I have seen the actual test data. And, the white paper gives the figures that I gave.
But, anyone can make a print fade quickly under the right condition. You could probably increase the stability even more by using a stabilizer, but then you have more to contend with in terms of other problems. We always found that stabilizers improved print stability.
I have to disagree with Wilhelm's data on digital prints. Again, see the white paper.
Relatively speaking, Fuji paper behaves better under bright lights and Kodak paper behaves better under dim lights. Dim lights are found in most homes and museums. Again, see the white paper.
Its not worth the time to argue this , you suggest that I look at the white paper, I suggest Ron to look at the cyan faded prints that are in the hallways of every high school in North America. It seems the Principles from 1970 onward are a very light cyan complexion group of individuals. I trust my eyes over data and I am not smart enough to debate the complex data issues with you. Therefore you can go on record that colour C prints will last for 200 years under right conditions. **whatever they may be**
To the OP my 2 cents on this subject are here and I need to move on as I have no need to convince anyone of this little quirk that I have noticed over the years in regards to colour C- prints and Colour negatives fading within short periods of time.
Maybe I am making this up and telling my clients the wrong information, but btw my business partner agrees with being conservative when selling the archival aspects of colour prints.
I will go on record that they will last at least 5 years on display without noticeable fading, under right conditions ** whatever they may be** but after that time line all bets are off.
You are right and wrong at the same time, and it IS worth convincing you!
You are right, there was a problem over 35 years ago. You are wrong about today's papers. The problem has been fixed. In fact, I have prints from 35 years ago with that same paper that are just fine because I knew how to handle it in the darkroom. I have 16x20 prints on the wall here that are just fine and they were printed in about 1980 or earlier.
The old paperers were process sensitive and not as stable as the papers now made. So the prints and data you are looking at are years out of date. And digital prints of today are as bad or worse than old analog color prints from 35 years ago.
Please hear what I am saying.
I don't want to argue with you as you know I respect your background, I print digitally on a lambda RA4 on a daily basis, in fact while we are bantering back and forth I have exposed a third of a roll of Fuji luster RA4, so I am well versed in colour C prints.
What you are saying will please Ed Burtynsky , Gursky and others creating wonderful works on C print....
I just happen to be jaded and do not have 200 years to be proven wrong, I will still move forward with pigment colour prints ( carbon or gum) , at least I will feel my 35 plus years of printing colour and acquiring all this equipment will be worth it. Luckily I have figured how to make separation negatives on my lambda and have been working the last few years on how to make a permanent pigment print that I can be proud of leaving behind.
regarding any white papers, in the words of the Great Canadian Country Singer Shania Twain ( they don't impress me much )
Archival qualities of RA-4 process
Is there a post printing coating that you can apply to the paper to make it more archival? Thanks.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I would put my money on C-prints. I don't want to get in between Bob and Ron, but with all I have seen in last decade running my own informal tests and given the track record of C-prints vs. the almost complete lack of history on inkjet prints I am far more comfortable with C-prints. Of course they need to be processed appropriately. Too much of the time the cheap way out is taken. The photos that you refer to Bob are typically printed in the cheapest way possible.
Personally I have an inherent trust in what Ron says. I haven't seen any of my various C-prints from various sources degrade in the last two decades including the ones I made when I didn't even know what I was doing. I have seen many, many inkjet prints, pigment or not, look like a mess in just a few years. I don't trust them. The process is still in it's infancy.
Thanks for your trust. I will try to continue to justify and deserve it.
All of the difficult to cover information is clearly outlined in that white paper. There is strong disagreement in the trade and with the ANSI committee over test methods and etc, between Kodak, Fuji and the Wilhelm Institute.
I have reviewed some old notes of mine from the early days of Ektacolor 70 paper showing it to be 2x better than the previous product for overall stability and also my notes show that 3 stabilizers were offered to the trade but about 60% of the process labs rejected the use of a stabilizer. The stabilizer gradually fell into disfavor. This blindsided everyone in the time between about 1970 and 1980 until the problem could be solved as noted in the white paper. There was a rapid fade and pink stain related reaction due to developer carryover that caused excess dye fade. It was missed in the accelerated tests and was only fixed when a stop bath was added to the process.
Today, all of those goodies are built into the papers (Endura and CA both). A Type II stabilizer, used today, would probably double dye stability, but not having the test IDK.
A thought struck me thinking about this thread.
Bob Carnie uses pigments, but there are "pigments" and "pigments". For example, Cadmium Yellow is a permanent Pigment that is extremely stable, on the order of centuries, but then there are yellow Azo dyes that are considered pigments that have stability similar to Ilfochrome print dyes. Then there are lesser "pigments" that are used in some digital printing. IDK what is used where, but without some sort of tests, this is up in the air to me just as much as Bob says analog prints are regarding image stability.
So, there are imponderables all around in this arena.
Not really sure what you mean by the cheapest way I process prints.
The Gurskys, Burtynsky's are processed exactly the same way I process my prints . Ron will concur or maybe not that the more a process is used the better and easier it is to control the plots, therefore all the portrait labs in the world that made all the prints would be guilty of improper care. If you can point me to the correct way of making current RA4 prints I am all ears.
I feel this discussion is going sideways as FWIW , I have since 1976 been printing C prints, which includes time spent at some of the best labs Toronto can offer, I have seen every version of the product Ron has produced, and have spent more time purchasing, plotting and printing collectively on Kodak, Fuji and Ilford products than anyone I currently know.
The mere fact that is what I am printing right today , yesterday and tommorow the materials in question puts me in a unique position. 100% of the last 35 years of income has been derived by this fact.
This does not make me any better than anyone here, but believe me I have a very unique way of looking at this. I trust Ron, I trust what he believes to be true , but I also trust my background , past present and future, and the future does include C prints, but after this discussion I will still not give any archival stamp to this material, others may.
So it begs the question,,, why am I so negative on the archival aspect of C prints,,, I have the most to lose if you want to look at it honestly and clearly, the best line that should be coming out of my mouth is the old Kodak slogan,,*** buy good Kodak film and print for those lasting memory's*** sorry I must be to jaded and brutally honest. I have been around my clients long enough to know better , and am as transparent with them as possible .
BTW I not discussing inkjets here , which also is a complete different set of differences of opinion.
Ron and I disagree,,,, we have done so in the past over my use of the name solarizations for my prints,,,,, thats ok with me and I have no hard feelings about his position about either differing position on both issues.
How about this one as a point of difference... The very best way to make a colour interneg from slide is to do a contact interneg rather than a enlarged 4x5, also the best way I know to balance it out is with the density difference method, than the eye ball the dye not silver step wedge for neutrality.
There are many camps on this and in the day people would swear up and down one was better than the other. Basically a difference of opinion , except one is right.
This discussion is a whole book of differing opinions, actually I think Ctein wrote one about this, I should re-read it.
Originally Posted by M. Lointain
Ron , when I printed cibachromes, I was convinced that the Azo Dyes in Cibachrome was much more permanent than RA4, so much so that we used it to convince clients to print with us.
I did a silly test when I purchased my Lambda, I took a file and made a Cibachrome and a FujiFlex and face mounted each to plexi and put them on the outside of my lab wall, North facing open shade, never any direct light.. The results, both prints faded completely within two years, with neither exhibiting a better ability to not fade.
I lost all my hope at that moment in what I was selling to my clients, Cibas IMO were no more stable in light than RA4.
I am on a tri colour gum and carbon quest right now, funny enough , Sandy K and I were wanting you to help us in a few areas of sensitizing the tissues, We feel that this type of colour print does go a long way to answer my hope to be able to leave behind quality images for future generations to view. I have about 30 years left to print and all the equipment and some young minds with me to make this happen, all it is now about is sorting out the methodology of placing these colour pigments on paper.
One bright hope is that Charles Berger is on this site and I am in Contact with John Bentley who I grew up with and hope to be able to sort this out within two years.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer