it make sense if a photographer's work is worth saving it'll be saved for generation to generation in some fashion or another. For people like myself, I'm happy that my prints survived the moment I turned on the lights after washing.
"The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin
The pigment based inkjet prints should last very well, based on the accelerated aging tests. I've also had some on display for over 10 years in sunny areas with no noticeable fading. So it lasts well enough for my purposes. Same with Fuji's Crystal Archive papers. None of my Kodak Endura paper has shown fading either, but those aren't on display. The upshot of it for me is I don't feel it's worth the effort to worry about it anymore no matter which of the newest materials I use.
Well yeah, prints digitally made by laser exposure on chromogenic papers have exactly the same characteristics as those optically printed on
these same papers. So it's a wash. Inkjet is a much more complicated subject because the inks themselves are complex blends of dyes and
pigment (and not true pigment prints whatsoever), and there are lots of variable regarding choice of papers which are not particularly well
tested. So time will tell. The industry must be given credit for making permanence a priority and doing tests which might indicate RELATIVE
superiority of one type of colorant over another. But the mere fact these have to pass thru tiny nozzles inherently limits the choices involved.
But ten years isn't very long to judge something. Better than nothing, however.
To be considered, artistically & financially, as a FINE ART print!
Originally Posted by Peltigera
Originally Posted by chip j
And now for the next bogey...
What constitutes a fine art print ?
I receive a lot of enquiries and discussion about the relatives merits of high-end art inkjet printing and the many different media offered vs traditional wet-darkroom prints. There are a few landscape photographers here in Australia doing well selling inkjet prints from LF work up to about AUD$750 (unframed).
There is still some way to go before inkjet printed media reaches the longevity of say, Ilfochrome Classic, despite the two being vastly different media types. Chromera ink lead the way more than a decade ago and is still the standard. Untreated finished prints will degrade over time. Accelerated tests in-lab are not a reliable indicator of real world storage, handling and viewing.
Stable inkjet dyes used on a variety of grades of art media are recognised as having very long archival life when they are afforded the conservation preservation e.g. framing that many artists/photographers recognise is necessary for this media. Leaving prints lying around to gather dust and airborne pollutants which exist everywhere isn't going to do you or the print any favours. Most of my work is RA-4, but I do regularly have images printed to cotton rag media and these are, as always, conservation framed. RA-4 metallic prints are afforded the same treatment but only for the consistency throughout my work on display, rather than necessity. At this time I see no reason for people to shirk away from inkjet; it is economical for sampling of your work before going to a more expensive media.
“The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see." ~Edward Weston, 1922.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Why, when a water-colour painting is not particularly light resistant. No one says Turner's water-colours are not fine art and no one displays them in bright light, either.
Originally Posted by chip j
For digital prints, save the file and print another one.
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
The problem with digital is that the electronic files are not permanent. A video expert who converts files to DVD's for the movie studios once told me that he handles only about 12 formats of encoding; anything else cannot be turned into an image. This is a serious problem because the electronic charges which make up the file are subject to decay and are vulnerable to magnetic fields and other environmental harms. Like film, if they are not archived soon after exposure there is a real risk that the images will be lost.
Finding the equipment to display some digital images might become impossible, like trying to play a video game from 1982. So far as I know there is no place on earth that can handle every digital format ever made and produce the corresponding image. Most likely, millions of images have already been lost.
This points out the need for paper prints. I like the ink jet stuff, but it reminds me of pictures printed in magazines. It's hard to feel the touch of the photographer's hand. Frankly, if they can find a stable yellow I vote for dye transfer.
Lets not spread ignorance - any digital image format can be reverse engineered and convert to a modern format if needed. The storage medium may be inaccessible, but the format is not the problem per se, if the image is important enough.
That is very misleading from a so called video expert.
Originally Posted by falotico
Digital media includes optical storage on CD format. No magnetism to lose.
A digital image can be stored in multiple areas on multiple media type, there is no decay to binary code.An image today can be reproduced on demand at any time with no loss of original quality within the next 1000 years.
A print made from analog or digital mediums will decay over time no matter what.
APUG: F, F/FTN,F2,F2A,F2AS,F3,F3HP,FA,FE,FM,FM2,FE2,XK,XM,XD, XD-5,XD-7,XD-11,XE,XE-5,XE-7,SRT101,SRT102,XG9,XG7,XG1,XG-SE,XG-M,X700,OM-1,OM-1n,OM-2,OM-2n,OM-4,F-1,F-1N,AE-1P,R5,500C/M,SCII