Wavy Prints! Arrrrrrrg!

[Allen Quinn]

Some of my B&W prints were dry mounted over 30 years ago and they still look fine. Well, the photography vision was a bit immature but the prints do not exhibit any sign of deterioration. The school I attended had prints from some of the old f64 guys that had been dry mounted. These of course were dry mounted before "archival" entered the vocabulary. They looked great....
...proper selection of materials and attention to detail will eliminate many problems. Be aware that gallery owners may spew tea thru their nostrils if you attempt to show dry mount prints...(:

[Scott Fleming]

Allen,

Yeah and then spew some raunch out the other end about 'zhee clay' prints in the next sentence.

[Sal Santamaura]

1. Ain't no such thing as an archival chromogenic print, no matter what definition one comes up with for "archival."

2. Buffered board is exactly the wrong substrate for a chromogenic print. Color dyes are happier with slight acidity than alkalinity.

Go ahead and dry mount. Enjoy the flatness.

[Paddy Quinn]

"1. Ain't no such thing as an archival chromogenic print, no matter what definition one comes up with for "archival." "

Most certainly there is - Archival refers to the best methods and materials used for storing and handle an object for preservation and best possible longevity - all other things being equal. It's entirely relative and specific to the type of object or item in question.

Following your analogy, there isn't such a thing as an archival platinum print - not when compared to a marble sculpture.

There are different archival standards for silver gelatin prints, chromogenic prints, nitrate negatives, watercolors, printed documents, books etc etc. All can be stored in archival conditions and to archival standards. Some will last longer than others in those ideal conditions.

[Sal Santamaura]

"Most certainly there is - Archival refers to the best methods and materials used for storing and handle an object for preservation and best possible longevity - all other things being equal. It's entirely relative and specific to the type of object or item in question.

Following your analogy, there isn't such a thing as an archival platinum print - not when compared to a marble sculpture."

OK, ANSI defined "archival" as "A recording medium that can be expected to retain information forever so that it can be retrieved without significant loss when properly stored. However, there is no such material and it is not a term to be used in American National Standard material or system specifications." Yet, photographers, including many posting on Internet bulletin boards, continue to use the term. One is then left with the question of how to interpret what they mean by it.

"There are different archival standards for silver gelatin prints, chromogenic prints, nitrate negatives, watercolors, printed documents, books etc etc. All can be stored in archival conditions and to archival standards. Some will last longer than others in those ideal conditions."

When photographers such as Scott, Doug and Allen invoke "archival" I assume the life expectancy (LE) they have in mind is one roughly comparable to that of a properly processed and stored fiber-based silver-gelatin black and white print. That could easily be an incorrect assumption, but it seems reasonable based on my 40 years of interacting with photographers, including the last 8 years on this and other forums. Calling a watercolor "archival" might not be strictly wrong in a legal sense, but it probably wouldn't pass muster with those whose expectations are LEs in the 500-year range. As always, unless clear definitions are agreed to in advance, communication is difficult.

[Paddy Quinn]

"When photographers such as Scott, Doug and Allen invoke "archival" I assume the life expectancy (LE) they have in mind is one roughly comparable to that of a properly processed and stored fiber-based silver-gelatin black and white print. That could easily be an incorrect assumption, but it seems reasonable based on my 40 years of interacting with photographers, including the last 8 years on this and other forums. Calling a watercolor "archival" might not be strictly wrong in a legal sense, but it probably wouldn't pass muster with those whose expectations are LEs in the 500-year range. As always, unless clear definitions are agreed to in advance, communication is difficult."

On the watercolor comparison - precisely.

"When photographers such as Scott, Doug and Allen invoke "archival" I assume the life expectancy (LE) they have in mind is one roughly comparable to that of a properly processed and stored fiber-based silver-gelatin black and white print. "

An arbitary choice though. Why not pick platinum prints? Or Dye Transfer Prints? Or RC Prints?

"As always, unless clear definitions are agreed to in advance, communication is difficult.""

Those who deal with archival standards and longevity - Archivists, Conservators, Museum Curators, Conservation Scientists etc have developed, defined and understand the terminology and usage.

However, many years ago the manufacturers - in our own area - film manufacturers, labs, negative sheetholder manufacturers and so on hooked onto "archival" as a marketing buzz word that sounded good but didn't actually mean anything. It's common use in photography tended to flow from there. (yes, some photographers process their materials to the archival standards set down by say the LoC or the British Museum or whatever - but many just follow on with the Ad/Buszzword usage from the manufactuers brochure). It sounds good but it is basically meaningless unless it's understood in its correct context and usage.

Simply put - something isn't "archival" but rather it meets, is handled in accrodance with or is stored accrodong to archival standards. Said standards vary depending entirely upon the material itself.

What "archival" most definately isn't is a stand alone period of time e.g. Archival = 50, 100, 500 or 1000 years (pick a number). The longevity of something in this context depends on the object or item itself.

[robc]

there's some informative stuff at this web site about what the framing trade consider to be archival and or requirements for mounting prints. I interpret what they say as unless your images are going to museums then conservation quality is perfectly adequate. Your interpretation or personal standards may of course be different. But at least its some kind of bench mark which the industry is trying to address.

Fine Art Trade Guild - Mountboard

and

Fine Art Trade Guild - Conservation Framing

I interpret the above as meaning that rematting/reframing every 20 years is required.

and

Fine Art Trade Guild - Museum Framing

personally I think its upto the museum to frame to their own standards and remat the work as necessary. They are, after all, the experts who have paid professionals doing the conservation.

As regards paper processing, then you can only do what is currently considered optimum(which unfortunately seems to change to frequently)

So where does that leave your endura print? Well you can't remat it if its dry mounted. Or at least no museum will bother unless its really valuable.

[Scott Fleming]

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. LOVE this board.

[Sal Santamaura]

"An arbitary choice though. Why not pick platinum prints? Or Dye Transfer Prints? Or RC Prints?"

Because for many, many decades fiber-based silver-gelatin prints have been readily producible by any photographer and capable of very long life when processed and stored properly. That's why HABS/HAER required them for submissions and it's why most photographers probably have such prints floating in the back of their minds when they use the word "archival." Platinum prints may have an even longer LE, but they're not commonly made. Dye transfer prints have a shorter LE on display than Fuji Crystal Archive (see Wilhelm). Not a good choice. I won't get into RC (see Ctein); in my opinion that's not even a viable choice.

"Those who deal with archival standards and longevity - Archivists, Conservators, Museum Curators, Conservation Scientists etc have developed, defined and understand the terminology and usage."

Fine, but this isn't the "Archivists, Conservators, Museum Curators and Conservation Scientists Forum." I read all of the links Rob posted. While interesting, they say nothing whatsoever about the LE of Kodak Endura. Based on their content and from what I've seen elsewhere it seems probable that, when displayed, Scott's chromogenic print will yellow and fade many times faster than a fiber-based silver-gelatin print regardless of (or perhaps because of) what he or a museum might do to it. So I chose to give Scott an input that was relevant to photographers' common use of the word "archival."

"What "archival" most definately isn't is a stand alone period of time e.g. Archival = 50, 100, 500 or 1000 years (pick a number)."

Not for archivists, conservators, museum curators and conservation scientists. In the popular vernacular of everyday photographers who frequent forums like this one, I maintain it *is* a specific period of time. Exactly what period varies from photographer to photographer. For most it's likely in the 200- to 500-year range.

[tim atherton]

"Exactly what period varies from photographer to photographer. For
most it's likely in the 200- to 500-year range."

I don't know of any photographs that have lasted 200 years...?

(I've seen many many 100 year old+ ones though - some in quite nice condition and some that have aged terribly).