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

...most important discussion of the new century! this world has never been changing more rapidly than it does now. speaking about photography and its outcomes always means speaking about memory, as was said above already. as there are different modes of memory ( family/ national/ pivate/ public/ general...) the contents of each will of course be different. it was never important to the world that grandpa xy kept the photographs of his greatgrandpa yz unless he was the president of country ab and with good will prevented the people of country cd from starving... if not then well his grandson today knows where his roots lie. rootless people, without memory concerning themselves or anybody else and what they did or thought or wished or hoped or felt are dangerous people - so indeed it was good these photographs are alive and have done their ( even if limited) part. so again speaking about memory does not mean to speak about each and every photograph on earth, but it means speaking obout exactly this and that one that could tell us a small part of truth of hope of smartness of failure of joy or beauty or whatsoever
so lets do our thousands of pictures having fun while doing so and let´s not fool ourselves believing all of them will survive... only time will decide ( see above posts). but if time decides to pick one let´s hope it´s a well fixed one...
____________________
GS
 
Last edited:
One of the interesting things about this archival hubub, is that if you read the Wilheim (sp?) reports, they make it clear that you'll only get the long lasting results from fiber based matte paper. The RC's fade almost as quickly as dye based inks. Having said that, I've got prints made on my long-dead epson SC-800, a 4 color dye printer that I bought in 1998 that are framed behind glass and show no signs of fading. They were supposed to last 5 years max. My wedding pictures from 1994, which are displayed in the same manner (lab prints) are fading. You just never know...

BH
 
Keep in mind, there is also a major difference between color prints (of any process) and b&w.

Of course PL/PD is the king but silver gelatin does very well too.
 
And so the target ever-faster moves...

I got into the inkjet-printing racket around 1998 with my first photo-quality printer, an Epson SP 1200, which was the A3/Super B-format printer to get at the time. THe color output, at its best, was amazing: I still have a bunch of 13x19" prints which, near as I can tell, still look fabulous (some kept in archival storage, some not). Wasn't thrilled with the black-and-white output, however.

The b/w problem for me would persist until about a year and a half ago, when I gave up a pair of then-contemporary Epson printers for a single HP, an 8750. In a way, it seemed like going backwards, flying against logic, as the HP is a dye-ink-based printer, and one of the last Epsons I got rid of (a 2200) was pigment-ink-based. The Wilhelm gang, for what it's worth, was sufficiently impressed with the 8750 to give it high marks for longevity. What I cared about just as much was its b/w printing capability, since it has three black inks in use, not just one or two. Further, unlike just about all pigment-based printers I've worked with, the 8750 doesn't suffer from metamerism or gloss differential at all one the ink has properly dried on paper, without the need for an clear overspray. (Note: I only use HP's own Premium/Premium Plus papers, and it actually takes a while for the ink to properly dry, or "settle.") This is the first printer I've ever owned which offers equally high-caliber output in b/w or color, and that's a whopping big a deal as longevity; a sub-par print that lasts 100+ years doesn't excite me terribly much.

The problem here is that the medium is too much of a moving target. I've found my happy choice, but how long will my choice be around, in terms of inks and papers? I figure (hope?) my setup of choice will be viable for several years yet, at least, but the whims of fashion and the impetus of change swirl impatiently about. Back when those of us with the resources printed only in the wet darkroom, change in materials and chemistry was comparatively glacial; you got to really know your paper and chemistry pretty well if you were paying attention at all (I'd say I had a problem with that...). Now, once you've figured out which printer/ink/paper combination "does the biz" for you, your choice of ink becomes scarcem or the company making the semi-gloss paper you swore by went belly-up last month, or the printer that's done yeoman work in your litle digital atelier suddenly bites it big-time, and the parts you need are no longer available...

The short answer, of course, is that you're #µ¢%ed. The longer answer is that you have to grit your teeth, suck it up, and begin a new process all over again.

Simply accepting change doesn't mean it won't whipsaw you from time to time.


- Barrett
 
It is a merry go round that once you get on, you can't get off.

The digital media companies have found a way to keep you buying their **** and their amazing marketing.

How many of us still own a Canon AE-1 or something comparable. You know, your first camera. Still works, right?

Well now, you buy a digital camera that is obsolete in 24 months, a printer that is obsolete on 12 months, and "new" technology that is better than what you just bought.

It's a joke. I refuse to laugh.
 
I just want to add something for a second. I'm not that well educated with printers, however I was given a decentish canon portable photo printer that uses the sub dye process for a present from a friend. It wasn't particularly cheap and when I used it I was amazingly suprised with its accuracy and overall decentness of the little 4x6s it did.

Anyway, I have about 5-6 prints from 6 months ago from that printer and each has been kept mainly out of sunlight etc. They are all almost non existant.

Also, I have printed up some prints with my cheap canon inkjet (I plan to buy a decent printer in the future - $800 budget) using high end canon paper and after 6 months they are so faded its rediculous as well.

This was the point where I sold my yashica GSN and a few other toy 35mm cams and bought a leica m6ti and an olympus om2n. I have a girlfreind I love who is absolutely gorgeous and photogenic, I'm getting to the age where my mother is getting older but especially my father is getting older, and I want to have something to remember him when I'm old and have children. I've had about 3 major computer crashes before I turned to mac (non yet in 6 months) and no print I've made has lasted longer than 6 months. A local lab did some digital prints for me at great expense and so far they have held up well, however if my computer crashed again I'd lose the "digital negatives". Burning to DVD or CD is useless - the things barely make it past a year.

By having film I like the idea that if I store the negatives and keep them, they can be resurected probably 40 years on. This is whats important to me.
 
Gavin: I've set up a few of those little Canon dye-sub printers for clients. (I find it fascinating, not to say a touch bizarre, to watch a print go through multiple passes for each color "lay-down".) Print quality is quite nice, but I thought the snapshots from these printers were supposed to be both more durable and more lightfast than the typical inkjet print, which your experience appears to refute (although the word "typical" can be tricky with the current generation of inkjets...as I alluded to in my previous post, prints from a number of dye-ink-based inkjets probably won't do the "disappearing act" they'd been known for years past, whereas some pigment-based inks may not be as "archival" as they're cracked up to be. The big selling point of dye-sublimation prints revolved around the "dotless" quality of the prints, and smooth tonal transitions. These were a much bigger deal back when the best inkjets boasted specs like an "incredible" 600dpi output resolution, and light/shadow transitions in the prints they spat out were rather "iffy." Even most of the cheapest inkjets made today have far surpassed these specs, leaving only the issue of long-term stability. Wilhelm has been slammed from various quarters, but the more I've studied his methods, the more sound I believe they are, and serve as some point of comparison. But time alone will tell.

And, this isn't necessarily limited to inkjet prints. How many people possess a Weston (the elder) print that shows the signs of inadequate fixing he was infamous for? (For that matter, since this would indicate a print that was "of his hand", does that make it all the more valuable?) :rolleyes:


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
I went to an Edward Weston show at the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum in Santa Fe and some of the prints have "yellowed".
 
A slightly different perspective on the Ogg and Nog thing, which I thought was very clever and entertaining: Being a dance photographer, I spend a lot of time around artists who devote their entire lives and work very hard to produce art that disappears the moment the curtain falls.

They assume that as long as the art moved and inspired people while it existed, that's enough.

Although that viewpoint doesn't satisfy me as a photographer (I guess I have a certain egotistic craving for immortality just like the next person) I'm a bit humbled by it...
 
jlw: Good point. Same goes for theatre, of course. This also brings to mind the sand sculpture in the film "Little Buddha."


- Barrett
 
I think Time will be the only judge. Will anyones silver prints be around in 500+ years. Many oil paintings are at least that old or older! Some watercolor pigments are fugitive within months! Does that reduce the inherent value of the medium or the commitment of the artist? I don't think their is any real way to tell about Inkjet vs Silver unless it is the true test of time. I guess we will all just have to wait a while to settle this. In the mean time enjoy your art and print away!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom