Gary, please don't be so personally offensive when you don't like presented data.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
I don't sniff glue, take illicit drugs or even use the legal drug (alcohol). Never have. The data aren't mine; they come from a respected authority on the subject. Do note that they refer to light fading, not dark storage; Ilfochrome was indeed quite good in the dark. All illumination conditions are specified -- please consider them when evaluating the data.
This entire subject is academic for me, since I've always vastly preferred black and white to color and, even when looking at color prints, found the high gloss / very saturated colors of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome displeasing. If you like it, enjoy, but don't disparage objective data.
You would do well to research the meaning of the phrase I used rather than lambast individuals for being "offensive".
Any suggestions on where one might find the "meaning of the phrase"? Google, whether using quotes around it or not, adding Australia or not, leads to nothing but matches discussing removal of glue from objects.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
Gary, this little diversion does nothing to distract from your offensively referring to what I posted as BS. Whether your intent was to impugn me, the independent expert Henry Wilhelm or both, it seems your approach seeks to diminish objective data's validity. Whether your (and the other Cibachrome/Ilfochrome print makers/sellers') motivation is instilling potentially unwarranted confidence in buyers cannot be determined with absolute certainly. It sure does appear that way.
So, other than hurling epithets and mentioning you heard a lab with vested interest in the results reported to galleries selling prints and paying it indicated that "framed Cibachrome/Ilfochrome has a 500+ year display life," what can you say about the objective data from an independent expert I linked to? Can you point out flaws in Wilhelm's methodology? Can you describe the methodology used by now-defunct ChromaColor and explain why it's superior?
What on earth does "mean art-worth" signify? I'm no more familiar with Ken Duncan's photography than the phrase "get off the glue." However, Peter Lik's print marketing success has crossed my radar screen. Terming anything, photograph or other medium, "art" has always been a completely subjective use of language; in Lik's case I can't imagine applying the word under any circumstances. However, in the finest spirit of Barnum, he seems quite adept at parting fools from their money.
I have never, don't now and do not ever expect to sell photographs. This is simply a hobby for me, so no hidden agenda motivates my posts. I simply try to ensure that technically correct information is found in APUG's archive when readers search it in the future.
Well Simon, as much as I appreciate all you've done for us, Cibachrome is far from being the most stable color process there was. It keeps very
well in the dark, but otherwise, the degree of UV exposure becomes the primary factor. And I've printed and displayed a darn lot of Cibas.
True pigment prints (not inkjets, which are complicated blends of pigments and dyes and what-if papers) could potentially hold the record,
but also come with a whole other set of what-if variables, and are not a mass-reproducible process. I give credit to Wilhelm for really pushing
the topic of archival properties forward, but there are all kinds of presumptions and flaws inherent to his methodology, which others have
attempted to refine. But the bottom line is, there is simply no substitute for time and seeing how actual prints perform under real-world circumstances. Torturing prints in accelerated aging environments and then attempting to extrapolate the results can be misleading. Wilhelm
did some of both, of course, that is, he evaluated existing older print media as well as tried to develop testing methods for new ones. I've
seen comparable things done with industrial pigments over the years, with equally mixed results. But I don't know how Peter Lik could get
involved in this subject. The faster his fluorescent Fauxtoshop vomit fades, the better.
As you correctly state.....no substitute for time !
Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
But it will be a sad day when my last box of Ciba is gone. It will remain frozen for awhile. I'm too busy right now luxuriating in the lovely qualities
of the new MG Cooltone.
And how long do you expect it to last frozen? I haven't had good luck beyond several years.
Nice work. You have a very talented computer.
Don't know. But it was quite fresh when I froze it, and not off some dealer shelf. There are a number of folks who have invested heavily in the
last runs of Ciba and are taking a far bigger gamble than I did. It was simply an ordinary extra box in the freezer. ... my old custom for up to
20x24, at least. Then I figured I better start concentrating on RA4 because I was very skeptical that Ciba would be around much longer....
Next thing, no more Ciba. I wasn't about to buy an even bigger freezer for a lost cause. My gamble was on steady incremental improvements
in color neg film, the survival of Kodak in this respect, and even on incremental improvements in Fuji print materials as a possible replacement
to Ciba. I was correct on all counts, and in the meantime went thru the roughest stages of the learning curve. Doing commercial quality RA4
prints is quite easy, but getting up to the level of my Ciba work was the challenge. The hardest thing about color negs is that you can't just
slap em on a lightbox and see what you've got - you can scan and review em that way, but really, to understand how the nuances are going
to print, and what is necessary to fine-tune the image, ya just gotta print em! ... still, it's a way faster and cheaper process than Ciba ever