So you think your inkjet prints will last?...

I would guess that the vast majority of prints, and negatives are lost over time as it is, it’s very much a minority interest actually caring about longevity, my daughter seldom bothers copying them from the card to her PC, she prints or posts online and wipes the card. At 15 she views it as a temporary medium at that age it’s the future that’s a foreign country, by the time nostalgia kicks in it will be too late, but as Bill said that may not be a bad thing
 
bmattock said:
EDIT


Good thing all the banks keep your money in form of actual paper. Oh, wait, they don't. Digital records. Well, too bad then, I guess.
Click to expand...


I’ll have to pop down to Northern Rock and ask about that one
:angel:
 
I think the greatest archival medium is getting your kids to like you so they won't throw all your crap away while singing Zippidy Do Da.
 
A flood or house fire will wipe out a computer too. Negs don't evapourate during a power surge. But it's okay Bill, we can disagree on the archival issue of negs vs digital files. You know what they say about opinions! :)
 
H-m-m, I have family photos dating back to the American Civil War ...

CivWar.jpg

and a couple of large boxes of photos from the 1870's through to the present.

Spud.jpg
 
Last edited:
I split the difference.

Shoot on film. then Scan and print digitally.

I try to use pigment inks and acid free cotton rag based papers wherever feasible.

Can I claim they are archival? No. But that was true of C-type color prints too. And I have more control over these.

Ever since I stopped doing Platinum Palladium prints, I've stopped giving my 100 year money back guarantee. ;)
 
FrankS said:
A flood or house fire will wipe out a computer too. Negs don't evapourate during a power surge. But it's okay Bill, we can disagree on the archival issue of negs vs digital files. You know what they say about opinions! :)
Click to expand...

Again, the first question that must be answered is what type of longevity is desired. If a person cannot answer that, then the entire argument is moot.

My usual wry response is that most photographs not only should not survive the original photographer, but should be destroyed on first sight. But let's dispense with the usual pleasantries for now.

If a person expects their photographic output to survive during their lifetime at a minimum, then they must make plans for that to happen.

If they fail to take the necessary steps to safeguard their work, either film or digital, then survival of those images becomes a matter of chance. They may survive, they may not. In either the case of film or digital, if they do not survive, that can be directly blamed on the individual who failed to take action to protect them, not the nature of the media itself.
 
wray said:
H-m-m, I have family photos dating back to the American Civil War ...

and a couple of large boxes of photos from the 1870's through to the present.
Click to expand...

That's very nice. Do you know the difference between anecdotal evidence and proof?

Tell me, how many of the images that did not survive do you have? How many? Exactly how many?

Right. You cannot show me the images that did not survive, because you do not have them. I'd guess that the number of photographs that were taken of your family in the past that you do not possess outnumbers the number you have, by a large margin. I have no proof of that - neither do you have proof of the opposite.

And if your house flooded or was destroyed in some manner (I hope not) - well, then you don't have the ones you keep in the basement, either.

If all those images are so durable, how come we're not awash in them? Where are they? Millions - hundreds of millions - have been taken. Where are they?

You have an ax to grind. Enjoy it, but please let's not pretend it constitutes proof of anything.
 
I have to disagree...sort of.

I agree that the photographer must take all the necessary steps to safeguard the work, in order to make the work last.

I print in the darkroom, double fix and selenium tone my prints. This is a proven method of archival printing and longevity.

Now on the other hand, we have Canon, Epson and HP, and whomever else, telling us that their inks and papers will last for X number of years. How do we know they will? Because a large corporation tells us or because some independent company comes up with a system of testing that says the prints will last so long?

I am not convinced.

About a year ago or so, Canon ran an ad that said their prints (their paper, printer, ink) would last a lifetime. After the word lifetime, came an asterisk. In the smallest print I've ever seen, it said based on keeping the print, in a dark, temperature and humidity controlled environment, it would last for 60 years ( I think that is what it said).

Where do you keep your prints? Is your home or office always temperature and humidity controlled?

The only answer to this is time. Plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Not to forget the fact that the companies' goal is to sell ink and not the printer....there's a reason why the refill of some models ist costlier than the printer.

Thanks for posting wray I could barely resist to post my family portrait some of them have this unhealthy yellowish brown fog that shows that they were not properly treated by the photographer after they were made....
 
One theorizes that inkjet prints, whatever their lifespan, are prints of digital files (whether originally captured digitally or scanned from film). One could print them again, I presume. Unlike an optical photographic print, where each print is essentially unique, a one-off.
 
I have the very first darkroom print I ever made. It was 1983 and I was a freshman in high school taking a photo 1 class.

Sure, it's a crappy picture but it's looked the same all these years.

What is the oldest inkjet you have that still looks like it did when it was printed?

Be honest.
 
Last edited:
I have no inkjet prints at all. I have never printed one. I am color-blind and cannot calibrate printer or monitor. I work in B&W and upload to Mpx, who prints for me. The oldest prints I have made are photographic, made in my darkroom in 1979. They were stored in a manila envelope and are stuck together. I failed to take proper precautions.
 
david b said:
What is the oldest inkjet you have that still looks like it did when it was printed?
Click to expand...

Not quite an apples to apples comparison. Very early commercial photographic papers were crap. It took years of experimentation and refinement before they were reliable and stable. How long have truly photo quality inkjet's been around? I remember making IRIS prints in the early 90's on watercolor paper, that actually don't look too bad these days. At least as good as C prints I made in the early 90's. (Roughly equal amounts of fading).

It's still a new medium. And one where the technology is changing too quickly to make any judgement calls about where it will end up long term.

Just my $.02
 
Again, time is the only answer.

But I am quite sure that my silver prints, will look the same in 50 years as they do today.
 
You, sir, are wrong. I have far more family photos in my possession than were ever lost. Perhaps I am the exception rather than the rule. And I have neither an axe to grind nor an agenda. I was simply stating a fact as far as it applied to me. Oh, and politeness is always appreciated. Ray
 
My 35 yr old wedding pic`s are all faded right in the album.
On the other hand I have some el cheapo inkjet prints from my first digicam that I did 8 yrs ago and they still look good as new.
It`s all how you take care of them I suppose but something just had to be wrong with my wedding film prints.
John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom