Chromira Print Color Degradation

[pdmoylan]

I’ve been going through my archive of Chromira Prints stored back in 2001 and I found 2 where the whites and light grays have shifted warm to light tan (snow scene), and the color differentiation is now muted, overall color again shifting warm.


Since these were framed by a preservation method (3rd party gallery) and have been stored the entire time without any light source hitting the print for 20+ years, and all other Chromira and Durst Lambdas from the same period look great, I am wondering what might have caused this degradation? They will both have to be discarded.

I contacted the original printer for their input but have not received a response. My impression was stored prints would maintain their original quality for 100? Years?

Pdm

[Drew Wiley]

What specific medium were they printed on? An RA4 chromogenic paper made by Kodak or Fuji perhaps? The Chromira printing method would have nothing to do with it - that's just a fancy laser exposure light source. What could be a factor involves residual dye coupler yellowing, or perhaps an improperly washed RA4 print, maybe paper that was getting too old to begin with before exposure, improperly replenished chemistry, or else mounting or storage issues.

Where did you come up with that hundred year figure? Maybe somebody made that claim based on marketing hype, but it wasn't realistic unless the print was a Cibachrome stored in the dark or a distinctly later Fuji RA4 paper than that vintage. Still, only 20 years until discoloration is quite disappointing. It's hard to give a specific answer unless we know more about the mounting and storage details. But since you have other prints seeming to do well, it does sound more like a processing issue.

[pdmoylan]

Drew, these were Chromira chromogenic “C” prints on Fuji archival paper, and I have a large collection from this period in various sizes, many framed/matted. The same printer produced all of these prints other than a half dozen durst prints (which I have always preferred), so it’s guesswork as to the cause. Yet framed prints that I have had hanging for 6 years, up to 30x40, look great - no change.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, it can take 15 to 20 years on display to even begin to assess realistic distinctions. Sometimes a print in storage, if improperly processed, will be affected sooner because of trapped contaminants. The whole topic is complex. Chromira versus Lambda or Lightjet prints are basically the same thing IF the same Fuji paper is used, though there will be minor visual differences due to the different laser systems involved. But there has been quite a variety of Fuji Crystal Archive papers over the past 20 years, with not all being equal. But premature outright discoloration does sound more like a processing chemistry or washing issue. The term "C print" is just an old shorthand expression identifying any kind of RA4 chromogenic print (versus a chromolytic dye-destruction process like Cibachrome).

[pdmoylan]

You are such a great resource. Thanks for providing your thoughtful response.

[pdmoylan]

Lab confirmed the change in color was probably due to dated chemicals. They also mentioned that Fuji advertises their archival paper as up to 75 years longevity, while Epson is stating that current pigment ink jet prints will last between 100-200 years.

So is one better-served with pigment prints (on exhibition fiber paper) rather than having Chromira prints assuming you can approximate the Chromira “look”, which i prefer?

[bob carnie]

RA4 prints will deteriorate in dark storage or in light, I think 30 years is a good guide for both ways of storing, in light a bit faster.

Epson will state 100, 200 or even 500 years but I take it with a grain of salt, Imagine a chocolate chip cookie- hand made prints like gum or carbon have thousands of pigment chips,,, inkjet prints may have one or two pigment chips... time will tell on inkjets and their stability, we are coming up to about 15 years on pigmented inkjet prints, I would like to be around in 20 years to see if they are still good.

[Drew Wiley]

Hmmm. It's quite interesting that someone has been working at Epson for the past 200 years to monitor all this, and that they waited 185 yrs before marketing the amazing product. Maybe they should be in the time machine business instead. And please keep in mind that inkjet prints are NOT real pigment prints. They do contain some pigments, but also colored dyes and "lakes" (dyed inert pigment particles). What Bob now does involves real pigments instead; but even those are not all created equal. I'll let Bob authoritatively respond to that in another 200 years.

Cynicism aside, my big roll of Fujiflex Supergloss finally arrived, so it's a good day for me. If those prints look good for the next 30 years, they'll have probably outlasted me. But I'm sure they'll do even better than that. It's a polyester based medium, and allegedly more permanent than their RC color papers; but I like it for its distinctly superior color gamut as well as contrast depth.

[bob carnie]

Hmmm. It's quite interesting that someone has been working at Epson for the past 200 years to monitor all this, and that they waited 185 yrs before marketing the amazing product. Maybe they should be in the time machine business instead. And please keep in mind that inkjet prints are NOT real pigment prints. They do contain some pigments, but also colored dyes and "lakes" (dyed inert pigment particles). What Bob now does involves real pigments instead; but even those are not all created equal. I'll let Bob authoritatively respond to that in another 200 years.

Cynicism aside, my big roll of Fujiflex Supergloss finally arrived, so it's a good day for me. If those prints look good for the next 30 years, they'll have probably outlasted me. But I'm sure they'll do even better than that. It's a polyester based medium, and allegedly more permanent than their RC color papers; but I like it for its distinctly superior color gamut as well as contrast depth.

I like to consider my Gum over Palladiums as such -- Palladium noble metals reportedly through Wilheam and others as very stable to light. -CRUSHED STONE my stones or colours are crushed to a fine powder with a Blue Wool Scale of 8- COTTON the paper the image sinks into- TREE SAP is the vehicle that holds the crushed stone- WATER which is the agent that cleans out all the unwanted material in my process... The only fly in my Ointment is Ammonium Dichromate which is required to harden the gum in relationship to UV light.

I feel that these prints are very possible the most archival prints being made in our Photographic History.

[domaz]

I like to consider my Gum over Palladiums as such -- Palladium noble metals reportedly through Wilheam and others as very stable to light. -CRUSHED STONE my stones or colours are crushed to a fine powder with a Blue Wool Scale of 8- COTTON the paper the image sinks into- TREE SAP is the vehicle that holds the crushed stone- WATER which is the agent that cleans out all the unwanted material in my process... The only fly in my Ointment is Ammonium Dichromate which is required to harden the gum in relationship to UV light.

I feel that these prints are very possible the most archival prints being made in our Photographic History.

You may be able to replace Dichromates in Gum Prints with a Diazo compound (https://silverprint.co.uk/collections/laboldtech/products/diazo5g). Don't expect it to be plug and play though, it takes quite a bit of fiddling to use these compounds, at least that was the case when I started using DAS for my Carbon Prints.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, Bob ... If your prints are truly permanent, within fifty million years or so, that tree sap will have turned into amber, and the "fly in the ointment" will be a real insect fossil !

[martiansea]

You may be able to replace Dichromates in Gum Prints with a Diazo compound (https://silverprint.co.uk/collections/laboldtech/products/diazo5g). Don't expect it to be plug and play though, it takes quite a bit of fiddling to use these compounds, at least that was the case when I started using DAS for my Carbon Prints.

I have been trying, but I have yet to get satisfying pictorial continuous tone results using Diazo for gum printing. I think the only way it really works is if you "bitmap" the image to create half-tone, like is done with screen printing. The beauty of printing with the dichromates is that isn't necessary and it can get continuous tonality. Having to resort to half-toning ruins it for me, and I want to be able to print directly from continuous tone film negatives.

If anyone knows how to get good continuous tone results in gum with Diazo, I'm all ears.

[bob carnie]

You may be able to replace Dichromates in Gum Prints with a Diazo compound (https://silverprint.co.uk/collections/laboldtech/products/diazo5g). Don't expect it to be plug and play though, it takes quite a bit of fiddling to use these compounds, at least that was the case when I started using DAS for my Carbon Prints.

Yes , there are a lot of European workers on the FB groups I am part of experimenting with Diazo . I plan to give it a go with my work .

[bob carnie]

Well, Bob ... If your prints are truly permanent, within fifty million years or so, that tree sap will have turned into amber, and the "fly in the ointment" will be a real insect fossil !

They will have a nice sepia tone then with a hint of selenium. perfect thanks for the observation Drew.

[bob carnie]

I agree , I can see a stocastic screen print a mile away, a lot of people use this type of negative but for me its obvious, and I do not like it. I am working with con tone negs silver and inkjet and am curious about the Diazo.

[pdmoylan]

As far as you know, is there any hard research being done currently to improve the lifespan of chromogenic or inkjet color prints? The value of photo prints seems to lose its luster vs oil paintings as an investment (perhaps other than some dye transfer prints) due to a perceived shorter life.

Obviously, use of preservation mounting techniques and special UV resistant glass extend the life of prints. Any special translucent coatings that might further limit image deterioration over time?

[Oren Grad]

Henry Wilhelm (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/) and Mark McCormick-Goodhart (https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/) are the two sources that have been posting results of stability tests of inkjet and other print media.

We know that the inkjet printer manufacturers have continued to work on improving the stability of their ink sets as they boast about the improvement with each new generation, and test results from Wilhelm and from Aardenburg have generally confirmed that progress is being made.

[Drew Wiley]

There has been a great deal of ongoing chromogenic dye research by the manufacturers; otherwise, the products wouldn't be steadily improving. But it's a very specialized field and competition is still involved, so don't expect the details to be openly published.

Some of today's chromogenic prints tend to be significantly more resistant to light fading than typical dye transfer prints ever were, though that too is a very complex topic because those dyes can be more easily tailored to specific priorities. But a more fade-resistant process dye choice might not be as pure in hue, or as easily retouched; so certain compromises had to made in practical dye selection. The latest version of dye transfer printing in Germany is claiming superior stability to the Kodak dye sets. But dye transfer printing will always be very expensive and time consuming, and probably will not even be in existence at all in another generation unless some philanthropist is willing to fund new custom coatings of the necessary film and paper.

The amount of R&D going into inkjet ingredients is staggering; too much, in fact. There are all kinds of new patents out there going nowhere. At commercial scale, certain "good enough" plateaus are reached, and might thereafter slowly evolve. But the whole point is a compromise between user convenience and sheer profitability. I have good reason to suspect the profit margins on the inks and papers themselves are ridiculous. But there's also now a lot of competition. So going back to the drawing board and starting over is getting less and less likely. They have to get a solid return on their R&D investment. We'll see. But I expect more of a slow and steady evolution to inkjet, just like happened with chromogenic technology over the past 75 yrs, and what is still going on in that respect.

The allegedly extra longevity under UV glass or plastic is really minimal, maybe 5% or 10% at best. And the color is inevitably affected, especially blues, due to the presence of a pinkish or yellowish UV blocker in the sheet, much like the color of a skylight filter. The name of the game is just to avoid displaying prints in UV-rich light to begin with. But I can't go into details about that at the moment.

[martiansea]

The value of photo prints seems to lose its luster vs oil paintings as an investment (perhaps other than some dye transfer prints) due to a perceived shorter life.
I think the lower general value of traditional photo prints is because of their relatively easy reproducibility, whereas a painting is considered unique. There are paintings that are valued in millions of dollars that were made with non-archival materials and fugitive pigments. As much as I like to talk up the multi-millennium lifespan of a gum print made with natural earth ochres, I know ultimately the only ones who really put high value on such things are museum conservators.

[Drew Wiley]

Stereotypes. Probably 99% of the paintings in the world have about as much relative value as a postcard. And even some vintage ordinary C print color photos have gone for absurdly high auction prices even though they're probably already 75% faded. Don't expect trendy market prices to always make sense or even reflect real permanence. And the only reason some certain old masters' paintings still exist is that a tremendous amounts of time and money has been spent restoring them.

And as far as the amount of work involved, it often takes far more time to optimize a color print than to make an oil painting. Depends on the subject and specific technique of course. But plein air and Impressionist types do it in a fraction of the time.

And want truly permanent pigments besides just earthtone oxides, worthy of the Sistine Chapel ceiling? No problem ... Just get a sponsor like Leo X willing to loot half of Europe with the sale of indulgences, and with the biggest debt conceivable with lenders like the Fuggers, and then you have access to sufficient amounts of the highest grade pure ground lapis lazuli, precious red coral, chrysolite, etc - worth more than gold.

[martiansea]

And as far as the amount of work involved, it often takes far more time to optimize a color print than to make an oil painting.
A skillful printer can't dial in a good color print in an afternoon and then churn out a stack of identical copies? That's news to me. And here I am thinking gum printing is labor intensive...

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on your definition of quality. A photofinisher can do it all by machine in seconds; but that's like breakfast at IHOP - nothing memorable unless you're barfing for the next three days.

Once in awhile I do get a hole-in-one print. But then there's the one that took thirteen sheets of 8x10 film of different types, for all the relevant masks up till the master printing internegative. And unlike gum printing, every single step has to be in precise register and completely clean. 13 steps is way more than most instances in my case, but the result was well worth it. Dye transfer printers would turn their nose up at me, however; some of them routinely used sixteen sheets of film per image, not counting the printing matrices. Sometimes what they got at the end was stunning, sometimes it was rather funky. A lot of work, either way.

At least I'm working with my hands. The best inkjet printers I know spend up to a week per image sitting on their butt to get the look they want; but the extra effort shows. They don't eat at IHOP either. Technique-wise, pick your poison. Sometimes it literally is poisonous, like some of the pigments Michelangelo's assistants had to grind by hand. I know my own share of painters with tremors and kidney failure due to smearing cadmium and lead oil colors with bare fingers, not to mention what mercury based cinnabar reds do to their disposition. I suspect inkjet printing would prematurely kill me with outright boredom. Tonite's TV programming will be bad enough.

[Michael R]

Now you’re trashing IHOP?? What next? Denny’s? Waffle House? Is no institution sacred?


Depends on your definition of quality. A photofinisher can do it all by machine in seconds; but that's like breakfast at IHOP - nothing memorable unless you're barfing for the next three days.

Once in awhile I do get a hole-in-one print. But then there's the one that took thirteen sheets of 8x10 film of different types, for all the relevant masks up till the master printing internegative. And unlike gum printing, every single step has to be in precise register and completely clean. 13 steps is way more than most instances in my case, but the result was well worth it. Dye transfer printers would turn their nose up at me, however; some of them routinely used sixteen sheets of film per image, not counting the printing matrices. Sometimes what they got at the end was stunning, sometimes it was rather funky. A lot of work, either way.

At least I'm working with my hands. The best inkjet printers I know spend up to a week per image sitting on their butt to get the look they want; but the extra effort shows. They don't eat at IHOP either. Technique-wise, pick your poison. Sometimes it literally is poisonous, like some of the pigments Michelangelo's assistants had to grind by hand. I know my own share of painters with tremors and kidney failure due to smearing cadmium and lead oil colors with bare fingers, not to mention what mercury based cinnabar reds do to their disposition. I suspect inkjet printing would prematurely kill me with outright boredom. Tonite's TV programming will be bad enough.

[pdmoylan]

Scratch buckwheat blueberry with high grade Canadian maple syrup for me. Nothing terribly digestible from those menus.

I don’t buy the multiple copy argument in valuing prints. Limited print runs, i.e. exclusive buyer rights should be a mitigator.

Great quality prints optimally expressing the taker’s vision are desirable and laudable but it’s not clear that it increases value per se.

Historians and market makers instruct what has value and Burtynsky and Gursky have risen above. The question remains if prints could last say 500 years would values improve (after taking core cpi into account)? Is it worth pursuing that objective?

Would the market change?

So if an original Gursky “C” print goes for $1MM with an expected 50 year life span, but new tech allows his prints to last 500 years, would there be a multiple increase in market value?

[Drew Wiley]

By the time a 500 year print process arrives, probably nobody will even remember who Gursky was. Besides, if the company claiming a 500 process arrives (and several already have), divide by ten for something realistically approximating the truth. The basic problem with those really huge prints is that they were made to be on conspicuous display, and that seems to come with abusive levels of UV in the lighting. So cut that 50 years down to about 15. Smart "investment"... yeah, real smart. But people with that kind of money don't seem to care. And speaking of "conspicuous", I suspect that "conspicuous consumption" is a pretty big factor too, just flaunting their wealth. I've certainly seen more than my fair share of that.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - yeah, I had about 3 yrs of Microbiology back in school, but that was 50 years ago, and I forgot most of it.
But all I needed to know is when some co-worker couldn't show up to work for three days after eating at one of those fine dining franchises. It's always interesting to walk into a Denney's or IHOP and see those employee pictures on the wall behind the cashier, like Edward the chef, whose name is appropriately abbreviated on the plaque as E. Coli, along with the picture of the manager, E. Bola.

[bob carnie]

I think the lower general value of traditional photo prints is because of their relatively easy reproducibility, whereas a painting is considered unique. There are paintings that are valued in millions of dollars that were made with non-archival materials and fugitive pigments. As much as I like to talk up the multi-millennium lifespan of a gum print made with natural earth ochres, I know ultimately the only ones who really put high value on such things are museum conservators.


Well about 9 years ago I would have agreed with the statement. (I know ultimately the only ones who really put high value on such things are museum conservators.)

But today after 9 years of working on tri colour over palladium and cyanotype I can honestly say that 40-50 % of my companies sales are in these types of prints and the work that is required to do so.

I am a small printing shop in Toronto , I have been printing professionally for others since 1976 and now I see a complete movement to the types of prints that I specialize in. Enough new work in this direction to be training two young women to take over the business and run it.

I am working on estates, private collections and young photographers work that may not as PERFECT as what I could have done on my Lambda using C print or even my inkjet machine. But it seems a large portion of my clients
are buying into this type of work. We are working daily on Silver Gelatin portfolios, now when was the last time you walked into a lab that is doing that, if not silver we are making enlarged negatives for contact printing on other alt process.
We inkjet as well and since I work in both inkjet and alt prints I have taken a neutral position on which is better , worse , sharper bla bla bla.

I let the client decide what they want to do with their images and I make the print. I get asked to do enlarger prints in silver all the time, I will do so only if the budget will allow me too. Back in the day I had 8 enlargers set up for large silver jobs and we could
get through a show. The last show I did like this was about 4 years ago and it was a Vivian Maier show . for that project I used two enlargers and it took me 15 - 20 days to do so. It was a labour of love to be working on her negatives and I was really lucky
to have had the chance to do so.
Today I only have 1- 11 x14 Devere which is used each week for silver contacts and 1- 5 x7 Devere in case another wonderful commission comes in the lab that requires silver prints from original negs.

Back to Chromira and Lambda Cprints, I have spent my whole career making colour C prints up until 2013 when the stink of the machine downstairs and the inability to find old school technicians to fix the damm machine when it inevitably broke down- I finally dropped the service and went completely to inkjet.
But I haveto admit I kept my Lambda in the faint hope that as Drew points out some breakthrough in RA4 tech happened where I could go back to C print, I absolutely love the look of a well crafted Chromira or Lambda print no doubt about it, the problem these prints fade either in
Dark Storage as the OP points out or in UV light conditions. It would make me a happy man to make these prints again, but not until some kind of staggering improvement Fuji comes up with.

[bob carnie]

Scratch buckwheat blueberry with high grade Canadian maple syrup for me. Nothing terribly digestible from those menus.

I don’t buy the multiple copy argument in valuing prints. Limited print runs, i.e. exclusive buyer rights should be a mitigator.

Great quality prints optimally expressing the taker’s vision are desirable and laudable but it’s not clear that it increases value per se.

Historians and market makers instruct what has value and Burtynsky and Gursky have risen above. The question remains if prints could last say 500 years would values improve (after taking core cpi into account)? Is it worth pursuing that objective?

Would the market change?

So if an original Gursky “C” print goes for $1MM with an expected 50 year life span, but new tech allows his prints to last 500 years, would there be a multiple increase in market value?

Go to the secondary market to find the true value of the artist you mention, I think you will be surprised.

[bob carnie]

A lot of people get confused with the photographic art market, myself included .

But here is my small take on this topic , I could write pages and pages about this topic buy why bore you fine folks.

A- I call one side the Contemporary Crowd- this includes most of the large C print , Inkjet, Ciba crowd. The artists spend hundreds of thousands of dollars over a 15 - 20 year period
promoting themselves to the point that their work sells for minimum 15 k per print, when they reach this point, the Banks, Insurance Companies, Govt Agency's buy into their story
and purchase their work .. it hangs in prominent places and the goal is to show their audience that they the buyer are , Sophisticated , Successful Worthy of working with. These large works
hang for years and at the end of their life expectancy are put in storage and it the is after 30 years the print is probably completely faded... But it has done its job and I get this type of market.

B - I call the second side the Classic Crowd - this includes museums, collectors , investors who purchase this work to eventually flip. This work is usually silver, Pt Pd or now some type of Alternative Print
process. The Artists spend much less time promoting themselves and usually let a gallery do this for them, I would say these are the Larry Towells, Jerry Uellsman , Sara Moon, Irving Penn, Lillian Bassman of this world.
Their work if good and desirable only goes up in price and is considered precious. Moonrise over Lilly Pond by Steichen fetched over 3 million dollars.

Both crowds IMO are valid and worthy.

As a print maker I work in both A and B Crowd and am under no circumstances will I trick a client to believe one is better than the other, Its all a matter of perspective on how you feel about photography
and where you currently fall into place.


I hope I have not offended anyone with this very simple breakdown of how I see the photo art market.

[Michael R]

I really think the longevity thing is a red herring. I think a lot of photographers try hard to convince themselves photographic prints would be worth a lot more to people if they lasted 500 years, but in my opinion it has little to do with that. With perhaps a few exceptions, as works of art great photography will never have anywhere near the value of great paintings or drawings.


Scratch buckwheat blueberry with high grade Canadian maple syrup for me. Nothing terribly digestible from those menus.

I don’t buy the multiple copy argument in valuing prints. Limited print runs, i.e. exclusive buyer rights should be a mitigator.

Great quality prints optimally expressing the taker’s vision are desirable and laudable but it’s not clear that it increases value per se.

Historians and market makers instruct what has value and Burtynsky and Gursky have risen above. The question remains if prints could last say 500 years would values improve (after taking core cpi into account)? Is it worth pursuing that objective?

Would the market change?

So if an original Gursky “C” print goes for $1MM with an expected 50 year life span, but new tech allows his prints to last 500 years, would there be a multiple increase in market value?

[Michael R]

Some of these places can inspire great art though. Ed Ruscha made Norms on La Cienega an eventual destination for me.


Michael - yeah, I had about 3 yrs of Microbiology back in school, but that was 50 years ago, and I forgot most of it.
But all I needed to know is when some co-worker couldn't show up to work for three days after eating at one of those fine dining franchises. It's always interesting to walk into a Denney's or IHOP and see those employee pictures on the wall behind the cashier, like Edward the chef, whose name is appropriately abbreviated on the plaque as E. Coli, along with the picture of the manager, E. Bola.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'm in no mood for disgusting art today. The neighborhood's biggest raccoon was apparently in brawl with something last night and left dripping bloody red footprints from across the street clear down the block sidewalk, down my driveway and over my back fence. He was a friendly old fellow, and I hope his rear foot heals up OK. But being a raccoon can be a dangerous occupation.

[sharktooth]

The last show I did like this was about 4 years ago and it was a Vivian Maier show . for that project I used two enlargers and it took me 15 - 20 days to do so. It was a labour of love to be working on her negatives and I was really lucky
to have had the chance to do so.


Bob, was this for the show in Hamilton? I saw the exhibition of her work in Hamilton, and was very impressed with the quality of the prints on display. It beautifully complimented the impact of the images. I'd assumed they were inkjet, since the documentary movie was always showing her work being scanned. I kept thinking to myself that the quality of inkjet was now as good as silver, but maybe it really was silver prints I was looking at.

[bob carnie]

Bob, was this for the show in Hamilton? I saw the exhibition of her work in Hamilton, and was very impressed with the quality of the prints on display. It beautifully complimented the impact of the images. I'd assumed they were inkjet, since the documentary movie was always showing her work being scanned. I kept thinking to myself that the quality of inkjet was now as good as silver, but maybe it really was silver prints I was looking at.

Hi There, the show I printed was at Stephen Bulger Gallery and original collection was owned by Jeffrey Goldstein, and they were all silvers. The show you saw in Hamilton was from the John Maloof collection and I believe that most of them were inkjets, though I cannot say for sure as I did not see the show as I was aware of the bulk being inkjet and that did not appeal to me.
Maloofs collection is now housed in New York by a very good gallery and I do think that silver gelatin prints are being produced from this collection of negs.

[bob carnie]

Hi There, the show I printed was at Stephen Bulger Gallery and original collection was owned by Jeffrey Goldstein, and they were all silvers. The show you saw in Hamilton was from the John Maloof collection and I believe that most of them were inkjets, though I cannot say for sure as I did not see the show as I was aware of the bulk being inkjet and that did not appeal to me.
Maloofs collection is now housed in New York by a very good gallery and I do think that silver gelatin prints are being produced from this collection of negs.

[sharktooth]

Hi There, the show I printed was at Stephen Bulger Gallery and original collection was owned by Jeffrey Goldstein, and they were all silvers. The show you saw in Hamilton was from the John Maloof collection and I believe that most of them were inkjets, though I cannot say for sure as I did not see the show as I was aware of the bulk being inkjet and that did not appeal to me.
Maloofs collection is now housed in New York by a very good gallery and I do think that silver gelatin prints are being produced from this collection of negs.

Thanks for the clarification, Bob. The show in Hamilton was the only one I've seen with printed images other than in books. They were very well done, be they inkjet or silver.