Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,503   Posts: 1,543,434   Online: 835
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,627
    Images
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Hawley
    The question remains though, how long will they last? I would love to print my polaroid manipulations on watercolor paper but I'm afraid they will fade in a few minths or a couple years.
    I'm not sure what their life really is, I've seen some fade after a couple months done with standard Epson inks all black then left on a wall than gets afternoon sun. This freind is using newer inks now and not having the same problem. My stuff I lose track of after they install it but the few I've seen hold up fine. (After the check cashes I don't worry any longer) I've heard that it is not so much the ink thats the problem as the papers.
    I view these prints as throw away art. Designed to fill a market with out regard for the future or resale value. It is pretty anti- climactic to have someone scan a neg then install the image on my computer then push a button.
    My sarcastic 2 cents.
    Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!

  2. #12
    DavidS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Digital Negs
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Hawley
    The question remains though, how long will they last? I would love to print my polaroid manipulations on watercolor paper but I'm afraid they will fade in a few minths or a couple years.
    According to one of the photographers I recently interviewed for the second issue, digiprintstore.com claims at least 50 year archival.

  3. #13
    Rlibersky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    St Paul MN
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    777
    Images
    12
    Kodak claimed that color prints will last a lifetime in the 60s. They were wrong. I know quite a few couples who are upset they didn't get a BW print when they got married.

    I tend to be automatically suspicious of claims by some one who has a stick in the fire.

    Hopefully I'm around to be shown which way it turns out.

  4. #14
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomassauerwein
    I've seen some fade after a couple months done with standard Epson inks all black then left on a wall than gets afternoon sun. This freind is using newer inks now and not having the same problem.
    There really isn't any such thing as "standard" Epson inks. They use dye inks in their consumer printers, and pigment inks in their professional line (and, oddly enough, some of their business printers). The dye inks, like all other dye inks, will fade anywhere from 2 months to 15 years, depending on brand and techniques (sprays, paper selection, framed/unframed, etc). And yes, I realize that even the 15 year one is still a to-be-verified claim - my point is that even ink manufacturers realize that dye inks will fade.

    Pigment inks are _rated_ at closer to 100 years on archival papers. In no way am I suggesting that such a figure has been confirmed beyond "industry-standard" fade tests.

    I view these prints as throw away art. Designed to fill a market with out regard for the future or resale value. It is pretty anti- climactic to have someone scan a neg then install the image on my computer then push a button.
    Well, it's usually a lot more complicated than just pushing a button. Or, rather, there is a pretty big processing step between scanning and printing, at least for anyone doing anything considered "professional," and especially in black and white.

    My sarcastic 2 cents.
    And, of course, I fully realize that this is apug, and it likely seems that I am making at least quasi-defensive comments about digital. My goal is to clarify, not defend. People generally already have strong opinions on digital.

    allan

  5. #15
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by kaiyen
    Well, it's usually a lot more complicated than just pushing a button. Or, rather, there is a pretty big processing step between scanning and printing, at least for anyone doing anything considered "professional," and especially in black and white.

    This is very true. Especially on scans. It is here that I question the advantages of the digital workflow on one-offs. Spotting, color correction followed by test prints (for colour critical output -- which I would argue is anything professional) is not any more efficient and often less efficient then analog.

    I don't believe people who say their system is 100% calibrated and correct 1st time everytime. I do believe that what passes for colour balanced would be considered crap by many or at least by me -- sorry if that is immodest.

    *

  6. #16
    ann
    ann is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,878
    Images
    26
    Alex;

    I had some sx-70 manipulations scanned and printed on water color paper. THey used the commerical pigment inks, and so far so good. However, with that said, i have not placed any in direct sunlight to force a fading test.

    They do look great, which was a surprise.

  7. #17
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Water colour paper and canvas is the great equalizer for dyes and pigmented inks. The surface tends to mute the colours regardless of the ink and the surfaces look best with a less saturated image.

    Pigments on d' Arches cold press (or similar) and treated canvas is were inkjets shine IMHO.

    *

  8. #18
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Shively
    I'm talking about the new issue of Lenswork and the porfolio of Vladimir Kabelik. Lenswork has the best reproduction of any magazine I've seen and the look of this guy's photos impresses me a lot. I love that gritty, grainy look. And to think he printed using "carbon piezography", described as scanned film negatives printed with carbon pigment inks.
    Lee, I just read that portfolio and it says that he is currently working with carbon piezography, but that this portfolio was from back in the 70's. You would have to email Vladimir (he has a website) to find out the truth, but I thought that he NOW works in carbon piezography, but that this portfolio was actually printed in the darkroom. I'm guessing the gritty, grainy look comes from the film he used.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  9. #19
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    fighting....urge....to...reply.....grrrrrrrrr

    :-)

    anyway. to each his own. it is easier than wet printing for _ME_, for both color and black and white. and it works for _ME_. and, in the end, I get what I consider to be the physical result of my (somewhat) creative efforts. that's what matters, right?

    allan

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,627
    Images
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by kaiyen
    fighting....urge....to...reply.....grrrrrrrrr

    :-)

    anyway. to each his own. it is easier than wet printing for _ME_, for both color and black and white. and it works for _ME_. and, in the end, I get what I consider to be the physical result of my (somewhat) creative efforts. that's what matters, right?

    allan
    Having never seen in person your work it is hard to judge. We just went to a show where all the photography exibited was on either canvas or watercolor paper. As nice as some of the images were they fall short. value gradations are grey and pixelated. Despite my best efforts my own stuff using piezo is the same. I have a hard time understanding in some of the cases where the images are very strong why they don't go the extra yard. It's the difference between fake and "Oh Baby".
    Also at APIS we saw images printed alternative process (plat/pall) using digital negs. Something I'd really like to do if I can do a better job than with negs. Some of the people there are the best around at what they do with these negs and still these images looked digital. They are beautiful in their own right but pixelated non the less. Maybe it's apples and plastic oranges or pure arrogance on my part but I don't think digtizing images has found its own voice yet. Someday maybe.
    Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin