV-resistant glass.

If you are interested in very long-term storage, it's probably best to avoid papers with optical brightening agents (OBAs). OBAs are dyes, and like all dyes, they fade faster than pigments.

I wouldn't personally focus on manufacturers' claims about longevity. You can find detailed evaluations of longevity at Wilhelm Research and Aardenburg Imaging. They only provide tests for a modest number of ink x paper combinations, but it's enough to give you a rough idea.

Most inexpensive printers use dye-based inks. These can look very good, but they aren't particularly durable. Archival inkjet prints are made with pigment inks. If you use high-quality inks, these will be more durable than old commercial color prints.

This is true. But many people don’t understand that you can’t use dye inks in a printer designed for pigment or vice versa. There are apparently a few “hybrids” that use pigment black but dye colors. I’ve seen these discussed online, but I’ve never encountered one in the flesh and don’t know anything about them.

What’s important to recognize is that high quality pigment printers (eg the Canon 1000 Pro) cost a lot more than dye printers of equal quality. I love my Pixma 9000, but when I bought it there were no equivalent pigment printers anywhere close to it in price. I almost always print on matte paper, usually art stock. Images on most glossy paper are not as stable or long lived as images on matte because the gloss is a chemical treatment of some kind (I don’t remember the scientific explanation).

Several years ago, I was lucky enough to stumble into a close out on Hahnemuhle Matte Photo Rag in multiple sizes (water damage to the shipping box - the individual boxes of 25 were undamaged). I bought it all and still have several in my cabinet. If I ever need to replace my 9000, it’ll be with a pigment printer like that 1000 Pro.

Thanks for the replies and directing me to the Wilhelm site.

I certainly have a lot of reading to do.

:D

Cheers.

Silver prints last good, platinum, etc. But pigment inkjet and laser prints last good too.

Here are some old posts on the subject.

I had complete fade tests on all sorts of media on Tumblr, but they banned me in 2019 and deleted all 48 of my websites.

1 year of sun does nothing to an archival pigment inkjet. 2 years and it starts to fade 'some.'

NSFW

Epson Gloss Optimizer stability test… – Daniel D. Teoli Jr. (wordpress.com)

Don't use dye based inkjet, they fade. 2 months of sun fades them as well as normal room light.

Dye Inkjet vs. Pigment Inkjet – Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection – II (home.blog)

As was said, dye transfer is bad. They have good dark storage but terrible light fastness.

File:Eastman Kodak dye transfer fade test after 6 months sun exposure Daniel D. Teoli Jr..jpg - Wikimedia Commons

But you have no worries about that. Dye transfer is more or less extinct. Although they do make some in Germany.

Cibachromes were excellent...but extinct.

Good luck!

Cibachromes were excellent...but extinct.

I have some Cibachrome prints I made in April 1976 from a trip to Paris. They’re noticeably faded despite having been kept properly in dark, climate controlled storage in acid free paper. Fortunately, a good hi res scan and some digital massage has rejuvenated them - but I’d rather have the originals as they looked when I made them.

What’s important to recognize is that high quality pigment printers (eg the Canon 1000 Pro) cost a lot more than dye printers of equal quality.

The difference used to be large, but at least in the Canon lineup, it's a bit smaller now. When there is no discount, the 13 inch dye-ink pixma pro 200 is $600, while the 13 inch pigment-in Prograf Pro 300 is $900. However, the Prograf 300 uses a few less inks than the 17 inch prograf 1000, which runs about $1300.

I have now done quite a bit of "reading-up" on this subject.

To set-up and make Archive Quality prints is too expensive for an "Ordinary Joe" like myself.

Governments , Museums , Large Institutions , and certain Individuals will have no problems with this , but the downside is that THEY will decide what to preserve or not to preserve.

I will therefore only print and store selected photographs in monochrome , using my still perfectly good "el-cheapo" Canon MX494 printer.

It appears that the Black ink used in the MX494 is pigment based , this may or may not be true , but I will hope for the best.

What else can one do ? :) :).

Cheers.

What else can one do ?

Pigment inks are likely to be far more colour-fast that dye based inks.

But pigment ink printers have more clogging problems than dye ink printers. It's the nature of the beast, but has to be taken into consideration. A high-end pigment printer can make stunning prints, if you use it regularly. If you don't use it, you won't get any prints, or you will spend a fortune in ink to keep the head clean!

you will spend a fortune in ink to keep the head clean!

I bought cheap non pigment refills and used those cartridges to clear the ink clogs, then switched back to pigment-based inks.

You can make your own color separations and print them in monochrome for storage: