Does anyone use colour print film?

[kthompson]

Yeah, VPL was the worst. But actually, I believe NPS might (boy, you've got to be careful with accelerated aging tests...they are not the gospel truth, so much depends on YOU & YOUR STORAGE ENVIRONMENT), so after that disclaimer, NPS beats out VPS. But, hey, VPS/VPL are history now. Look, I'm not laying down a definitive guide here, I'm just saying that in most museums/archives, documentation is done on B& W as the primary, and color transp. as the secondary film. To me, if I were faced with trying to reproduce an image 50-75-100 years from now, I would rather work from a neg/transp. than have to make a copy of a "master" print. Even taking into account "dark fading" in acc. tests transp. beat out color neg. Short of cold storage (which has it's pitfalls & pecularities) the best you can do is to keep your film cool & dry. If you bank on negs with "long lasting" prints, then what do you do when your negs crap out? You might have a "master" print in dark storage/cold storage. But what if you want more? Sorry, I don't buy any argument that color materials are longer living than b&w polyester base sheet films. If any of this still sounds crazy to you, how about considering what the HABS/HAER requirements are. What I'm talking about is a document for reference. When we shoot color neg. it's for a purpose that we deem "unarchival", i.e. not for the collection. Now, to the average person a 20 yr. (at 70% RH)--70 yr. (< 10% RH) at normal room temps., this is probably good enough. But, like I said it has to do with you, and your air quality, temp., humidity, enclosures etc. To me, archival goes beyond a fiber based print, or a good print material. It relies on the original film image. You have to look at dark fading, and work it from there (not counting yellow stain), the fact of the matter is, you're not going to find many institution shooting color neg. for long term use.

[neil poulsen]

I use and like Agfa's Optima for landscape photography. I was attracted to this film when I heard that it's optimized for daylight, not just for flash and portraiture. (e.g. skin tones under flash.) I find that I have to order Optima from Calumet or B&H.

[Scott Walton]

Sometimes I have to use the 100T in the studio and like it. Most of my work is w ith softboxes and Pro 100 and I recently tried the new 400 and will use that alot more because of it's tight grain, fine grain and really pretty nice cu rve. I first did some studio tests and liked what I saw so I took it out in the field and really liked that also.

[Dick Deimel]

I too used Agfa Optima 100 for years, and while not perfect (a tendency to oversaturate blues)it was better balanced than and had more natural contrast than any of the Fuji or Kodak films available in 4x5. Unfortunately, Agfa has pulled 4x5 Optima from the market and it has not been available for some time. (They promise a new "professional" 4x5 product line in the fall, but........)So what's left? NPS lacks contrast. Portra 160VC has too much contrast. The best of a bad lot is Portra 160NC, and its reds and greens leave something to be desired, although they aren't bad in direct sunlight. So that's what I'm using while holding my breath for Agfa's new offerering, when and if.

[Sal Santamaura]

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to suggest anything other than black and white for archival purposes. And I use hardly any color negative personally. Just thought that, if one is doing color, the NPS/Crystal Archive route might be better than transparencies in some respects.

[kthompson]

Sal, I didn't completely misunderstand, I just think that we're talking about two different things here. For the average person who wants color prints, yes the NPS/SFA3 paper is a good combo. Especially if you're in a commercial portrait business. I found it interesting that those films are on a polyester base as well. But, that just means the base material will probably (?) outlast the dyes much longer. Depending on which dyes go first, you might have a weird color shift. The film base can fail as well, not just the dyes or emulsion. But, even in dark storage, the CTs outlast the neg. material by about twice as long. I think where you're coming from is thinking of a print as the final product, whereas I'm looking at making many prints, slide dupes, etc. over an indefinite period-well beyond my lifetime, certainly beyond the time I'll be here in this position. Now, that Crystal Archive print could be viewed as a reference print in someone's files. But, if the original neg. craps out, then that print becomes an "artifact". If you wanted more copies, you'd either have to make a copy neg., or scan the photo, both of which are not quite the same as having the original neg. I don't really need to look at accelerated test to see how various color materials have held up, I can go dig through some of our really old files and can see. All this doesn't detract from my original answer to the question. NPS does look great in 4x5.

On a seperate note, but for all those not bored to death about all this talk about stability, here's a good link to the Image Permanence Institute. Wilhelm might have moved on to inkjet stbility, but these folks are working on film: http://www.rit.edu/~661www1/