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.
Bookmarks