Why doesn't photo paper come in archival boxes?

[Darin Boville]

I remember a few years back there was a move to get book publishers to use acid-free pages in their books. Eventually all (most?) of them did and I believe there were articles saying that in the end there was no increase in production costs.

I thought about that as I threw away yet another batch of 17x22 paper boxes. Why couldn't the boxes be made of better quality materials? That would save me from tossing all that cardboard into a recycling bin and it would save me from buying expensive storage boxes. I'd pay a few bucks extra for that value. Ditto on silver-based paper. Why not?

The book publishers didn't switch to acid-free on their own--only in response to a grass-roots campaign. Would you be willing to pay a few bucks extra on a box of 17x22 to have the box me made of acid-free material? If so, spread the idea around on forums and to your suppliers and let's see what happens.

--Darin

[Kirk Gittings]

First it would be nice to have the paperbase of the photo paper itself acid free! Just saying........For many years I tried to get a clear statement from Ilford and Kodak about the archival properties of their gelatin silver paper stock itself and no one would commit beyond saying it was "high quality" or some BS like that. My conclusion? The paper stock itself of traditional light sensitive papers is not acid free. You can process the "image" archivally but it will always sit on a non-acid free paper support.

[Darin Boville]

O.K, then, the boxes should be at least as archival as the paper it contains! :)

--Darin

[Drew Wiley]

For one thing it would cost a helluva lot more to pkg the paper and sell it. For another,
the exterior of the box could be affected in shpg and handling in such a manner as to
render it contaminated by something else. And "acid-free" is often merely a mktg gimmick for otherwise cruddy material which has been PH buffered with lime. Silver papers per se
might not be enhanced at all in this manner. And I certainly haven't seen any examples of
name-brand papers which have yellowed on their own in proper mounting or storage. In
fact, alkalinity is not always a positive feature. And I really doubt that many "archival"
book papers today stand up anywhere near as well as the book papers of previous centuries. Unless it's some kind of limited edition art book, who could afford it?

[Walter Calahan]

Why? The printing paper is wrapped in plastic, and the box was never intended for storage of finished prints.

[Vaughn]

My guess (and only a guess) is that an archivally process silver gelatin emulsion won't out-last the paper it is on. Perhaps the companies should encase the paper in some sort of resin-like material...;)

Vaughn

PS -- I have seen some poorly handled paper boxes in my time at the university darkroom. Waste of money to create and market archival photo paper boxes.

[Drew Wiley]

The more "archival" things become, the more future generations will realize just how many
really lousy photographers there have been.

[Vaughn]

That is why I warn students in my carbon printing workshops about having good images...a carbon print has the potential of being around for a long time. Their great great great grand kids might be shaking their heads.

[Darin Boville]

Maybe we are missing the point a little? :)

I do realize that the current boxes are not intended for long-term storage and I do realize that the term "archival" is a sort of marketing term in many cases. But the fact remains that inkjet paper boxes (and photo paper boxes, to a lesser degree) are junk. I am not suggesting that *all* such boxes be made to a higher standard--many people buy paper for student darkrooms (as was mentioned above) and other use their inkjet printer for office correspondence.

Nevertheless, there are for both digital and chemical processes certain high end papers that I bet are not commonly used for student use or office tasks. I bet most of the users of these papers are doing "serious" work--advanced hobbyists, artists, commercial photographers. For those high-end papers it would seem to make sense to ship the papers in higher quality boxes (at least it makes sense to me), assuming the cost is a few bucks extra or less (which I bet it would be). You can still throw them out if you like but you could also use them for print storage. A net savings if you look at the price of speciality, small production run storage boxes.

Anyway...

--Darin

[Greg Miller]

I don't know about your inkjet paper, but all the papers I buy have the paper inside a plastic bag which protects them from the box.

[Darin Boville]

I don't know about your inkjet paper, but all the papers I buy have the paper inside a plastic bag which protects them from the box.

For some reason I feel that I'm not expressing myself clearly... :)

--Darin

[Drew Wiley]

All you need to do for temporary storage in ordinary print paper boxes is to use a scrap print or slip of polyethylene sheet, or a scrap of archival matboard - anything like that which acts as a barrier between the back of your good print and the acidic box cardboard.

[Jim Jones]

Fine prints are often mounted and matted, and won't fit in the original boxes. Archival containers are advertised for such prints and for unmounted prints. Even the original boxes can serve well. My RC prints from 40 years ago have survived in original Kodak boxes.

[Greg Miller]

For some reason I feel that I'm not expressing myself clearly... :)

--Darin

Perhaps the word archival is causing the confusion. You wrote about quality material, but also about acid-free. Archival to me means the box will protect the print from damaging elements, typically being neutral in PH. That's what I was responding too. In re-reading your posts, it seems you may have intended to have "archival" mean sturdy. A box could be sturdy , but not archival. But I', still confused about what "archival" means to you, sturdy or acid-free?

[Darin Boville]

>>sturdy or acid-free?<< More acid-free than sturdy, but then you get into the whole archival debate. What I'm aiming at is just a box that I feel good about when I put prints in them for long term storage. I don't feel good about the boxes the paper comes in.

--Darin

[Noah A]

I know what you're saying Darin, and I agree. Not sure that I'd want to pay too much extra, but a sturdy 2-part box made of (or lined with) relatively harmless paper shouldn't cost much extra. I'm not talking about something to use as a portfolio or anything, just something to keep prints in before they're framed, or to transport them to the framer, or to keep work prints or extra prints in.

I just bought a box of 17"x22" Epson paper and it didn't even come in a real 2-part box, it was one of those one-piece packages that is supposedly able to be closed once you rip off the tab to open it, but it's barely able to stay closed with the rest of the paper in it.

Of course, I usually use roll paper.

[Darin Boville]

I just bought a box of 17"x22" Epson paper and it didn't even come in a real 2-part box, it was one of those one-piece packages that is supposedly able to be closed once you rip off the tab to open it, but it's barely able to stay closed with the rest of the paper in it.

Indeed. The old packaging was flimsy but at least it was a box. The new packaging ss worthless. Ahh, but since they don't seem to offer 17x22 in 50 sheet boxes anymore (and thus the $$$ increases if you buy the 25 sheet boxes) I bought four boxes of Canson (supposedly identical) to try...(their boxes look a tad better, too).

--Darin