Archival Prints

[Bill Pierce]

We've had some threads on proper storage of digital files and negatives. The big catch is that no one cares about our digital files or our negatives except us. Other folks want to see prints.

Any thoughts on the proper preparation and storage of prints?

 

[sojournerphoto]

I print inkjet (HP Z3100 on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk), which is supposed to be archival to 200 years... nada nada nada

I keep my prints in an acid free box made by a bookbinder friend of mine. Or they lay around the room. For prints on the wall I either properly frame them using consrevation board and doing all the right acid free stuff, or print on cheap RC type papr and mount on self adhesive foamcore. The latter I don't expect to be 'archival' but I've had no visible fading yet.

Mike

 

[Bill Pierce]

For me, the best way to make long lasting silver prints was suggested by Ilford. This is my, and several other photographers, version of it.

Fixing in film strength rapid hypo - 30 sec. for RC, 1 min. for fibre.

Moving prints one at a time from the bottom of the pile to the top in a tray of fresh water. When all the prints have been cycled, emptying the water from the tray and filling it with fresh water. Repeating this 4 times

Treatment in a washing aid such as Perma Wash. Then the prints are treated as above except that they go through 10 trays of fresh water.

The prints are dried on screens, not blotters that can be contaminated or heated dryers whose canvas belts become contaminated.

Prints can be mildly selenium toned for further permanence. Out of the toning bath they are given the same wash cycle as prints coming out of the rapid hypo.

Finished prints are stored in acid and lignin free boxes.

 

[Bill Pierce]

For me this is the source for long lasting ink and paper combinations in ink jet printing.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Pigment is preferred over dye. But, remember, you may have to allow the prints a drying time and allow them to "de gas" before framing. Thus, a new use for the drying screens you used for silver prints.

Comments?

 

[Al Kaplan]

With conventional prints there's the problem of "silvering", where the black silver in the emulsion starts to turn metalic silver. I've only had this happen with prints that were dry mounted with Kodak or Seal dry mount tissue on what was most likely NOT acid free board, and the prints date back to the 1960's. The silvering is around the edges of the picture so I strongly suspect a reaction to acid in the mount board. Most of my printing was on Kodak Polycontrast rapid until DuPont Varilour came out in 1968 (?). I mostly used that until DuPont sadly decide to get out of the "sensitized products" business a few years later.

At this point I have no idea which prints were on Varilour and which on Polycontrast because all the prints weren't made at the time the negatives were shot. I used Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent and probably a bit more than the suggested wash times, then dried them on fiberglass screens. I still use the same screens, which get hosed off from time to time.

I remember reading someplace probably at least twenty years ago that just a tiny bit of residual hypo in the print will keep it from silvering. It seems that we can wash prints too well also!

Back in the early 1970's I was visiting my home town of New Bedford, MA and there was like a flea market at the annual Scallop Festival. An elderly photographer, A. F. Packard, and his daughter were there selling his collection of vintage double weight 11x14 prints of old square rigger whaling ships for $10 each. I guess that'd be like $50 now. I bought a couple of them, dated 1906 and 1918. He'd been the photographer for the New Bedford Standard Times back then. He told me that whenever a ship came into the harbor after a voyage of two or three years he went down to the docks and shot a photo for the paper. Now I wish I'd been able to buy all of them! They've been framed and hanging on my living room wall ever since, and are still in great condition.

As for RC prints, I started using it for contact sheets and prints for publication shortly after it was introduced. They were processed in the conventional manner, not run through a stabilization processor. They still look like new.

I suspect that when the resin coated papers first came out Kodak, Ilford, and the others were just covering their a$$e$ when they said the prints weren't long term stable. At the time there was no way to know. It was a brand new product while fiber based paper was century old technology.

 

[Harry Lime]

Silverprints for me and now I'm taking another look at the b/w piezography K7 setup. Apparently you can now print the selenium version on glossy paper ( if you're willing to jump through a few extra hoops). Their ink is pure carbon, not dye based. In theory the paper should turn to dust, before the ink goes... The claimed dmax is as good or better than a traditional silverprint on glossy paper.

www.inkjetmall.com

 

[Dogman]

My silver gel prints were always processed pretty much as Bill described except I sometimes fixed and washed longer. The early Kodak RC paper looked pretty crappy and "plasticky" and a lot of my pictures from the early 1970s have now taken on that semi-solarized look. Later RC paper from Kodak, Agfa and Ilford looked really good and the prints are still looking great. I have a lot of Kodak prints done with Royal Print processer from the 1980s that still look fresh. Some were later toned selenium or sepia and showed no signs of staining. Ilford RC papers have really held up well--even to toning in hot Nelson Gold toner or faux-toning in hot tea.

Dark storage of inkjet prints seems a good way to keep them looking good. Even some of the dye-based prints have impressive lifespans.

I agree that no one gives a rat's rear end about our negatives or digital files. Collectors never cared about Weston's, Adams's or Evans's negatives--they wanted their prints, preferably vintage prints. Regular photography civilians like e-mailing and casually looking at digital images but most of them still like a print to put on the desk or wall or to pass around instead of making the family/friends sit around the monitor or TV screen like a re-enactment of the dreaded vacation slide shows of yore.

 

[mh2000]

this is not always the case, HP papers and dye beats most pigment and paper combintations.

For me this is the source for long lasting ink and paper combinations in ink jet printing.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Pigment is preferred over dye. But, remember, you may have to allow the prints a drying time and allow them to "de gas" before framing. Thus, a new use for the drying screens you used for silver prints.

Comments?

 

[Bill Pierce]

this is not always the case, HP papers and dye beats most pigment and paper combintations.

The more recent HP printers use their Vivera pigment inks. And, true, these HP printers on a number of papers, are the long life leaders.

 

[Bob Michaels]

For me this is the source for long lasting ink and paper combinations in ink jet printing.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
Comments?

I have no questions about Henry Wilhem's integrity and professional qualifications. However, I would encourage everyone to read deeply about what he is actually testing (i.e. source of funding) before reaching immediate conclusions. He seems to only test the fading of inks (i.e. paid by Epson or HP, the ink manufactures) using accelerated fading models without regard to testing the underlying substrate, the paper.

It is possible to conclude that X ink will last 200 years without fading on paper base Y (closely read his definition of what defines "fading") without mentioning that the tested paper base Y may not last for more than 80 years.

Henry Wilhelm has good data when it is correctly interpreted. Just do not assume "ink X on paper Y lasts for Z years" from skimming some advertisement.

Having said the above, I print using pigment inks on acid free paper with the confidence my prints will last longer than anyone's interest in them.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Having said the above, I print using pigment inks on acid free paper with the confidence my prints will last longer than anyone's interest in them.

I share this confidence🙂

Mike

 

[KEH]

As others have said, pigment ink on archival paper (as measure by Wilhelm, if possible) is the starting point. For mounting / storage, the best place I have found is:

http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/index.action

Regards,
Kirk

 

[dseelig]

archival

archival

I bought the hp z 3100 for two reasons for my ink jet printing # 1 longest archival life of any ink jet printer. Two it does not waste ink like an epson does.

 

[35mmdelux]

I just keep my negs in the white envelopes provided by Walmart or in the plastic containers provided by Dwaynes.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Before you draw some quick conclusions about "print life" from a "XX Wilhelm years" snippet in a printer ad, go to his website and read some of the technical papers he has written. He is very good about including everything although some are long and very complex.

Read and understand what he is testing and how he is testing it. Understand how he reaches his conclusions. Then think about all the factors that could impact print life besides the one element he tests through extrapolation of several months into centuries.

I am not questioning his integrity nor his scientific methodology. You just need to understand what he is doing (and what he is not doing) before you reach your own conclusions.

The reason printer companies pay Henry Wilhelm to do these tests is so they can quote them for marketing purposes. Printer companies had a problem about ten years ago when people realized their prints were fading or unacceptably color shifting, sometimes in months. Printer companies needed to not only improve the life but they needed to convince the general public that they could count on having no problems for a long long time. That is where the Wilhelm test became part of the printer manufacturers marketing strategy. He is honest but as biased as a paid legal expert in a trial.

Summary: understand what he is doing / not doing and who is paying for it so they can quote him.

 

[gns]

Good advice from Bob Michaels.

Even though the ink may not fade for many decades, there can be other issues. I had a photo sitting in my desk drawer at work for just a few weeks (on Hannemuhle Photo Rag) when I noticed the whole thing had turned very yellow. Not the inks, but the paper itself. Don't know what it reacted with, but it was a little disturbing.

Another thing you don't hear people mention in these discussions very often, is how susceptible ink jet prints are to physical damage. The ink can easily be scuffed or chipped off. Some papers are better than others, but I don't think any are nearly as durable as traditional photos.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Al Kaplan]

Bob mentions legal trials, and I get to listen to a lot of attorneys arguing for and against zoning variances since I sit on the city board that grants or denies them. I'm always amazed at how two attorneys can take the same set of facts but argue opposite interpertations of them. And how do they decide which way to argue? It all depends on which side is paying them...so is it the paper or the ink?

I also have a number of roughly one hundred year old gelatin silver prints that are in great condition and a lot of my own gelatin silver prints that are rapidly approaching the Big Five Oh!.

 

[amateriat]

For me this is the source for long lasting ink and paper combinations in ink jet printing.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Pigment is preferred over dye. But, remember, you may have to allow the prints a drying time and allow them to "de gas" before framing. Thus, a new use for the drying screens you used for silver prints.

Comments?

this is not always the case, HP papers and dye beats most pigment and paper combintations.

Like mh2000, I've been using HP's Photosmart Pro 8750 for the last three-plus years. Wilhelm has put it through his tests, and, for dye-based ink prints, the results have been impressive in terms of longevity.

But the thing that I (and mh2000) have been going on about is how the prints look, especially with glossy and semi-gloss/satin papers. Not artifact-heavy like too many pigment-based prints, unless you're talking really high-end printers, often still utilizing a third-party RIP. Naturally, there are exceptions. But I've found what works for me, just as effectively in black-and-white as with color.


- Barrett

 

[Al Kaplan]

Bill, the biggest shame of the family snapshot collections is the couple of generations worth of COLOR prints in most family's "archives". When I did the salvage job of the boxes in my grandmother's attic there were plenty of pictures going back to the 1890's and possibly even the 1880's. They're still in remarkably good condition, and my son has them now. Most of the color snapshots of my kids from the 1970's are faded to some degree or another, as are their school pictures. Fortunately I shot lots of B&W.

There are a few color shots of my parents's honeymoon and me as an infant. They're quite contrasty and marked "Kodachrome Print" on the back. The emulsion seems to be on a white opaque "film". I suppose that it was actually a Kodachrome process, using Kodachrome dyes, but on the white base. They were printed from Kodachrome slides that my dad had shot with his Retina. I still have some boxes of his slides too.