The Magic Ink & Disposable Culture

[Ed K.]

Warning - a certain tone of Luddite exists here, and this is more about art than professional photography, or is it?

Progress has its ups and downs. So we find out that there is no 100 year CDROM, and no real 200 year inkjet print. No checks returned from the bank, no spare parts after 7 years.

Kodak built a household name in film, paper and reprographic supplies. This year, no longer will Kodak make the papers that turned out to be a sort of magic ink capable of outlasting so many hard disks, CDROMS, and computer systems to read them; a medium capable of communication with no special equipment required for the viewer. There is a big market for ink and paper, but will it always sell well without the magic, the working artists making great images that inspire others to at least put a battery in their digiwatzit?

After some years, the only good record of today's information age may be its waste matter. What will tell the story as we intended it to be told? Who will pass the moments of our experience on to the future?

After all the hype, and all the money spent, it turns out that a good fiber black and white print is still likely to survive, especially the carefully prepared Pt, or even the well done toned print. Alas, of my Epson prints have faded or changed a bit so far, even those Ultra ink ones. The quad prints turned purple. Yes, I do live in Los Angeles. The inkjets were sold to me as a sort of "virtual magic ink". That word ought to be banned! The hulks of their now unloved and inkless chassis will rest broken in a dump, again perhaps the most "permanent" sort of archive today. I wonder what will be thought of them when discovered some day. Okay, the ink was magic. The prints did fade after the secret viewing time elapsed, and they did so in better than the advertised specification of 200+ years!

Fiber silver prints I did in junior high school still look great, and well, the RC ones from that same time are going already. At the time, few people used the word "archival" much, although the word "permanence" was used.

Does anyone feel a bit criminal by selling someone an inkjet, or an RC color print that will fade in 15-20 years? Or is it more that at least some more immediate and less expensive option gives them joy for at least a few years? Well, perhaps there are some who might like the reprint dollars of a print that fades at exactly one year. How can anyone trust the current claims for print life?

It is said that all kinds of very long lasting images can be made, if one has enough money and time. Platinum photogravure plates, ceramic photos, and others offer long life. The ancients used stone, which worked remarkably well in spite of current acid rains and earthquakes. What do you find as the best way to go today?

There is the question of how long is long enough. For me, I hope that some images make it 200-300 years. Long enough for someone to have a moment musing over those funny things we did, or how we dressed, or even how many fingers we had or the odd shape of our non-optimized heads. For more gifted photographers, I wonder... I can't express what marvelous fun I get looking at old photographs or even paintings. Some of the most humble ones are the best - the ones that documented a place in a time.

This is a time that allows the LF photographer to produce some very amazing work about this century, or at least the turn of it. Sure, in 50 years, this will all be figured out, however where the print from LF won't have a little chip in it that erases it if there aren't enough credits in the owner's account, who knows if the same will be true of the solution that fixes the fading print, crashing hard drive or self-erasing CDROM.

When you work in LF, do you think of an end result suitable only for the immediate time frame, or do you find yourself wondering about communicating to others living far into the future? What sorts of subjects would you consider important to pass along through photography, using the magic ink of the photograph to travel in time? Do you wonder if perhaps one day somebody may only find your 'rejects' instead of your best work? And which medium would you select today, assuming you might do the work yourself, to convey your images to the future?

How important are print life and relevance to future generations in your work?

[Bill_1856]

It turns out that silver and carbon based prints aren't lasting all that long, either. Even Paul Strand's platinums from 1916 are fading. Digital pigment printing is the hope of the future. I'm sure that it will be getting even better. Soon, I hope.

[William Mortensen]

Julia Margaret Cameron wrote in the 1860's that she washed her prints until she could no longer taste the fixer in the wash water. Many of her prints are still around. Hmmmm...

Personally, I create my photographs for posterity. I once tried making them for the contemporary art world, but they took out a cease-and-desist order.

[Mark_3632]

Here we go again

I share your sentiments, E

[Mark Woods]

The half life of any electronic media is 15 years. One has to move their data over within that time. I.e, 7 years. One must consider the technological migrations, i.e., migrate beta max to vhs for example. Anything electronic is volital. There is no way to archive images in the electronic environment. One must output to some stable physical environment. Film is archieveable, electronic is not -- unless you make a print. But of course that is a second generatiion.

MW

[paulr]

"Does anyone feel a bit criminal by selling someone an inkjet, or an RC color print that will fade in 15-20 years? "

I don't know .. does anyone feel criminal about selling a watercolor? An acrylic painting? A mixed media piece made from materials with completely unknown aging characteristics? Half the things I see in galleries and art museums are made from stuff that will change with time. Somewhere behind the scenes there may be a conxervator who's losing sleep over it, but not anyone else.

Most things in this world change, discolor, fade. Look in the mirror: you're not archival, and neither am I. Nor are the people we sell the work to. It's really a silly obsession, unless your work is actually made for archival purposes.

Remember that standards of archival permanence have to do with things changing visibly ... not with them spontaneously combusting or leaving the planet. None of those Rennaissance oil paintings you've seen in museums look anything like what they did when they were new. But they're still here, and they still work their magic on us. Permanent, no ... beautiful, yes.

For what it's worth, Bill's point is a good one. A lot of the materials we've been sold on permanent aren't, at least not always, and not predictably so. And some of the new materials are among the best. Black and white carbon pigment ink appears to have amazing longevity ... better than silver in some circumstances. The best color inks do seem disappointing ... until you compare them to any of the traditional color processes. Then they start to look pretty stable.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

It is of no relevance to me. I shoot LF for my personal pleasure. The chance observe the world, and wait for that instant, when it presents something that moves me. I am still under the illusion that I can capture the emotion. I am able to make a pretty good reference to help me remember the event though. Others can look at it and say that's beautiful, and I'm thinking yea, you should have been there. After the looking, shooting, souping, and printing, if it was like mission impossible, and this print will self destruct in 10 seconds. I would still do it the same. It's the process, not the result or how long it last, that drives me to haul 50# of 8x10 around.

[William Mortensen]

NASA is a prime consumer and recreator of extremely outdated computer technology, as they need it to access their old data.

There is currently one form of computer storage expected to last 100+ years as a first generation copy: punch cards (aka IBM cards). All other forms must be periodically recopied. This is not an issue data-wise, as there is no loss of information. However, there is no original artfact of use.

RC color prints may last 50 years, carefully stored, RC silver b/w, perhaps 100 years. Fiber-based silver prints may last 200-300 years if properly processed and preserved. Inkjet/giclee prints have a "questionable" lifespan.

Given the state of contemporary post-modern fine art photography, this may be a good thing...

[Donald Qualls]

Ah, data migration. And what happens when you find you have so much data to migrate, that you'll spend the rest of your life doing only that, and never create anything new again?

Linseed oil, earth and metallic salt pigments, and natural lacquers and varnishes to protect them have done well -- a lot of paintings as old as five centuries still look great when the accumulation of centuries of lamp soot and industrial air pollution is removed. And there's still a living in applying those media to coarse woven cotton, at least for a few; a potentially heartening view, given what seems to be happening to analog photography.

When I make a picture, what do I think of? Usually the technical stuff -- exposure, focus, whether to process N, N-, or N+. Somewhat less often, the compositional elements; those get left to chance or instinct perhaps rather more than they should. Always how the scene, in natural color, will appear on panchromatic film as translated into either a scanned image or silver gelatin print; perhaps not frequently enough about how the content relates to life and humanity.

Yes, I'd like my images to last -- that's why I still record on film and, as much as I can, print in silver gelatin or similarly permanent alternate processes. If there comes a day when I can no longer afford photography, because the reduced demand has pushed the prices of materials out of reach by destroying the economies of scale, perhaps I'll once again take up brush, and knife, and palette, and my hands will smell, not of fixer, but of turpentine.

[John Kasaian]

I have a cardboard box full of prints from the teens, twenties and thirties that were stored under horrible conditions and the prints still look great--most are silver with a few palladium and all are mounted(with what materials I have no idea) while color wedding photographs from the 60's have turned orange and the inkjets I have from two years ago are looking rather shabby. The Dead Sea scrolls are still readable but some of my books printed in the 20's are turning into dust

Now this may not be a bad thing, but it certainly isn't a good thing. Do I really want my photographs to be immortal? I'm not so sure but I'd like them to outlast me at least. Or I think I do...but I don't really know why.

Its seems like your problem, E., is that you've fallen for the Siren's song of Technology and the marketing thereof. The temptation of immortality (for your images, anyway) isn't a very hard sell. Thats why people freeze themselves, I suppose. It works pretty good for pizza anyway but you can eat pizza. I don't think Uncle Floyd or Aunt Elvira would be as palatable 50 or 100 so years down the road but then neither would a Red Baron or Tombstone.

Maybe our civilization is doomed to be remembered by bits and pieces like the Minoans or Etruscans, I don't know. Blogs have replaced diaries and digital fonts have replaced penmanship.
Even the plastic trash that we'd been told back in High School that dosen't decompose and will fill our landfills to capacity seems to me to rot away quite nicely as witnessed by the dashboard of my 1979 Mercedes 240D.

Getting back to your issue of mistakenly investing in planned obsolesence---I think that it says a lot for Large Format Photography that a lot of us are using stuff that should by all rights be sitting in a museum somewhere and even stranger that there are craftsmen like Canham and Deardorff and others building more LF cameras out of dead men's furniture to meet an apparent demand for a technology that hasn't changed much since the early industrial revolution, back before factories even considered the idea of planned obsolesence.

As Bart Simpson would say, "Don't have a cow, man."

Get yourself a box of B&W panchro and another box of graded FB and go out and play---then go home to a room where you can turn off all the lights and play some more. If you have a basic LF kit then you've got all the "weapons of art" you need in your arsenal.
My 2-cents.

[William Mortensen]

"Most things in this world change, discolor, fade. Look in the mirror: you're not archival, and neither am I. Nor are the people we sell the work to. It's really a silly obsession, unless your work is actually made for archival purposes." - paulr

Agreed, and this somewhat points to an odd predicament within the human condition. For want of immortality, we want to leave something of ourselves behind. Be it an artistic legacy, a statement, a moment of simple passing pleasure for someone else, we want to be remembered. A medium that promises to be a vessel to carry a man's passion, then sinks before making it out of the harbor, holds itself out for an especially passionate condemnation.

The true lifespan of the inkjet print may be longer or shorter than expected, but it's all a matter of degrees...

Paul, if you're posting from NY, you're up way too late. Go to bed...

[paulr]

You're right, off to bed.

but not before one last thought ...

John said, "I have a cardboard box full of prints from the teens, twenties and thirties that were stored under horrible conditions and the prints still look great ..." And Donald said, " a lot of paintings as old as five centuries still look great when the accumulation of centuries of lamp soot and industrial air pollution is removed ..."

but I'd like to mention again that their looking great doesn't mean that they're unchanged. There's more to the ageing of paint pigments than getting dirty ... many of them fade and yellow or change color. Absolute failures by any standard of archival permanence, but still they can look great, and they can have the same kind of power over us as they did when they were shiny and new. Same with silver prints. Often they yellow, stain, discolor, or fade, sometimes a little, sometimes more. But they can still look great, and they can still move us.

I bring this up because our standards for old materials are often based on how things look, and our standards for new materials are often based on sensitometry, graphs, and lab reports. These reports tell us when something has changed, but not if we'll still like it.

With inks, a lot of it is a new frontier. That's where the excitement is, and it's also where the risk is. Some paper/ink combinations will prove to be disasters, as many already have. Others will set new standards of permanence. If not the ones we have now, then the ones coming in a few years. But many will turn out like the materials that came before them: they will change. They will fade, yellow, and discolor. And they may still look great.

[Duane Polcou]

"Ahhh, so we're just not built to LAST..."
Rutger Hauer to Harrison Ford in Blade Runner.

[adrian tyler]

what are you worried about? havn't you been listening to the warning shots that our planet is giving us? i would suggest that our over fed, complacent self indulgent society has less time left than an ultrachrome...

get a paintbrush.

[Joe Lipka]

My big question is whether or not anyone will WANT to see my photographs one hundred years from now. To me, the first question concerns whether or not the subject matter of my photographs is worthy of being archivally preserved.

[John_4185]

Joe My big question is whether or not anyone will WANT to see my photographs one hundred years from now.

Quite possibly, Joe, especially if your work captures evidence of the current culture, or endangered places, or places that change regularly.

Molly and I went to a local estate auction of an MD who lived here for his ninety years. In a small town, these auctions are as much a social event, rather like a wake, as an auction. Molly knows just everyone it seems, having lived here for over fifty years and she noted immediately that there were a lot of strangers in fashionable clothes attending. Molly can engage anyone in conversation and she found that the strangers included, for example, Manhattan and California antique dealers. The Doctor had a box of old photographs. I went through them and to my uninformed (stupid) mind, the only remarkable one was an (approx) 8x10 super-wide angle picture taken indoors at a labor party meeting. All the rest were just half-assed landscapes of no remarkable quality whatsoever.

Each landscape print went for a minimum of $400, some astoundingly higher.

Turns out they were turn-of-the-century photographs of places such as Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernadino, California hills, and similar places now covered in humanity, threaded with cement. There apparently is a niche market for the wealthy who's view includes what those photographs evince.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I'm chairman for th elocal heritage advisory committe for my city, so I get to "hang out" with th eodd archivist, historian, etc, etc. A few random thoughts..

- generally speaking - and yes, there are exceptipons - but on the whole, from the time of the Civil war up to modern times, black & white prints seem to be the best archival media around. Many/most books post Civil war are acid filled paper,a nd degrading in front of our eyes. Many colour films have fadig dyes,a nd anything comptuer media related as an archival mdeium is a complete joke.

- YES, your old prints are important. even if they suck big time artistically, when you research history, it is much like investigating a crime scence - the smallest detail can sometimes lead to very big things. I personally se LF photography as very important in our times, because I simply do not trust anythign digital anymore for historical accuracy. Again, there are certianly excpetions with large format - hey, you scan in a negative, anything can happen, but overall, if peopel wan to create an image form the get go, they usually start with a digital image to begin with. At the very least, if you negative survies the passage of time, it will be archival in itself;

- I am currently workign on research for a one fo a kind, 150 + year old document. Looked around for some pro lab that could do a scan for me. First thing I hear is "it's an odd size, we may have trouble". Gee - no kidding, people 150 and 200 years ago weren't wise enought to make all their documents fit into today's modern scanners. grrr. For waht it is worth, when process cameras were still in full use, you *never*, ever heard anyone complain "oh, that old document is an odd size, were' going to have problems.' I did get the document scanned - took them only 2 hours to figure it out - and this is the local lab reccomended to me by all the local museums/archives as th ebest place in the city to get it done. What the heck are the others like? Digital,eh? grrr.

- digital isn't totally evil however. I often take my little 3 megapixel camera, and often shoot a scence first with it to get an idea of what my shot may look like. So as a tool, or for vacation photos on the fly, and other uses, it is great. But from an archival standpoint, it's more bad news than good. Dunno the answer.

joe

[John_4185]

Joseph O'Neil ...

Joseph, I did a skeleton (prototype, unfinished) for a County Historical Society - web pages that use Sanborn Maps of the 1800's and later. We planned to place markers on the page-maps where there are photographs. It was part of a proposed rephotographic effort in which I bid to do it all in LF and MF, but they chose a person who's going to shoot it with digital.

I'll check permissions and post the skeleton/prototype if you are interested. I also have hundreds of scanned photographs, some going back 145 years. The scans suck. I hope the society eventually elects to do them again right.

Can you tell I'm discouraged? Man, I'm too old to suffer shortsighted historical efforts. We may as well be writing in the sand.

[William Mortensen]

"Many/most books post Civil war are acid filled paper,a nd degrading in front of our eyes." --Joseph O'Neil

Given the title of this thread, "The Magic Ink & Disposable Culture," I wonder whether one of the more archival records will be a well-made contemporary photography book. Much better papers, often acid-free and sometimes cotton-based (rag), and the photo-mechanical inks tend to be much more stable than toners and dyes used in inkjets or analog color processes. Images in books tend to be protected from UV damage except when being viewed.

Certainly it is an ambitious and expensive way to preserve one's work, but beyond reaching a wider audience and coelescing one's work, there might be some satisfaction that the copies of the book will be around long after the photographer departs.

[Ed K.]

Some Additional thoughts -
My father painted watercolors most of his life. He did what he could to use good paper and mix pigments from scratch to last. He didn't take good care of his work - no salt mine, no sealed archival boxes, just a stack in the attic. Today, many people have those paintings, and nearly all of them survived just fine. Seventy years and going strong. What do the collectors like the most? Scenes that depict people and places around Los Angeles, or scenes that capture a mood of a time now long past. He shot tens of thousands of photographs too, however most of them were tests of some equipment, or the usual family stuff. As his equipment moved toward the modern SLR, the magic of his photographs seemed to be replaced by more and more test shots. He took some wonderful photos with a Kodak 1A or a Bessa. And for the family stuff, at least I can see the mood of it; how my dad felt about his son, and oddly enough, see how little I have changed inside as I remember that moment. The times when he tried to do a good job on the photo or watercolor, taking some care in doing it proved to be worth looking at today.

So, dad taught me to develop B&W, and print it too. Early on. Yours may have done the same for you, too. Started with medium format, as so many did. Then came 35, more medium, large, and well digital. Lots of digital. Some great, but frankly, low quality images. Then color. And here, years later, full circle, B&W, film, but large format. LF just works fine, and needs no "virtual" excuses, sharpening, or noise reduction.

Part of the question is whether we modern photographers, blessed with so much research, fine optics, indeed the finest films ever made in some cases, and nearly any equipment we wish to have can release those bonds and use the tools for a worthy purpose, a purpose beyond just excercise of equipment. This is one reason that I shoot less digital now, and more LF. LF has a certain simplicity to it, and a way of recording the moment. I dream of using the tool for more, and so silly me, I strive to do just that. I wish I could hear some thoughts from others, to help inspire, to know that there are indeed others looking to put the message in a bottle, or make a statement.

In terms of tech, last night, I thought of a couple of solutions to permanence. 1 - create a new uranium photographic process, that way, while nobody would be safe to look at my prints for 500,000+ years, at least they would be properly stored somewhere as hazardous waste, so they would last just fine. In the end, somebody could view my lead images! 2. create a storage container disguised as a piece of modern equipment, but nicely sealed, then put photos in it, and finally, toss it in the dumpster. Once burried, it might be safe for a thousand years...

Who might want to look at an image? Paintings not lasting long enough? At the Norton Simon recently, I stood locked in a trace, exploring a simple painting of the merchant square and ship docks in venice. Having read many stories about the time period shown, I was amazed to see all the attire of people in the square, the rigging of the ships, and all the social interaction. The painter had made a time machine. The image was rich and beautiful by itself, yet its humble rendition took me somewhere I could never go to. With all we've got today, can't we do the same?

And there is nothing wrong with doing anything for the pure joy of it, or the technical art of it either. On this forum there are so many masterful, and wise people who have so many gifts. As just another speck on the planet, I wonder if those gifts will find an outlet and and audience some day.

Hey Donald - I could save a lot of money by taking up painting...

[paulr]

E keck, I like the idea of landfill archiving a lot, but I'm more intrigued by the lethal prints with the multi-millennium half life. Do you think uranium toning is good enough? http://www.jackspcs.com/ut.htm

For some reason, Bud at the Formulary keeps hanging up when I ask about photo-grade plutonium.

[Steven Barall]

It's all about compromise. If you use the Epson liquid products you can get very low per print costs, amazing ease of use and big bold colors but you are compromising the life of the image. That also goes for any type of C print and who knows what's really going on with all of the different inkjet papers on the market right now.

That's just what we do in our lives though, we compromise. Sellers of things compromise and so do buyers and we all have ways of justifying our choices and decisions. There is no gold standard in the sale of art, there is no guarantee that it's going to be worth something now or in the future but there is an implied warranty in the sale of art and that warranty is related to the physical life of the artwork. The maker of the thing has a responsibility to the buyer to atleast get that part right.

There is a "it's good enough" attitude in the marketplace and in the long run it's going to hurt everyone. It will be interesting to see what happens to the marketplace in years to come when all of the photo prints that are being sold today, for in some cases tens of thousands of dollars, start to fade away. I guess everyone will just blame it all on Wilhelm.

[John_4185]

[b]paulr[b] www.jackspcs.com/ut.htm (http://www.jackspcs.com/ut.htm )

Which reminds me that last Friday my supervisor sent me a one-line email, "Get that radioactive lens out of your office immediately!" And here I thought he was just a prince (oops, misspelling there.) It is still in my office, by the door. Funny how he never walks in here anymore.

Archival? Picture Mad Max's mavens singing a canticle to an Elvis on Black Velvet print. The worst crap manages to survive. Seriously. You want your work to last forever - put it on the Internet. It's IMPOSSIBLE to get it out once it infuses into the wick of bits.

[Nacio Jan Brown]

John Kasanian mentions a cardboard box full of photographs from the teens, twenties, and thirties. Such treasure troves of images (enjoyed no less if they are faded) are a sure casualty of the digital revolution. Now, in recently deceased grandfather's house we will find a Pentium II and some old floppies. How often will anyone search for jpgs or correspondence or diary entries, before junking it all? njb

[David Luttmann]

Easy Nacio,

Now the box will hold Gold CD & DVD media with all the photos stored & unfaded. And considering CD media & DVD is so well entrenched, we'll still have players 100 years from now as we do with 78 & 33 RPM turntables.

Floppies were really used before the start of digital photography becoming mainstream and as such is not really a valid example.

[paulr]

the box could also hold prints.

[Nacio Jan Brown]

Sure there could be long-lasting CDs and DVDs. My point is that I think that too frequently it will not occur to people what these might contain and that they will be tossed out. njb

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, heres how I see it: An ordinary photograph takes the least technology to retrieve ( your feet, hands and eyes) The photographic print is the media. Even if you only have a negative, making a contact print is as high tech as it gets---even if you have to sensitize your own paper.

Any electronic/digital media requires sophisticated technology to retrieve. The image is in effect held captive by whomsoever owns the rights to the technology and therefore controls both the future retrieval of the image and expected longevity of the media and how long the technology will be appropiate before it is supplanted by a new technology.

This is where the big $$ are.

Even if a perfect and permanent digital image could be printed (and there is no way to prove an image will last say, 1000 years unless you want to live that long to verify it) there would be no incentive to do so other than as sales hype---in fact there is no incentive because if a company produced the "perfect" technology how would they continue to bring out new models to generate more profit? Something bigger and better has to come along and the old technology killed off so more people will buy into the new toy.

That is one of the reasons that I find LF so appealing.

[William Mortensen]

John- I have to admit, there's something quite satisfying about using a camera made about the time I was born (Kodak 8x0 Master from the fifties), and still have it be state-of-the-art technology. Even my old 2D (1930's?) still gives me wonderful negatives...

[Donald Qualls]

A little over a year ago, I took some portraits of my grandmother (then 99 years old) with a camera old enough she might well have been photographed with the same model the first time she married, in the mid-1920s. Using modern film in the glass plate holders, and a lens, shutter and camera body at least ten years older than my father (who's been retired for some years), I produced images that have the potential to last long enough for my brother's grandkids to wonder about when he's 99 years old (no grandkids here -- prerequisite unfufilled). If I have a choice, those three girls (young women, really, at least the older two, and the third well on the way) will be the recipients of my photographic legacy -- all three of them are smart enough to know what it is, remember their uncle and a grand-uncle with their old mechanical cameras, and all will remember their great-grandma with her curly, snow-white hair.

Nothing I can do digitally will carry the weight of years the way those film negatives will.

[Michael Newberry]

Excellent article. Thanks!

Can someone tell me the currently supposed archival limits on negatives? ---assuming you wash them "appropriately", of course. Chemical removal is an exponential process but, at some point, the residue can be reduced below a threshold of being problematic.

I've played with plates from the 1930's and they still look great, except for mechanical damage. The positive representation we view as the end product f the artistic expression is the energy source that drives the continually changing technology. Unfortunately, what is long term is not what sells to the masses, else there wouldn't be enough people continully pumping new money into the economy.

The point I want to add to what's been said is that perhaps, as long as we can preserve the negs for a long time and that there remain dedicated craftsmen who can print them [almost] as well as the original printer, then the archivabilbity of prints, pigments, and processes becomes secondary. This assumes, of course, that art worth preserving becomes successful enough "in its time" to lead to a master/apprentice arrangement for "seeing" positives that express the negatives as originally intended.

Michael

[steve_782]

The fallacy of the entire argument based on "I have a box full of old photos," etc. and other anecdotal "proof" is that the photographers who made the images 80 years ago, 100 years ago had absolutely NO idea how long the image would last. They were just using the latest materials and processes available at the time.

Inkjet printing is merely carrying on the tradition of photographers making images using a technology with unproven anecdotal longevity.

Many of the supposed examples of art media longevity given in this thread can also be proven false. Watercolors - Turner. Oils - VanGogh. Both artists' works have faded appreciably. Turner's work is in such bad condition that it is rarely allowed to be viewed by anyone short of curators and art historians who may look at it only under subdued light for brief periods of time. The background on VanGogh's "Lillies" has faded from a soft pink to white.

Ink printing has been around for a lot longer than photography. There are ink printed images around that are nearly 1,000 years old (Japanese, and Chinese). Western art has ink printed images that are at least 500 years old, and multi-color ink prints that are 200 years old.

The fact that someone has made an inkjet print that has faded in 1-2 years is less a commentary on the process than the person's familiarity with the technology and proficiency with the process.

I have more confidence in color inkjet print longevity than photographic color paper longevity. But, I've invested the time in learning the inkjet process (and printing in general), investigated materials, and have developed a materials suite and workflow that will give the best longevity with the currently available materials.

[Michael Gordon]

Going off of Adrian Tyler and Joe Lipka: I don't have a lot of faith that humans will last longer than my inkjet prints, and it would be pretty egotistical of me to think that 100 years from now any number of persons would be interested in seeing my 100 year old photographs. We all may like to think that we'll reach the importance of Adams or Weston or (insert shoice here), but few us of will.

[Scott Davis]

Going off of Adrian Tyler and Joe Lipka: I don't have a lot of faith that humans will last longer than my inkjet prints, and it would be pretty egotistical of me to think that 100 years from now any number of persons would be interested in seeing my 100 year old photographs. We all may like to think that we'll reach the importance of Adams or Weston or (insert shoice here), but few us of will.

Well, as to the long-term viability of ones work from an artistic standpoint, if you lack the chutzpah to expect it and demand it, you will almost guarantee your work to be consigned to the great dustbin of obscurity. As to the longevity of the materials you use to create your work, well... David Hockney once painted a painting using ordinary housepaint, and sold it to one of the big London galleries. The painting started to flake off the canvas after 20 years. He's now paying a 10 million pound judgement to the museum for their loss. His reputation has also taken a hit because of it.

[steve_782]

Well, as to the long-term viability of ones work from an artistic standpoint, if you lack the chutzpah to expect it and demand it, you will almost guarantee your work to be consigned to the great dustbin of obscurity. As to the longevity of the materials you use to create your work, well... David Hockney once painted a painting using ordinary housepaint, and sold it to one of the big London galleries. The painting started to flake off the canvas after 20 years. He's now paying a 10 million pound judgement to the museum for their loss. His reputation has also taken a hit because of it.


I fail to see the point. This has less to do with materials and more to do with Hockney's lack of a good contract. I guess VanGogh and Turner's reputations are taking a "hit" also. Turner is famous for telling the manufacturer of the paints he used that he was only responsible for the art, and not the materials. The materials were the responsibility of the manufacturer.

I guess you'd better start piling on Turner for having a "bad attitude."

Hockney's real problem was not the paint materials but the combination of house paint on canvas. House paints are made to be applied to solid substrates and not canvas. There is no reason that a high quality house paint should not last as long as artist's materials if the combination is correct.

While you're piling on, you'd better add Leonardo DaVinci into the hit as his fresco of "The Last Supper" is a total wreck because of his poor choice of materials and piss poor fresco technique.

Pot shots are easy - anyone can pick a famous target as an example.

[tim atherton]

David Hockney once painted a painting using ordinary housepaint, and sold it to one of the big London galleries. The painting started to flake off the canvas after 20 years. He's now paying a 10 million pound judgement to the museum for their loss. His reputation has also taken a hit because of it.

Have you got the reference to that? It would be an interesting read for our conservator.

Mind you, looking at the auctions, I don't think it's had much effect on his reputation.... his work is going for record prices

[John Kasaian]

Photographs only need to last for as long as they serve a purpose. If the purpose is to inform the folks in 2525 AD about Starbucks (or what Half Dome looked like in 2006,) then yes, they should last 520 years.

It would have been pretty cool to see photographs from 520 year ago, but we have to settle for paintings and sculpture, which come to think of it might not be too bad a thing.

Unfortunately there aren't many celebrated artists making paintings or sculptures that look like anything reality these days. Maybe our photographs will be all that our children's children's children's children's children's children will have to go by.

Thats a rather sobering thought, isn't it?

I wonder if Polygnotos ever considered that his art would have lasted as long as it does and the importance of what it reveals to us today?

Cheers!

[Ed K.]

It's not so much that one taking the photograph will know for sure how valuable the photograph will be in the future. Many great photographs of the past are of everyday life, very representational, and probably not something that would win the photo show. Instead, humble records, dutifully recording the conditions of the time; living up to the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words".

In times past, those photographer's DID care about their photographs lasting. Thus, the Woodburytype, carbon prints, platinum prints, etc. They sought to make photographs that would not fade, and of course some things didn't work out.

If we want to, we have choices to do better, choices to value durable things that are well made and well researched. Instead, we give up our choices to things analogous to disposable razors with 5 blades. Shick was a broke, desperate inventor - one day he thought of how great it would be to have something that required purchasing a disposable thing over and over again, a trade of convenience. Sure it had benefits. Today, we've got the 5 bladed things with batteries in them no less, and frankly, I'd rather use the double-edged one for a better shave ( okay, Shick's first, right? ). But the handle is still good, well made, functional, needs no batteries, and is bio-degradable AND can be recycled. Hmmm, okay, that's another argument - durability.

Back to the original part - be it ever so humble, a photograph can be a window into another world, and something worth making well.

On the other hand, many professional photographers I have chatted with on this issue remark that "if it needs a new print in a year - great! more money!" - and because the photos are advertising photos for public display, it's just more money and more work, a living. Afterall, professional does mean "doing it for a living". Seems to me that doing it for a living and doing it well have a place though.

You all have contributed so many thoughful ideas and points of view - a lot to think about, and example of how there can be many "right answers" to a problem depending upon the context.

[Hugo Zhang]

Ed wrote:

"There is the question of how long is long enough. For me, I hope that some images make it 200-300 years. Long enough for someone to have a moment musing over those funny things we did, or how we dressed, or even how many fingers we had or the odd shape of our non-optimized heads."

I will be only interested in this question if I were a documentary photographer. As an artist using black and white images to create my own world, I would pay more attention to "how" instead of "what". An extreme example, Paul Cezanne spent the last 25 years of his life painting Mt. Saint-Victoire. Every morning he would walked out of his house to the foot of that mountain and painted till it was dark. He cut his ties to the world and got ridiculed by people around him. He stubbornly painted it more than 60 times. Today people are paying hundreds of millions for his paintings not just to see that mountain. Mt. Saint-Victoire is still there as it was 150 years ago.

Paulr..

"Most things in this world change, discolor, fade. Look in the mirror: you're not archival, and neither am I. Nor are the people we sell the work to. It's really a silly obsession, unless your work is actually made for archival purposes.

None of those Rennaissance oil paintings you've seen in museums look anything like what they did when they were new. But they're still here, and they still work their magic on us. Permanent, no ... beautiful, yes."

And William...

"Agreed, and this somewhat points to an odd predicament within the human condition. For want of immortality, we want to leave something of ourselves behind. Be it an artistic legacy, a statement, a moment of simple passing pleasure for someone else, we want to be remembered. A medium that promises to be a vessel to carry a man's passion, then sinks before making it out of the harbor, holds itself out for an especially passionate condemnation."


I have to use a beatiful line from Nabokov: "Our life is just a crack of light between two eternities of darkness." We are born, live and die like a puff of smoke. We pass our life through our genes to our children and grandchildren, the way plants and animals do. We will live for months or years if lucky in the memories of those close to us. Then we have no traces left. That's why art functions as our endeavor for immortality. Shakesapeare is still alive in his plays. Homer lives in his Iliad. We feel Cezanne in his paintings. We see Flaubert whenever we open his book Madam Bovary. Even poor H.H. asked to live for a few more months so that he could finish his book to make Lolita live for generations. He got his wish. We have to say certain words and images do have longer life than others.

John wrote...

"It is of no relevance to me. I shoot LF for my personal pleasure. The chance observe the world, and wait for that instant, when it presents something that moves me. I am still under the illusion that I can capture the emotion. I am able to make a pretty good reference to help me remember the event though. Others can look at it and say that's beautiful, and I'm thinking yea, you should have been there. After the looking, shooting, souping, and printing, if it was like mission impossible, and this print will self destruct in 10 seconds. I would still do it the same. It's the process, not the result or how long it last, that drives me to haul 50# of 8x10 around."

Well said, John. This reminds me of a life changing experience a few years ago. I went to an art center to see a Sand Mandala performed a group of Tibetan monks. Millions of grains of brightcolored sand are painstakingly laid into place on a square table over several days by eight monks to create the most beautiful, most exquisite color sand sculpture. Shortly after its completion, it was destroyed. I can still see vividly the joyful expressions on their faces today. They use this to teach us the impermanence of life.

In the end, it is the style rather than content that has a longer life. True artist with his unique style always brings us a brand new world. I believe AA's silver prints will outlive many pt/pd prints I see today.

[paulr]

Based on some of these views, the ultimate offense might be selling art made with water-soluble food coloring, painted onto acidic, pulp-based cardboard. Like, for instance, using M&Ms to paint on the back of recycled postcards, and selling at a gallery for hundreds of dollars.

Surely such an artist should be thrown in jail!

But what if he's already in jail? Extend his sentence? But then what if he's already serving three life sentences, all in solitary confinement???

Does violating the Archival Commandments justify the death penalty?

Discuss ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/us/21artist.html?hp&ex=1153540800&en=437f656c4bf9566a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Ted Harris]

Like, for instance, using M&Ms to paint on the back of recycled postcards, and selling at a gallery for hundreds of dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/us/21artist.html?hp&ex=1153540800&en=437f656c4bf9566a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

What if the evidence gets 'et :D ?

[steve_782]

In times past, those photographer's DID care about their photographs lasting. Thus, the Woodburytype, carbon prints, platinum prints, etc. They sought to make photographs that would not fade, and of course some things didn't work out.

Pure speculation. Exactly HOW did they know they were using processes that would be long lasting? Archival testing by Wilhelm? ANSI / ISO standards?

They were using the processes available to them at the time - NOTHING was really know about the longevity of the prints they made at that time. No one did accelerated aging tests, and the processes weren't in use long enough to be able to point at empirical data as proof.

All of the romance you're trying to attribute to the photographers working in certain processes because they valued the durability of their work - is pure projection on your part.

If we want to, we have choices to do better, choices to value durable things that are well made and well researched.

I totally agree. Through my research, testing, and the work process I've developed for my prints, I have far more confidence that my inkjet prints will last longer than any Ilfochrome, Fuji Crystal Archive, or Kodak Endura color print.

On the other hand, many professional photographers I have chatted with on this issue remark that "if it needs a new print in a year - great! more money!" - and because the photos are advertising photos for public display, it's just more money and more work, a living. Afterall, professional does mean "doing it for a living". Seems to me that doing it for a living and doing it well have a place though.

Sounds like a personal integrity problem - not a "disposable culture" problem.

[paulr]

All of the romance you're trying to attribute to the photographers working in certain processes because they valued the durability of their work - is pure projection on your part.

I suspect you're right about this. I wonder when people started thinking about the permanence of materials the way we do now.

So many of the 19th century processes (albumen in particular) have turned out to be preservation nightmares. A lot of the turn-of-the-century work ... the most self-consciously artistic mixed process pictorial work with all the hand coloring ... must be even worse. Considering how late in the 20th century we were before the first photograph was even accepted by an art museum, I wonder when the first real investigations into care and permanence were done.

If I remember right, in painting that there was a lot of lore surrounding certain pigments--which ones would fade, which would last forever, etc.--and that a lot of it turned out to be wrong over the years.

[Greg Miller]

The half life of any electronic media is 15 years. One has to move their data over within that time. I.e, 7 years. One must consider the technological migrations, i.e., migrate beta max to vhs for example. Anything electronic is volital. There is no way to archive images in the electronic environment. One must output to some stable physical environment. Film is archieveable, electronic is not -- unless you make a print. But of course that is a second generatiion.

MW

The beauty of electronic media is you can store mutiple copies of 1st generation quality in multiple locations. So if my house burns down or floods there will still be perfect copies at my parents' house 2,000 miles away.

And it's a natural progression to migrate data. Today's 200GB hard drive will be replaced by a 500 GB hard drive that will be cheaper and faster and more reliable. It will take all of 30 minutes to copy all my files onto the new hard drive. That 500GB hard drive will eventually be replaced by a 1.5 TB hard drive that's even cheaper and faster. If I become important enough (OK - that's a big "if"), there can be 1st generation quality files still in existance 1,000 years from now. No fading or damage from UV light, dust, pollution, fungus,...

[tim atherton]

... just EMP...

[John Kasaian]

Ed K makes an excellent point.

You may speculate on whether or not past photographers cared about how long thier pix would last, and I'm sure several didn't but I think far more did. Especially the Pros who were marketing History. What after all can a person do with a photograph? To preserve the past----what people (especially beloved or other important people) or things looked like! What events transpired and require some pictoral commemoration or record, or realistic illustrations in books. All these challenges were well met by photography. All this drips with History. A right-minded photographer in days past would want prints to last and work with materials that would likely be around for as long as possible, just as serious sculptors in the past have worked with stone and bronze. In those times craftsmanship was valued more just as convience is valued more today.

Only fairly recently have mainstream artists started working in more temporal materials and there is no doubt good reason for doing this---it fits in perfectly with the Post-modernist agenda. The only problem is that there are many who don't subscribe to the Post-modernist view.

I for one, would be quite happy if the Post-modernist sculptures my fair town placed on the downtown pedestrian mall and alongside the freeway would fade away sometime soon!

[Bruce Watson]

It's such a romantic notion to think the photographers of the past were striving mightly to preserve history and that one of their biggest concerns was the archivability of their process and materials. I wish it were true.

Yet, I think that it's just a romantic notion. People used the best tools that had at the time that would help them get the job done. They weighed lots of variables, just like we do today.

Case in point. There's hardly anything more long lasting than a glass plate negative. An amazing substrate, glass won't deteriorate or yellow and it certainly won't loose it's flexibility ;-). There's also hardly any substrates out there heavier or more fragile. And it makes a hell of a contact print too!

So, do you think that pioneers like William Henry Jackson lugged those glass plates to Yellowstone because they worried about their archivability? Do you think that he would have continued to use glass plates much after the advent of nitrate based sheet film? I think it's just amazing how glass was forgotten once roll and sheet film became available. Does anyone want to argue the longevity issues of glass plates vs. nitrate film stock? No? Hmmm... It would be difficult to argue for nitrate I guess.

The fact is, film stock allowed photographers to do more work. It weighed less. It wasn't as fragile. It didn't take up as much space. It didn't cost so much to ship. Etc... It was the best tool available at the time. But it wasn't the most "archival" for sure.

I'm not saying that photographers should discount archival considerations. Far from it. What I'm saying is that photographers should use the best tools they can find for their work. So that they can make some work that's worth archiving.

[tim atherton]

So, do you think that pioneers like William Henry Jackson lugged those glass plates to Yellowstone because they worried about their archivability? Do you think that he would have continued to use glass plates much after the advent of nitrate based sheet film? I think it's just amazing how glass was forgotten once roll and sheet film became available.

not by Atget - he did precisely that...

[Bruce Watson]

not by Atget - he did precisely that...
Whatever. My point is that the vast, vast majority took film as an improvement even though it was clearly less archival.

[paulr]

Whatever. My point is that the vast, vast majority took film as an improvement even though it was clearly less archival.

And I seriously doubt Atget was thinking about permanence when he chose glass. He worked with his outdated materials because they were familiar.

The first human being who seemed to care about Atget's legacy was Dorothea Lange.

[John Kasaian]

I doubt if many photographers back then gave a fig about the word "archival" but I suspect they were concerned about craftsmanship in its many forms and perhaps more about the technical than maybe the artistic. There seem to be plenty of circa 1900 portraits with the same queen palm that look to be pretty fantastic shape today. Maybe the faded prints never survived so I'm mistakenly led to believe that most old time photographers were concerned about quality(OK "archival" quality if you insist) but then maybe there weren't all that many faded prints to begin with because these guys were concerned about quality. Early photo portraits were prized posessions, especially by customers who couldn't afford a painted portrait. If a portrait began fading or discoloring a photographer's reputation would have been toast.

Most likely old timers were offering the same pitch the digi-guys are offering today---a better looking image that lasts longer and can be had for less $$ than a painting. I've got no problem with that---I've seen plenty of yellowed color wedding pictures that were 30 years old. The thing is that claims of longevity are just theories. A customer is betting that what they're hearing is the truth when all it is is a theory advanced by a new industry wanting $$$.

Maybe it is true. Maybe it isn't. You and I won't be around to argue the point 150 years from now. What we do know is that properly executed B&W prints can last for as long as they've been being printed and alternative processes like platinum and palladium have lasted even longer.

The more interesting question is why do people want a photograph to last forever? I think it tells more about the human condition than many care to speculate about.

Cheers!

[Paul Coppin]

Believing in a digital future for anything resembling a legacy in photography or anything else, is a fool's game. I have myriad stacks of digital materials less than 10 years old - from 8" floppies to 1/2" tape to CDs and DVDs less than a year old, that can never again be read by any current (or past) technology, and have no sufficient worth to invest in new technology to recover. If your legacy is pictures, make pictures. Enough of them, and spread them around - someone might actually luck into keeping some for posterity.

I don't promise what I print will last any particular length of time. I strive for long enough to give the recipient (usually, me :( ) the pleasure they derive for as long as they care. None of us will be remembered as we really are today, several generations hence. If we are remembered at all, the mythology will have long replaced the reality.

[Greg Miller]

Believing in a digital future for anything resembling a legacy in photography or anything else, is a fool's game. I have myriad stacks of digital materials less than 10 years old - from 8" floppies to 1/2" tape to CDs and DVDs less than a year old, that can never again be read by any current (or past) technology, and have no sufficient worth to invest in new technology to recover. If your legacy is pictures, make pictures. Enough of them, and spread them around - someone might actually luck into keeping some for posterity.


Sorry but I think this is a specious argument. Just because you did not migrate your data doesn't mean it cannot be easily and cheaply done. If the material had any value to you at all it would have happened. Maybe digital files are more than you can deal with but that doesn't apply to everyone.

I would not advocate using optical media as your sole archive. Redundant hard drives with at least 1 in an alternate location is the way to go. And the cost is no more than buying archival film holders and a filing cabinet to store them in and the space requirement is much less. Plus you have 1st generation quality copies at multiple sites. Just try that with film based images.

I have files that are almost 25 years old on my hard drives. It has taken me all of about 10 minutes total over the years to keep them available. Plus you are ignoring the possibility of keeping 1st generation quality copies at multiple sites. Just try that with film based images.

[paulr]

It's worth remembering that in the first decades of digital workflow, there was huge emphasis on content creation, and almost complete negligence regarding what to do with all the files once they're created.

This has been annoying for individual users, but it's turned into a minor catastrophe for large businesses in the content creation field. Huge amounts of work are held at bay by makeshift filing systems created by individual departments, using media that's getting more outdated every day, only being backed up sporadically, all with a scheme that was devised by someone who probably doesn't work there anymore.

Over the last few years they've started adressing the problem seriously. Digital Asset Management is becoming a field in and of itself. Pretty soon most big companies aren't going to have to worry about it anymore ... all the archiving, backup, data migration, etc. is going to happen transparently, behind the scenes. It's only a matter of time before some of the fruits of these advances trickle down to independent users.

As bandwidth and storage become cheaper, all kinds of offsite options will start to look more attractive.

[JBrunner]

It's worth remembering that in the first decades of digital workflow, there was huge emphasis on content creation, and almost complete negligence regarding what to do with all the files once they're created.

This has been annoying for individual users, but it's turned into a minor catastrophe for large businesses in the content creation field. Huge amounts of work are held at bay by makeshift filing systems created by individual departments, using media that's getting more outdated every day, only being backed up sporadically, all with a scheme that was devised by someone who probably doesn't work there anymore.

Over the last few years they've started adressing the problem seriously. Digital Asset Management is becoming a field in and of itself. Pretty soon most big companies aren't going to have to worry about it anymore ... all the archiving, backup, data migration, etc. is going to happen transparently, behind the scenes. It's only a matter of time before some of the fruits of these advances trickle down to independent users.

As bandwidth and storage become cheaper, all kinds of offsite options will start to look more attractive.

Hopefully so. I have better things to do than constantly migrate images to the geek spasm of the day. Making new ones, for instance.

So far I am very happy with negatives, that have required nothing more than proper storage. I have my grandfathers negs too, and they are still printable, even though some are near sixty years old. The only advantage I can see to digital image storage for me, not being a megalithic corporation, would be the redundancy of off site storage, and even so, I would prefer to print in a darkroom.

My preference is simple. The technology of traditional photography remains fairly stable, so I can concentrate on my personal growth as a photographer, rather than trying to keep up with an everchanging and expanding technology. I don't have to relearn my methods every two years, and I'm not spending my money on rapidly obsolecent hardware and software. Works for me, others mileage may vary.

[Ed K.]

Not to argue here, however there is some basis other than speculation on my part in suggesting that photographers have long sought to produce more permanent images, I took an article by Peter Marshall ( just one of many articles on the subject ) to be fact, or highly likely to be so. Afterall, if the first print processes lasted well enough, or even later ones such as albumen, why would anyone want to select anything else? Many people here say that albumen prints are about as beautiful as it gets, better than silver gelatin. Hmmm.

Marshall says
"Permanent Processes
Walter Woodbury returned to England in 1862, and set up home with his Javanese wife. Here he devoted himself to one of the more important photographic problems of the time, of producing permanent photographic prints. The most promising approaches at the time involved the use of a colloid layer - such as albumen, gum Arabic or gelatin that contained a dichromate such as potassium dichromate."

Source: http://photography.about.com/cs/historymuseums/a/a042104.htm

I have read other articles that mention similar reasons for the evolution of various processes, and of course common sense tells us that faster-better-cheaper are obvious motivations for many of the directions things have gone with photography and prints.

Artists, especially painters, have long known about issues with fading and the like. No, they did not have manufacturer influenced lab tests to do, but they did leave things in the sun and whatever else to try to see what happened. Without W labs, they managed to make oil paints that have indeed stood up to a few hundred years while yielding a more respectable and restorable artwork than a 30 year old color wedding photograph.

I had prints fade that were done on W labs tested materials, prints that were to last decades, last only a few months. I didn't need any sort of fancy testing rigs, just a wall, a push pin and a print in a dimly lit airconditioned room. There is no way that they can take in all the variables of temperature cycles, humitidy, bacterial action, manufacturing variances, light, air polution and everything else and then somehow project what will happen hundreds of years from now. On the other hand, we do have a lot of data in historical evidence of what has worked so far, and that evidence is at least not projected or simulated.

As I am unable to determine whether Peter Marshall has more authority on the subject than the posters here or not, I can't decide who's really correct. Perhaps one of you can write to him and tell him, along with various other historians and writers to correct their facts regarding the evolution of processes and the motivations for them?

In terms of the personal integrity issue, the photographer who told me that he would enjoy selling the prints over and over still had integrity - because he sells 1 year usage rights to his specialized commercial work, and he does photography as a living, for commercial, limited use purposes in advertising. Clients who use his work longer than the agreed upon period are the ones with integrity problems because they signed the contract - it was up front. On the other hand, buying an "archival, lasts centuries, lab tested sure fire" art print from someone then having it fade in a few years - there's a real integrity problem!

You are all coming up with so many good points and issues.

[tim atherton]

Afterall, if the first print processes lasted well enough, or even later ones such as albumen, why would anyone want to select anything else? Many people here say that albumen prints are about as beautiful as it gets, better than silver gelatin. Hmmm.


Artists, especially painters, have long known about issues with fading and the like. No, they did not have manufacturer influenced lab tests to do, but they did leave things in the sun and whatever else to try to see what happened. Without W labs, they managed to make oil paints that have indeed stood up to a few hundred years while yielding a more respectable and restorable artwork than a 30 year old color wedding photograph.
.

Ed, would that it were so simple - and, dare I say it - black and white.

No, we don't know for sure how long many modern materials will last. But if you have ever worked in a museum or archives or with a conservator in such a place, that deals with both photographic works and other works on paper as well as paintings, you would see plenty of old works which are in horrendous condition. Albumen and many other kinds of prints that have broken down. Negatives deteriorating. Oil paintings that have essentially had to be reconstructed (and in which the pigments of many colour nowhere near resemble what they did when the painter applied them) and so on. Many institutions are finding certain types of photographic materials are entering a stage of accelerated deterioration. This isn't to say everything is in such a condition, but there is plenty that is.

All because with most works, there is no way to take in all the variables of temperature cycles, humidity, bacterial action, manufacturing variances, light, air pollution and everything else they have experienced during their life. Most pieces haven;t spent their lives in controlled archival conditions - and many, as a result, show it.

[paulr]

My preference is simple. The technology of traditional photography remains fairly stable, so I can concentrate on my personal growth as a photographer, rather than trying to keep up with an everchanging and expanding technology. I don't have to relearn my methods every two years, and I'm not spending my money on rapidly obsolecent hardware and software. Works for me, others mileage may vary.

I think the real difference these days is the pace of change, not change itself. Photographers have been griping about obsolescence, and their materials being yanked out from under them, almost since the beginning. Even people working with the most handmade, hand-coated processes have suffered when their rag paper gets discontinued. Or "improved."

Have you seen any of the correspondence between Weston and friends when the commercial platinum papers were discontinued? Their vituperations beautifully forshadow the ones our friends have been raining on the digital industry. When I started photographing, in college, the first rants I ever heard were about the old Agfa Portriga being discontinued. From the tone of voice of my professors, you'd have thought a meteor was about to destroy the earth.

The truth is that photography has always been a technological medium, and as such, we photographers have always been technology's bitches.

[Ed K.]

Good topic while waiting for the darned water bath temp to drop down...

Tim - it's true, plenty of ruined works, but plenty that survive long enough to make it to the next leap? I've seen my share of ripe old negs and such, and I'm not longing for more of the old problems either. And yes, color has always been an issue. Yes, you're right it's just not so simple.

Maybe it's really a matter of trust. If the tech guys wouldn't promise as much, or try harder to really look into it, that would help. Moreover, it seems that not enough people care to make it worthwhile to find still better solutions, causes, and test methods than we have now. It's the caring about it, in large enough numbers that brings us back to a good part of disposable culture. It's as much that culture pretty much is happy with being disposable, and as a result, that seems to be what we make as a whole ( garbage excepted, old computer cases and toxic wastes of some kinds might be around for centuries ).

Change for the good - that's good. Change that is designed for enrichment based upon false claims is well, essentially wrong. I am calling for change - at least more straightforward marketing and less hype, plus good science on the issues. We also need better remedies for some of it. Change for the sake of change, change without value, that seems wasteful.

The good news is that at least the conservators, in trouble with fading works all over, are pushing for change to better materials and methods. For it to really work, it seems like the rest of us need to care about it too, no?

[JBrunner]

I think the real difference these days is the pace of change, not change itself. Photographers have been griping about obsolescence, and their materials being yanked out from under them, almost since the beginning. Even people working with the most handmade, hand-coated processes have suffered when their rag paper gets discontinued. Or "improved."

Have you seen any of the correspondence between Weston and friends when the commercial platinum papers were discontinued? Their vituperations beautifully forshadow the ones our friends have been raining on the digital industry. When I started photographing, in college, the first rants I ever heard were about the old Agfa Portriga being discontinued. From the tone of voice of my professors, you'd have thought a meteor was about to destroy the earth.

The truth is that photography has always been a technological medium, and as such, we photographers have always been technology's bitches.

Very true. We have recently seen this with Kodaks discontinuance of paper, notably Azo, and some favorite film stocks.

However, these evolutions are slow compared to present technology, plus one can stock up, if they are dedicated to a particular thing, and sense its impending demise. Two or three years from now, this computer I'm using will be a boat anchor, but odds are I will still be printing from the same paper stock, and using the same film in five, or maybe even ten. If I do have to change something, it is a minor learning curve, and my cameras, and equipment will remain familiar.
For me, this consistency is important. I don't shun the technical part of the medium, rather, I like to keep it mastered as best I can. From my most recent experience with the new tecnology(D1s), I concluded that it requires more constant investment in training, time, money, harware, software, software updating, file orginization, migration, backup, and transfering, than I am willing to take away from my work.
There are others who really enjoy the stimulation of accelerated mutation of processes, and that's cool. Personally, I find it distracting and cumbersome, and the process becomes an entity that consumes the actual photography.

[kmgibbs]

This has been an interesting discussion so far. One thing that has not been discussed yet is the viewing and/or storage conditions of either traditional or inkjet prints. If they are stored or displayed poorly nearly any print regardless of method is going to deteriorate. I think it's safe to say that some processes will tolerate poor conditions better than others. But if the prints are sold, the photographer has no control over how much care or abuse the print will recieve from the owner or his/her heirs. So with this in mind, any guarantees regarding longevity of a print are useless.

I did see a short news item in a photo mag that had been sent in by a reader showing a inkjet print that apparently spent two weeks under salt water and 4 months baking in the Gulf Coast sun after Katrina. I showed no signs of image deterioration. The matboard was completely destroyed. If I remember correctly the image was printed with Cone Editions inks which I believe are carbon based pigments.

[Marko]

However, these evolutions are slow compared to present technology, plus one can stock up, if they are dedicated to a particular thing, and sense its impending demise. Two or three years from now, this computer I'm using will be a boat anchor, but odds are I will still be printing from the same paper stock, and using the same film in five, or maybe even ten. If I do have to change something, it is a minor learning curve, and my cameras, and equipment will remain familiar.

Actually, personal computers change at a much slower pace than they used to, which is only normal. Any new technology will initially experience accelerated rate of advancement in the beginning, before reaching a plateau. Just remember the time when an LCD appeared on top of a regular 35mm camera for the first time! Having to use buttons and dials to change things such as iso, aperture and shutter speed instead of regular twist-and-turn knobs and having to check it on a tiny LCD instead on the knobs themselves was one such paradigm change. And that was still film cameras.

The usable lifespan of a typical personal computer today could easily be compared to an average new car, at least here, in LA. Which is to say about five years, give or take. Now before anybody jumps at me for saying this, yes, cars last longer but so do computers. I still have a couple of 95-98 vintage clunkers down in the garage that simply refuse to die. If I wanted to, I could easily put one of those on my desk and start using it again. But I don't want to because it is so incredibly slow.

Actually, they are as blazingly fast as they were the day I brought them from the store - speaking of which, I hate to even think the king's ransom I paid for every one of those bleeding edge specimens of their day! It's just that today I can have exactly 100 times faster machine with 100 times more disk space and ten times more memory for half the price I paid then.

So I choose not to bother. And that's the very same reason most people think that they have to follow the technology curve so closely.

The truth of the matter is: they don't have to, they want to. And then they bitch about "good old ways" and the cost they incurr and about having to learn and ...

Which is just a natural human desire for progress clashing with equally natural human desire for security and comfort.

Another truth of the matter is: if all those "good old days" and "good old ways" were so much better, the Amish people would be majority today and the rest of us would be a weird minority.

[tim atherton]

did see a short news item in a photo mag that had been sent in by a reader showing a inkjet print that apparently spent two weeks under salt water and 4 months baking in the Gulf Coast sun after Katrina. I showed no signs of image deterioration. The matboard was completely destroyed. If I remember correctly the image was printed with Cone Editions inks which I believe are carbon based pigments.

http://westcoastimaging.blogspot.com/2006/02/digital-print-survives-katrina.html

and (scroll down)

http://www.inkjetmall.com/news/01-23-06.html

[kmgibbs]

did see a short news item in a photo mag that had been sent in by a reader showing a inkjet print that apparently spent two weeks under salt water and 4 months baking in the Gulf Coast sun after Katrina. I showed no signs of image deterioration. The matboard was completely destroyed. If I remember correctly the image was printed with Cone Editions inks which I believe are carbon based pigments.

http://westcoastimaging.blogspot.com/2006/02/digital-print-survives-katrina.html

and (scroll down)

http://www.inkjetmall.com/news/01-23-06.html


That's the one. Piezotone not Cone Editions inks.

[John Kasaian]

Marko,

With the pathetic birthrates in my neck of the woods I wouldn't be surprised if the Amish did take over :rolleyes: