When the prints fade... who pays?

[dakotah_jackson]

In reading a lot of the claims of digital printers it gets confusing. Wilhelm

testing gives some information. Some printer makers give some info but it is

even more confusing. The Canon printers look great until you realize the long

life claimed is only if you leave the prints in the dark. Expose to light and

you dont have much life left.

 

Some of the Epson and HP newer inksets have a longer life per the testing.

 

We rely on this 'best information' in making decisions and some of this

information really makes some nice claims for expected print life on display.

 

Just like Kodak/Ilford/Afga/others with RC papers. Yet too many labs went broke

when they bought into the claims and discovered the papers did not last. Some

photographers went broke, out of business, filed bankruptcy or nearly so as they

found themselves having clients with prints fading/browning as they hung for

display.

 

When/if these inkjet prints start fading way before the expected time, who pays

for redoing them? Sell someone a premium priced 'fine art' print and get a call

two years later about the print turning colors (even when framed behind glass,

conservation mats & frames), what do you do? The simple answer is 'reprint' the

image. If you have a few hundred prints out there you will go broke trying to do

so... not to mention the hit your reputation will take for your selling 'fine

art' that fades right off the walls.

 

So, who pays for the reprinting when this happens?

[roger_smith4]

"So, who pays for the reprinting when this happens?"

I'm sure this is a rhetorical question but you either pay with your money or your reputation.

 

Personally, I'd be conservative and stick to pigmented inks on acid-free paper (cotton rag, etc). I doubt my B&W carbon on cotton prints are going to fade in the near future.

[godfrey]

What happens when the photographs you sell fade through poor handling on the part of

the buyers? Do you reprint them? You'll need to handle such things the same way.

 

Pigment ink in today's top notch printers, printed to quality paper, will last on par with

silver gelatin and chromogenic emulsions, if not better, when the prints are properly

handled. I have several prints made up to six-seven years ago with PiezographyB&W

pigment inks as a running test... they were made in pairs, printed on the same paper, and

one of each pair is stored in a binder where the other is hung in a frame on a wall where

the sunlight passes at certain times of the year. The same photos (scanned negatives) were

printed in pairs using wet lab archival processes as well.

 

I pull the prints out now and then from the storage binder and compare the pairs. So far,

the wet lab produced prints have shown more fade on the wall-hung copies than the

PiezographyBW inkjet prints. The paper on the inkjet prints has yellowed a little more than

the wet lab prints, however. It's a toss up. All are standing up well compared to the stored

reference prints.

 

I didn't do this with color work ... until the current generation pigment inks were available,

there were few options. But I have a sneaking suspicion that pigment inkjet color

work is going to be about as archival as Cibachrome is. It's really all down to the

paper used now, the ink/color media itself seems very stable.

 

I don't worry about print longevity with today's Epson K3 pigment ink set and high quality

archival papers like Hahnemühle, Crane, Somerset available.

 

Godfrey

[bill.akstens]

Not a direct answer to your original question, but one way to side-step the issue may be to simply specify which materials will be used in the contract, for example "prints will be produced on ABC printer using XYZ paper and 123 inks."

[jtk]

Speaking purely technically, only an abject idjit suggests 100 years without change, or has ever has done so.

 

If idjits lost money because their carelessly (deceptively IMO) described prints faded, that was a good thing for the species (in terms of Charles Darwin's famous theory).

 

Cibachrome, incidentally, was never as "archival" as claimed. Cibachromes are fading about as rapidly as properly processed Ektacolor (color neg) prints (the trick being that only the best custom labs ever processed Ektacolor properly ).

[dakotah_jackson]

My comparison is silver, pt/pd and carbon. (real carbon prints, not the inkjet 'carbon' which is not a carbon emulion three dimensional print).

 

Have been printing since the early 1970's and have many silver emulsion fibre prints from that time still hanging in various places. No problems with them. I just don't do RC at all.

 

Yes, Cibachrome/Ilfochrome doesn't last like it was claimed. Ilford probably would have gone bankrupt replacing them with their 100 year guarantee if they had not already faced bankruptcy.

 

Am looking for a comfort zone with the prints. Mishandling is one thing. Conservation framing with high museum standards is what I look at in display. Anything else is a crapshoot, including using wood frames without sealing the rabbit to prevent outgassing problems and having Artcare board backing as well as a good dust seal.

 

Currently Fuji Crystal Archive has been looking good for a lot of prints. Life is expected to be in the 75 year range. The ones I worry about are 2-10 years down the line and fading overall or in one or two colors starts showing up. "Just reprint it" may be fine for my own wall but a few hundred clients, customers and some museums don't really fall under that option for various reasons.

 

As to this: "Speaking purely technically, only an abject idjit suggests 100 years without change, or has ever has done so." You probably don't work in pt/pd or carbon printing. Most likely not in high end silver printing. There are photo materials that last if cared for. The materials aren't 'fugitive' in the same terms of the dyes and inks used in so much digital printing. They are expected to last and do if experience over the past 100+ years is looked at.

[godfrey]

Given what I see with B&W inkjet prints in 6-7 years aging on medium quality paper

available then, and papers available today, I have no problems feeling good about 75 years

with properly handled, properly framed and matted prints with todays good paper and

Epson K3 inks.

 

Color ... well, I never believe color photographs will last past sunset, but some of my el

cheapo inkjet prints from a decade ago still look pretty good, stored in the archive book.

How long Ciba was suggested it would last was always ridiculous to me, but I figure the

Epson K3 inks will last as long ... as I said above. ;-)

 

Godfrey

[steven_clark]

Of course if you have a good enough image archive and a precise control of your printing process you might just offer a guarantee to reprint with better technology.

[jtk]

I stand by my earlier pronouncement about abject idjits and their assertions of 100 years... and extend that to ANY process.

 

Amusingly, we know plenty of abject idjits DO suggest 100 years :-) Tourist galleries love that claim and none will be around to deal with their betrayed when the calendar says 10 years have passed.

 

If one's images are of Weston merit, somebody will care in 50 years. If they're not of Weston merit, they'll properly be tossed in 5 or 10.

[jimstrutz]

I always tell people that I use long life ink and paper that has a claimed life of xx years when displayed properly. But I also tell them that I can make no guarantees of any of kind. I also write it down and have them sign it. So far the ones I know of all still look good.

[ralph_jensen]

I like Jim Strutz's answer. I went with one of the longest-Wilhelm-rated ink-paper combos and tell people words to the effect of, "There are no guarantees, but based on current knowledge, testing methods, and projections, this is about the most archival combination there is."