Wavy Prints! Arrrrrrrg!

[Scott Fleming]

I'll make this quick and dirty. Will Fugi Crystal Archive lay flatter than Kodak Endura? Yes I'm using standard 'archival' mounting methods. Just hinging the print. Mounting behind plexi with standard methods. My Endura paper prints are unpleasingly wavy even in this very dry Texas climate ... kept in very dry AC maintained house. At present all my prints have been made by Holland Labs in Austin, Tx. using their Chromira printer on glossy paper.

[Nick_3536]

My Enduras are flat but then the biggest I've made lately is 11x14 on cut sheet.

[Scott Fleming]

Thanks Nick. My 11 x 14s are ok as well. It's the larger prints I'm having trouble with.

[Doug Dolde]

I always dry mount Crystal Archive prints on Gatorboard.

Low temp (170 deg F); they can blister if you go too hot.

Matte is better for dry mounting however as you can get an orange peel effect with Glossy and especially Super Glossy.

[David A. Goldfarb]

My Crystal Archive prints all seem to stay flat using hinge mounting, but I don't see why Endura should curl.

[Scott Fleming]

Doug,

But then you can no longer claim they are archivally mounted, no? Granted this archival bit has been overhyped and disinformationized by the inkjet folks but it has become a buzword one cannot avoid.

[Paddy Quinn]

But then you can no longer claim they are archivally mounted, no? Granted this archival bit has been overhyped and disinformationized by the inkjet folks but it has become a buzword one cannot avoid."

Oh - long before that. With "archival" film sleeves, "archival" print washing, "archival" processing, "archival" mounting tape, "archival" matte boards, "archival" colour prints, "archival" mounting tissue... and much more. All hyped to the nth dgeree, with many such productcs and proceedures not meeting archival standards (or their advetrtised promises) at all once a few years had passed. Just look through any old catalogue of photographic supplies or back copies of Pop Photo for the 60's, 70's or 80's

[Doug Dolde]

Maybe...but I'd rather have a dry mounted and FLAT print than a warped one. The dry mounting tissue is "archival" and pH buffered. Guess I'm not a purist.

[Mark_3632]

Probably a humidity, or lack of problem. If you have aprint you can test on hang it in the bathroom to see if it relaxes. I live in northern AZ. I have some prints on kodak metallic paper mounted like you describe. they will not stay flat but I noticed, after showers, the one in the hall is not wavy. I'm honestly thinking of drymounting. From what I hear color prints will fade before the drymount bothers them anyway.

Disclaimer:
The last statement is pure hearsay so don't jump all over me.

[Henry Ambrose]

Dry mount the prints, just like Doug wrote. I'd rather see a nice flat print -how ever long it lasts- than look a wavy thing that'll still be wavy when I die. And if you use good materials you don't have to worry about it anyway.

[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 (http://www.fineart.co.uk/mountboardstandards.asp?key=detail)

and

Fine Art Trade Guild - Conservation Framing (http://www.fineart.co.uk/FramingStdConservationLevel.asp)

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

and

Fine Art Trade Guild - Museum Framing (http://www.fineart.co.uk/FramingStdMuseumLevel.asp)

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).

[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.