Permanence of Colour Prints

[nickc1]

<p>After a recent family loss I have picked up a number of photos, movies and albums. I am struck by how much better colour prints from 50 or more years ago seem to have kept compared to the more recent ones.<br>

I have at home pictures that have been on display that have faded after 15 years or less, but all of these I have just acquired have been kept in drawers or albums - the newer ones appear to have begun to fade, losing magenta, while the Kodacolor prints from the fifties and early sixties are still all there.<br>

Is it the changes to the process that are responsible or different materials or am I just unlucky to have some newer prints that have faded?<br>

What is anyone else's experience with colour prints?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As you've discovered, dark- or light-keeping dramatically affects the permanence of many inks, colors.</p>

<p>Dark, dry, cool storage is the only way to preserve colors well.</p>

<p>Still, some dyes and inks are more permanent than others. Some new pigment printers claim something much closer to preservation (archival is too strong a word in this context) than older color printers.</p>

<p>Perhaps the only way to achieve what is usually called archival standards by those who mean just that is to make color separation negatives in achivally processed film.</p>

<p>Digital images don't fade either, but the little ones and zeros of which they are constituted have their own way of fading away, depending on the medium.</p>

<p>see <em>Ecclesiastes 1:2</em> on topics related to permanence.</p>

 

[jim_momary]

<p>The source on archival info that has stood the test of time (pun intended) - - -<br>

<a href="http://www.wilhelm-research.com/">http://www.wilhelm-research.com/</a><br>

Read 'em and weep.</p>

<p>I prefer Psalm 144:4 to get me depressed :o)<br>

<em><strong>"Man is like a breath; his days are like a fleeting shadow."</strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em><br>

(Add to that my Amish uncle's <em><strong>"We get too soon old and too late smart"</strong></em> and I'm a dead duck!</p>

<p>Jim M</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>We may not be talking so much about the nature of particular kinds of paper as about differing quality of printing (labs have always varied widely). <br>

Kodachrome PAPER was relatively common sixty years ago and my examples (my own baby pictures) look great today. Some alleged Kodacolor was Anscocolor.<br>

Agfacolor paper from the late 70s was said to fade significantly in a few years. But the Agfacolor I personally printed and tray processed (with extended standard wash and formaldehyde treatment) looks very good today, though it's lost black density.<br>

Local portrait studios often did DYE TRANSFER printing of "school photos" before Kodak's Ektacolor process was perfected (50s)...ultra stable stuff.</p>

<p> </p>

[nickc1]

<p>Although not totally apropriate in this case I also like Henri Matisse's view that one has to:-</p>

<p><em>'seek the strongest colour effect possible..... the content is of no importance'</em></p>

<p>but not in photo.net picture critique of course!</p>

[nickc1]

<p>Regarding the Anscocolor/Kodacolor option - I don't think this was likely in this case as the prints were made in the UK, but it is interesting to consider nontheless.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Nick, "Kodacolor" was the drugstore/amateur/camera store version of Ektacolor, the more accurate material used by professionals and professional (non-drugstore/amateur/camera store) labs. </p>

<p>Ansco, in the UK, may have been Agfa (a brand that was abandoned for a while in the US). I don't know anything about Euro or UK markets, but Ansco was very big and used various brand names... It's not an important question, but are you sure Ansco wasn't a brand in UK? </p>