Wavy Prints! Arrrrrrrg!

[Paddy Quinn]

"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."

But that's exactly the problem. You are taking a technical term which has an accepted set of terms and meanings associated with it and is used directly in that way with regard to the materials we are talking about (moreover a term already misappropriated and used in a misleading in advertising), then you are using it in an inaccurate and imprecise way.

"For most it's likely in the 200- to 500-year range."" - " most likely" isn't really a very helpful or useful approach and highlights the problem. There is no accepted or defined use of the term "archival" in the sense you are using it.

“It most likely means“, or “I think it means“, or “photographer X seems to mean xyz when he says "archival"“ or "it probably means" etc - really isn't much use to anyone.

If you want to talk about longevity of materials (what I think you mean by LE) then use that word - Longevity - again - it's an accepted term which is already used and defined with regard to the lifetime of materials such as photographic prints - it's already there and mean what you want to mean by LE (as far as I can tell). Why use inaccurate terms when there are already terms there that say just what you are trying to say? (and it is the Conservation Scientists and such who will determine the longevity of say a silver gelatin print as it is processed in different ways and affected by different storage or display environments, so why chose to misuse their terminology when it's talking about the same thing?)

[Sal Santamaura]

"But that's exactly the problem. You are taking a technical term which has an accepted set of terms and meanings associated with it and is used directly in that way with regard to the materials we are talking about (moreover a term already misappropriated and used in a misleading in advertising), then you are using it in an inaccurate and imprecise way."

Virtually all photographers are doing that as a result of the advertising hype. I'm simply trying to communicate information to Scott about dry mounting his print, using a term he used, since I don't think the evidence supports being concerned about that type of mounting degrading the LE of a chromogenic print.

"..." most likely" isn't really a very helpful or useful approach and highlights the problem. There is no accepted or defined use of the term "archival" in the sense you are using it."

The problem exists. Either I can try to provide Scott useful information in answer to his question or I can try to correct imprecise use of the word "archival." I choose the former, believing I (or you) have as much chance of accomplishing the latter as fixing other widespread American English shortfalls, such as what I called 'the national stutter" several years ago -- "the problem is is" -- or our current fad, namely use of an apostrophe before the last 's' in plurals. This isn't the American English Forum either.

"There is no accepted or defined use of the term "archival" in the sense you are using it."

Obviously.

"If you want to talk about longevity of materials (what I think you mean by LE) then use that word - Longevity - again - it's an accepted term which is already used and defined with regard to the lifetime of materials such as photographic prints - it's already there and mean what you want to mean by LE (as far as I can tell). Why use inaccurate terms when there are already terms there that say just what you are trying to say?"

Per ANSI: "Life Expectancy (LE): The length of time that information is predicted to be retrievable in a system under extended-term storage conditions." I think LE is accurate and already used in this context.

"...it is the Conservation Scientists and such who will determine the longevity of say a silver gelatin print as it is processed in different ways and affected by different storage or display environments..."

It is time and ongoing observation that will determine the actual useful life of such a print. Conservation Scientists simply make educated guesses.

I don't think linguistic crusades stand much chance of success. Good luck trying to correct the photographic community though. I'll stick to offering posters whatever practical help possible instead.