analog vs. digital color print permanence

[h._shafi]

Hi,

 

I recently read an interview with Henry Wilhelm in Shutterbug Magazine

(11/2003) that discussed color permanence/archival quality of inkjet

prints. I currently do my own wet or inkjet prints and almost always

rely on wet prints for photos that I care about for long-term storage.

The gist of the Wilhelm interview to me was this: Unless you stick

with the ink and paper combinations in published longevity results by

your printer manufacturer, your mileage might vary significantly. I

for one can tell you that one of the reasons why I decided to do my

own wet prints is quality control and archival quality. After hearing

the expert's advice, I would have to throw away my stock of inkjet

paper and ink (since I can't find data on the combination) in order to

have any reasonable confidence of the long-term results....

 

How do you folks deal with this dilemma?

 

-Haz

[bernard_korites]

Epson says 80 years with their pigent inks and their paper. I use enhanced matte. But it doesn't matter anyway. At my age I figure I'll be out of town by the time they start to fade.

[Ed_Ingold]

According to information on the Wilhelm web page, just about everything lasts longer than a color photographic print. Crystal C is rated at about 25 years. Even a Kodak dye-sub is close to that. Epson pigment inks are 60 to 200 years, depending on the substrate.

[larrydressler]

My Dad's Kodachromes from the Korean war still look great.

[h._shafi]

I thought that Kodak's Endura paper is rated for 100+ years depending on display or storage conditions. You guys seem to imply that inkjet prints can last almost as long, which hasn't been my experience thus far with 7-year old Canon ink/paper prints that I made with a BJC-6000, especially on display behind glass. Anyway, perhaps my luck with the Epson R300 will be better.

 

-Haz

[andrew_pike1]

An Ilfochrome print, when laminated, is supposed to last 200 years.

[steve_swinehart]

You need to look at this a bit differently. I have a print making background (lithographs / monoprints / etchings), as well as photography. The history of pigment ink on rag paper is documented in the longevity of the ink + rag paper combination through the lithographs, monoprints, woodblock prints, and etchings that exist today in museums; some of which were printed 400 years ago (etchings).

 

If you've looked at his latest longevity tables, pigment inkjet prints have a longer rated life than any of the color silver halide photographic papers. Both Agfa and Kodak paper use 120 lux for 12 hours per day to get their 100 year rating. Wilhelm uses 450 lux for 12 hours per day - which one is more realistic?

 

You've been using dye based inks in your printer. Dye inks have also been documented as being fugitive in ultraviolet light - no matter what the type of dye. Some photographic dyes (dye transfer) have longer life because they are pure dyes with no organic processing compounds left in the paper; and some processes (Ilfochrome in particular) have longer life because of total dye destruction of unused dyes.

 

The Kodak papers and Fuji dye based papers have come a long way in longevity, but are still dye based and will fade over time.

 

The Epson Ultrachrome pigment inks are currently the closest match to fine art printing inks in that they are a pigment encapsulated inside of a small ball of resin. The resin balls are suspended in a carrier fluid that evaporates from the paper after printing.

 

When the resin ball is ejected from the print head, it breaks releasing the ink into the paper. The shattered resin then floats to the top of the ink forming a protective layer over the ink. The latest version of Ultrachrome (K3)uses the resin as both a gloss enhancer and for some UV protection.

 

Will this last as long as a lithograph or etching ink print? I don't know, but I can tell you that fine art printing inks are basically just pigments suspended in varnish with a drier - I've custom made inks for some projects - it's not all that difficult. They're kind of like a fine art oil paint that dries faster.

 

So, anyone who wants to claim that that a fine art printing ink is somehow better formulated or is somehow more archival needs to study inks and ink formulations. I think you'd come to the conclusion that perhaps the new inkjet pigment inks are every bit the equal to fine art printing inks.

 

So, to make all encompassing statements about inkjet printing is to ignore the type of ink used, and the history of ink printing on paper. When you choose the correct ink (pigment) with a rag or lignin-free paper, you may actually have a better combination than any color photographic paper currently made.

 

The fact that Wilhelm hasn't documented a certain combination is a ridiculous criteria. Wilhelm hasn't tested any fine art printing inks + rag paper either; yet thousands of artists use the materials to make fine art prints and museums buy the art for permanent collections without a second thought.

 

Finally, if your prints are so important as to warrant a 100 or more year guaranteed life - then quit doing things in color. You really need to use halide based B&W materials archivally processed and stored under sub-zero archival storage conditions.

 

If you and your prints only warrant "normal" longevity, then quit using dye based inks. Use Ultrachrome K3 inks with rag paper. My prediction is you'll be long gone, and the prints will still look the same.

[jtk]

The first question might be "what is permanence?" Is it readily noticable fading, color shifts..is it ugliness?

 

Wilhelm's probably the best we've got, but he's not fully able to evaluate wet photo processes because they vary widely according to lab.

 

I've personally printed Type C, Type R, Ciba, and Agfacolor, processed a lot of E4 and some E3.

 

Agfacolor, the prettiest color paper I've ever seen, was "known" to fade noticably within four years, Ciba was "known" to be archival.

 

My own (dektol processed to control contrast) Ciba has lost zip, perhaps shifting 5CC in twenty years...dark storage.

 

My own Agfacolor (extended formalin fix) has shifted a little more, is developing magenta tints but still looks good...dark storage

 

Type C from twenty years ago varies according to lab, some terrible and others great.

 

My own Palo Alto-processed Kodachromes from thirty years ago are starting to shift a little. Dallas processed Kodachrome seems worse. The E4 my own lab ran back then look as good as the Palo Alto Kodachrome. The Palo Alto E4 looks as good as their Kodachrome and my E4. The E4 run by some other labs is shot. I understand the Pathe' Kodachrome from Paris may have been the ultimate, as good or better than the Palo Alto Kodachrome. I have Kodachrome of my sister in diapers, 1948, that look great..probably Palo Alto. My mother's Anscochrome, home processed about 1939, looks fine.

[jtk]

The only absolutely archival color is digital: data files. Those files can be stored in multiple locations on multiple media, reproduced losslessly and with perfect accuracy. More eternal than anybody other than Edward Weston deserves :-)

[scott_eaton]

<I>My Dad's Kodachromes from the Korean war still look great.</i><p>And they are likely just as impossible to scan or reproduce in any other form as they were then as well.<P>Kodachrome - the ultimate 'write only' media.<P>The only ink-jet prints I trust are pigment based - period. Canon and HP are making some crazy claims about their latest dye basec technology, but I prefer to remain skeptible.

[bill_tuthill]

Yup, Epson pigment-based inks outlast photo paper, which makes it

seem like the world has been turned upside down.

Wilhelm's testing shows HP dye-based inks outlast Epson or Canon

dye-based inks, hmm. The only misinformation I see above is the

statement that Crystal C lasts 25 years-- Wilhelm testing says 80

for Crystal CA (perhaps C is something different).

[larrydressler]

Nothing is impossible. with time all things are possible. 15 years ago the top of the line flatbed was good enough for documents... and cost an arm and a leg. Just because it takes a harder time to get the proper results does not make it impossible.

[g._armour_van_horn]

John, how are you comparing the stored images from 20 and 30 years ago? What kind of storage on the prints? What kind of standard for comparison? What kind of storage for the standard? Absent a 30-year-old densitometer that can still be calibrated, I don't know how you could do that.

 

Van

[andykowalczyk]

"The only absolutely archival color is digital: data files."

 

As a practical matter this is only true for digital images that are part of a maintained collection. But for the typical personal/family photographs I would say that some "human readable" format has a longer useful lifetime.

 

The hardware and files standards are changeable enough that files on older media become impractical, if not impossible, to read.

 

It is common for people to find old, usable, photographs (back to the civil war) when going through an elder relatives attic. Just imagine a hundred years into the future - your great grandchildren find one (or a box of several hundred) of your floppies or CD-ROMs in the attic. Assuming the media is still bonded to the substrate and no magnetic anomalies have affected any magnetic media and no EMPs or cosmic rays have affected any Flash cards, they then have to locate devices that can still read this media. Assuming there will be a niche market for this - will it be affordable. Especially just on the chance that this disk is heirloom quality images and not just another disk full of hoaky century old MP3 popular music.

 

Already my storage boxes have punch cards, punched paper tape, 8 inch diskettes, 8-tracks, reel-to-reel tape, several different forms of removable "hard-disk" cartridges (various spiritual predecessors to ZIP drives).

 

Converting these is still probably do-able - but is probably at least as time consuming as any of the "I found a thousand of my grandfathers slides - what's the best way to scan them?" questions that regularly pop up on these forums. These projects become daunting and then not even attempted. At least with slides you can more quickly pick out the treasures, scan only those. With machine readable media you will have to process the whole batch just to be certain that you have seen the good ones.

[t.f._tolhurst]

Hi,

 

I'm just a kid (it'll show in a second). Maybe I don't know so much or maybe I just haven't made a picture that I'm absolutely in love with . . . BUT . . .

 

If you want to make something archival make pottery.

 

 

When I first started taking pictures I was absolutely obsessed with making prints that'd last. Anything that would help my negs and prints last longer I did. Then I put them in storage.

 

When I graduated from undergrad I pulled my stuff out. Yeah some were brilliant photos. But I keep thinking, "Whatever, they're just prints and negs. Who will miss them if they burn, disappear, or fall apart?"

 

The answer I came up with was . . . me. Then, in maybe 60 years, I'm gonna die. And no one is going to miss them.

 

I guess my point is kind've this. The reason anything is important is because that thing (whatever it is) burns itself into our minds. We reinterpret it and base our lives upon its "shadow" or "scar" not on the thing itself.

 

Somehow I've become slightly terrified of dying (yeah, I'm only 25 but whatev). That hasn't translated into spending time making sure my prints or negs will last... I'm spending time taking more pictures, making prints and sharing them with people.

 

If only one of my photos makes an impression on someone and they continue to think about it (whether they see it again or buy it or whatev) then I kind've think my print is archival.

 

 

Finally, I wonder if everyone is spending so much time on making sure that their prints are archival, why aren't you spending the rest of your time making back-up negs, and backups to those backups, etc. Why aren't you making multiple backup editions, etc?

 

Would you really want to sell your stuff with limited-eternity guarantee?

 

 

 

Am I babbling?<div></div>