Longevity of silver based prints

[d._kevin_gibson]

The following is from a colleague and relates to the longevity of

silver based prints (and other traditional types of prints). Sadly,

many silver based prints aren't/haven't been kept in ideal

conditions. And even with those htta have, while the silver (or

platinum or whatever) may last for a long long time, in many cases,

the substrate - the paper that silver/gelatin is on may not. In my

own research I have found that in many cases it is the substrate that

has not lasted when dealing with phtogrpahs that have deteriorated

badly. This is also something that doesn't show up in accelerated

testing (although it can be tested for). But it is showing up now in

photogrpahs is young as 50 years old, and in large numbers in

phtogoraphs from 50 to 100+ years old. So, for what it's worth, FYI:

 

"I have been doing some research into historical mediums lately and

part of

that led me to spend time in the archives at the George Eastman House

in

Rochester (which I think are very extensive with many examples of

extremely

high quality). So I have been looking at a great deal of vintage

photography

that is "supposed" to last for many, many generations. The reality is

that

the substrates are sensitive to the environment. It is becoming more

and

more apparent as I dig, that the proverbial silver print that is

supposed to

last centuries may be a theory. I mean that in regards to being

exposed to

light and the elements. I am not a conservation scientist, though I

have been conversing

with many about this, but it appears that much of the conventional

silver

prints are on substrates which act like sponges. Those examples of

silver

prints in which the silver has not faded or reacted have essentially

been

kept out of the light and out of the air and in dark, dry contact with

stable cotton paper (and usually inadvertently so.)

 

I have been able to see, by looking at vintage silver and vintage

carbo-process prints, that the carbo-process appears to be a more fade

resistant medium. Yes - you read that correct. I have seen a many

faded

silver prints.

 

Also, it is widely

accepted at the George Eastman House that silver will outlast the

paper that

vintage photos are printed on. So much work is being done there to

save

works in their archives. Very little from 100 years ago and even 50

years

ago can be stabilized to the point where they can be handled or

displayed"

[lex_jenkins]

I've often thought that the claims of 500 years (that seems to be the popular lifespan) were a bit specious. Paper, as we know it, hasn't existed for that long so we have no valid basis for comparison.

 

In fact, the best basis for comparison isn't to be found in printed texts on centuries-old paper. It's watercolor. Yup. Watercolor as a medium is about the same age as photography. The earliest watercolorists didn't routinely use archival-this or all-rag-that because it hadn't yet been invented! The demand for a better quality substrate quickly followed the development of the medium, but the primary emphasis was on a paper that would accept the paint nicely, not one that might last for decades or even centuries.

 

So while I don't dispute the claims that fiber prints can look much nicer than RC prints (tho' I see little difference between Agfa 118 matte finish fiber paper and Agfa RC satin or Ilford MGIV RC satin finish papers, especially behind glass), I do have reason to doubt the spurious claims for Methuselan lifespans attributed to fiber prints. Some of my indifferently processed RC prints are 20+ years old and doing fine. Meanwhile I've seen fiber prints alleged to have the archival properties of Atlantis rotting away.

 

Oh, wait...did I say Atlantis? Isn't that also related to mythology?

 

Reminds me, my early inkjet prints seem to have a shorter life than Right Said Fred.

 

It's sad to see the condition of albumen and other early prints in the collection of the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth. I imagine that once, decades ago, they must have been quite impressive. Now they must be protected through short display periods, then rotated into storage.

 

It should be enough to claim that a particular type of print will provide enjoyment for our lifetime or that of the original buyer.

 

Unless we print on parchment and tuck our prints into urns in an arid desert for a millenium. In which case we can claim just about anything we like.

[david_f._stein]

Interesting discussion. Here's another "format." We have some Polaroids from the

50s, I believe, those first cameras where you peeled off the print and then rolled on a

coating. Some have faded-I expect poor or no coating but many look quite good. I'm

impressed. With respect to paper-I have a number of art photogravures that were

produced 1860 to 1900 and the paper is often remarkably good. I guess we need a

chart of intrinsic longevity vs. shortage conditions. THANKS ...

[john_kasaian1]

FWIW, I have a trunk full of old photographs that were stored under terrible conditions---a damp basement for about 40 years, and 40 years in an attic where temps in the summer exceed 130 degrees(oh yeah, it also leaked in the winter!) Most the the prints are matted using who knows what process and certainly ot "archival" materials, and since many deal with a school I'd assume they were taken and printed by the lowest bidding contractor(like an FA-18?)and I have to say, they look as good as new----really! By comparison, the newspapers in the trunk crumbled to the touch, and the negatives were fused together into a crispy mass of ??? Some of the photos were dated to the 1890's(from Beirut) with several being from the 1920's(California) and one what I guess to be palladium from the 1890's plus a very small 1/2"x1/2" metal portrait(tintype? daguerrotype?) What ever they used to do in those days has held up pretty well in my estimation. Why ? I have no idea. Maybe those old prints don't like to be babied! ;-)

[d._kevin_gibson]

"It's sad to see the condition of albumen and other early prints in the

collection of the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth. I imagine that once,

decades ago, they must have been quite impressive. Now they must be protected

through short display periods, then rotated into storage."

 

Funny you should mention that. From the same message:

 

"by the way I saw one of the few known perfect examples of a preserved

albumen print by Edward Muybridge of all people and it is nothing like what

I had associated with the medium - it looks more like a heavily selenium

toned silver print on bright white paper - curiously it was an enormous

western landscape rather than one of his motion studies - every albumen

print I have ever seen has had a creamy white to yellowish white albumen

paper surface with purple toning which appears more like staining - that is,

the purple appeared to be the stain rather than the more neutral parts of

these prints - the reality is the purple tone had a tendency to fade towards

neutral while the albumen coated paper turned creamy and yellow with

exposure to light"

[d._kevin_gibson]

"With respect to paper-I have a number of art photogravures that were produced 1860 to 1900 and the paper is often remarkably good. I guess we need a chart of intrinsic longevity vs. shortage conditions. THANKS ..."

 

The problem is, there are so many variables - and take fibre based gelatin silver paper- it's been made with hundreds of different substrates - some of which are much longer lasting and resistant to deterioration than others. Even many so called pure rag papers - aren't. Many papers will have brightners in them etc etc. Combine that with the variables of the coating process (if you aren't hand coating) and so on. Some substrates that were claimed "archival" etc have just simply turned out not to be, even though they are, say, "pure" cotton rag.

[michael_briggs2]

I've seen plenty of 19th century and early 20th century silver prints in excellent condition. The longevity depends a lot on the original processing and the storage conditions. Back then much less was known about archival processing, and of course, many commerical photographers would have been careless in their processing.

 

I think we can expect (but aren't guaranteed) a long lifetime for our silver prints if we process them carefully, not over using the fixer, giving agitation, using a hypo clearing agent and giving an adequate wash. With the increased level of pollution, proper storage may have become more important.

 

There aren't any guarantees because too much has changed. The Kodak book "Conservation of Photographs" has an entire page describing the changes over the years in the papers used.

[graeme_mitchell]

I've found it is really really easy to get wrapped up in archival madness. It can become a bit of an obsession. I'm guilty at times. But the chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. And I've found that it often just comes down to luck, where the print ends up, how it is treated, etc, etc. This is assuming you (or a museum) doesn't have absolute control over the entire life of the print.

 

Pesonally, I'm forced to print on RC paper (@ a public darkroom), but I do my best to present archivally and offer advice on hanging. When it really comes down to it at the end of the day, I figure my biggest worry should be creating an image that is worth archiving.

[michael_a._smith1]

Thanks for the posting, Kevin. Important and fascinating information.

 

I guarantee my prints for 1,000 years. Money back guarantee. But, yes,

there is a catch. The guarantee is not transferable.

[patric_dahl_n]

I have many 100 years old photographs of relatives, single weigth fiber paper mounted on cardboard. They are in very good condition and have no signs of detoriation. I have made reproduction negatives of them, and will scan them and burn them on CD's in high resolution.

 

I will make negatives of some of them on sheet film with polyester base, because polyester is more stable than acetate film.

[joe_lipka3]

This of course is based on the presumption that the photograph is worthy of such a long life. I am personally hope that many of my earlier efforts should fade to black. 8)

[jim_ryder5]

As interesting as this post may be to some of us, we should not jump to hasty conclusions about the archival nature of photographic materials from such experiences. It should neither surprise nor alarm us that some silver based images are deteriorating over time. Almost any collector understands that many silver materials from the twenties and thirties have serious preservation issues. On the other hand many images from earlier have survived very well. More recently as the understanding and practice of archival image techniques has spread images are again lasting a long time. There is nothing magical about silver, but there is something surprisingly long lasting about properly handled and processed silver based images. The scientific understanding of these issues goes way beyond that gleaned from the examination of images in a collection. Scientists, archivists, preservationists and photographers know about this stuff. An example of the depth of this knowledged is that the George Eastman House offers the L. Jeffrey Selznick School of Film Preservation: An International School in Archival Training. This is a serious program of study including a variety of courses and techniques. Please do not be mislead about the longevity of silver based printing. Silver prints, properly handled and stored will last a long time. If we value our work and our children's appreciation of our photograhic work we will do well to attempt to have our images last as we want them to. Correct archival techniques will allow us to do that.

[j.w.]

Not to start a flame war, but just out of curiosity, does the Eastman collection contain prints primarily processed in chemicals and paper of Kodak origin?

 

I know Kodak did a lot of pioneering work in archivabilty; I would be surprised if their collection has shown a degree of degradation more severe than that of non-professional archivists ... unless I over-estimate Kodak's contribution to the field.

 

Kind of gets back to a comment I posted earlier today to another question: is a photo fundimentally an abstract image file (read: negative or data file), or is a photo a physical, crafted object?