RC Enlarging Paper: How long does it last?

[Ed Brock]

A three-part question. 1. Shelf life? 2. How many years before fading? And 3., will toner extend it's life as in fiber-based paper? I am using Ilford Warmtone. My 50 sheet box of 20x24 is now 2 1/2 years old. I would like to hear from anyone having first-hand experience from long-term RC use. Thanks.

[Drew Wiley]

A few years on the shelf shouldn't be any problem. Toners will protect the silver image from atmospheric contaminants, but the polyethylene sandwich itself is not
equal to the properties of fiber-based prints. In archival sleeves, away from sunlight, they might be OK, but there are numerous studies which show that RC
prints have limited life on display. The poly layer breaks down. Some improvements might have been incorporated into more recent papers, but this is a controversial topic. I use RC b&w paper only for commercial work - prints to be scanned.

[Jim Jones]

My prints on Kodak RC paper have survived for 20 or 30 years, displayed under glass or in dark storage, with little if any deterioration. Others did experience conspicuous problems with the earliest RC papers.

[jvuokko]

I wonder if wilhelm research has published any data about RC b/w papers?
There's lot of estimations of for different computer based printing materials and inks but no traditional darkroom printing. Of course we have seen that fiber based paper last long especially when toned with some sulphide toner (like sepia toner).

I have seen numbers for RC paper from 30 to 100 years. Don't know where the reality is. I use always selenium sulphide toner for RC prints in hope that they will last longer :)

[Ginette]

I wonder if wilhelm research has published any data about RC b/w papers?


The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs by Henry Wilhelm, originally published in 1993 is on line for free. You can download the entire book in pdf (80mb) but you can look specially to chapter 17 : "Display and Illumination of Color and Black and-White Prints The Alarming Light-Induced Image Discoloration and Base Cracking of B&W RC Prints on Long-Term Display" 3.6mb.

Go to http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

[Toyon]

The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs by Henry Wilhelm, originally published in 1993 is on line for free. You can download the entire book in pdf (80mb) but you can look specially to chapter 17 : "Display and Illumination of Color and Black and-White Prints The Alarming Light-Induced Image Discoloration and Base Cracking of B&W RC Prints on Long-Term Display" 3.6mb.

Go to http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

I believe Wilhelm subsequently acknowledged that current RC have significantly improved longevity.

[jvuokko]

Thanks.

Interesting reading, although result are perhaps bit out of date?
I have RC prints made about twenty years ago (Ilford MG III and Agfa RC graded paper), displayed all the days at the wall under cheap glass mounts (should be the worst scenario) and haven't noticed yet any loss in quality. But I didn't made any backup prints for storing at optimum conditions, so I cannot compare.

[Greg Blank]

RC paper got a very bad rap when Agfa introduced paper that was machine printable back in the 70-80's time frame. The paper was stablized using chemicals instead of by washing. A breif stablization and then drying was considered enough. Subsequentially photograher using a prolab I once worked at. had sold many prints that lost their emulsions quite rapidly. Once a reputation is lost-well guess you can figure out the rest.

For a time I did sensitometeric tests of Forte Paper, for Omega. I have tested and use most all the Forte papers and have curve data from most of their emulsions. I saw RC papers that I had printed on,... silver out under glass, I decided that this issue was not worth selling prints made on RC paper early on and did research what makes an image more stable- its washing....and toning using the best toner available- which is gold cloride. Some teachers an others opinionate that you can use perma wash and decrease wash time....I use perma wash and still wash my prints for close to an hour.....every thing I give or sell as b&w is silver based and is washed in this manner.

Selenium, brown toner, platinum and gold are all good. Complete washing is the most important.

Fading will happen after 100 plus years if not fixed & washed properly but you may see silvering out within five years- it comes from non proper fixing and maybe defects in emulsions.

Plastic itself is virtually non biodegrading......however the metals in photography
don't meaningfully bind with plastic....therefore are not adhered to the paper fiber, which is why in my minds eyeview are a surface treatment, perhaps one can make the surface stay with the underlaying plastic, most likely at some point the two non- binding materials part company.

<GB>


A three-part question. 1. Shelf life? 2. How many years before fading? And 3., will toner extend it's life as in fiber-based paper? I am using Ilford Warmtone. My 50 sheet box of 20x24 is now 2 1/2 years old. I would like to hear from anyone having first-hand experience from long-term RC use. Thanks.

[Drew Wiley]

The PET coating will eventually yellow, just like color RC prints. At some point it will
break down. How many years this takes to occur is largely a matter of guesswork. The
accelerated aging tests Wilhelm uses are not particularly helpful in cases like this. For
example, Fuji extrapolates the yellowing of the RC Crystal Archive paper to around 50
to 75 years when it becomes relatively noticeable. This is a separate factor from dye
fading itself. With a black-and-white RC, yellowing might have a different visual result.
There are so, so many variables, and a lot of the published data is indeed guessing,
extrapolating, interpolating, whatever. But just about every agrees, RC prints aren't
really "archival".

[rdenney]

Is there an accepted definition for "archival"?

I have RC prints that are 20 years old that show no signs of fading or yellowing, even comparing prints under glass and on display to prints stored in boxes. But I did wash them for as long as I would have washed fiber prints, and I did tone them in selenium.

If they last 75 years, and fiber prints last 100 years, could one call either "archival"? The line between those seems rather arbitrary.

I made Cibachrome prints in the 70's that still look good, but the prints made in those days from negatives during that period and previous to it are in real trouble at this point. The black-and-white prints are still okay, though, except for the ones I didn't wash properly.

Rick "whose prints will probably end up in the nearest dumpster within days after making that final journey" Denney

[Oren Grad]

Just to be clear: Ilford - and Kodak when they still sold B&W paper - expressly warn against washing RC paper for anywhere near an hour, to avoid the risk of edge penetration and print curl. The whole point of RC paper is to reduce processing time. Ilford says 2 minutes, Kodak said 4, with no wash aid.

Ed, "first-hand experience from long-term RC use" won't tell you much, both because today's RC papers are known to be different in important ways from those of 30 years ago, and because anecdotal evidence on RC print stability varies wildly, with not enough information available about materials, processes and environmental conditions in each case to be able to make sense of the variation.

You can find more information on the effect of toning here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=13859). Also, see Ctein's article in Photo Techniques, or his book "Post Exposure", for information on his tests demonstrating protective effect of selenium and Sistan on RC paper.

The short version: yes, toning can protect the image silver on RC paper as it does on FB paper. On RC paper, conversion of the image silver via toning also has the effect of suppressing light-driven reactions between the image silver, the titanium dioxide used as a whitening agent, and the polyethylene coating that can lead to rapid silvering-out and/or breakdown of the polyethylene coating. The extent of protective effect depends at least in part on how much of the image silver is converted; the sort of light selenium toning traditionally used in many B&W darkrooms may leave much of the image silver unconverted. OTOH, full conversion via selenium or sulfide toning radically changes the appearance of the image, and may or may not be acceptable depending on one's taste and purpose.

Both RC and FB B&W papers today generally contain optical brightening agents (this is true of most RC and FB papers offered for inkjet printing, too). OBAs are subject to deterioration over time, which may manifest itself as uneven yellowing of the paper base. Toning the image silver does not protect against deterioration of the OBAs. (And yes, excessive washing is likely to leach out some of the OBAs.)

Nobody knows for sure how long even a toned RC print in which the silver is fully converted will last before it starts to deteriorate noticeably. Nobody knows how long a B&W FB print on today's FB paper base will last either. Or at least, I've never seen specifications for today's paper stock that would provide any basis even for intelligent speculation. (Does anybody know what raw materials Schoeller is using to manufacture the stuff? What, if anything, has changed from 20 years ago? 30? 50? Links to any hard information would be welcome.) Dark storage in appropriate enclosures under low temperature and humidity will make prints on either base last longer. On long-term display, it's anybody's bet.

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE=rdenney;495801] . . . Is there an accepted definition for "archival? . . . /QUOTE]

No, at least not that I've ever heard of in relation to anything photographic. Most people seem to use it as though it means "lasts a long time" whatever a long time might be.

[rdenney]

Just to be clear: Ilford - and Kodak when they still sold B&W paper - expressly warn against washing RC paper for anywhere near an hour, to avoid the risk of edge penetration and print curl. The whole point of RC paper is to reduce processing time. Ilford says 2 minutes, Kodak said 4, with no wash aid.

While I have read that as well, I also have some small prints made on RC paper a couple of decades ago that were washed according to those instructions, and they are showing fixer deterioration, just as I would expect with underwashed fiber papers. I'm not talking about stabilization processing--I was using conventional chemicals in trays.

My standard RC paper from that period was Oriental Seagull, and that paper never showed saturation or separation of the edges as a result of washing for an hour or even longer. I don't know what sort of brighteners it had. Maybe I washed them all away, heh, heh.

Maybe Ilford and Kodak were as optimistic in those days as Epson was with their dye-based printers such as the 1270. My prints made on my 1270 have not shown degradation, but I don't expect them to be "archival", whatever that means. Some people, though, reported deterioration in a matter of months, Epson's protestations to the contrary.

I'm sure the selenium toning I did would be classed as "light toning", so I'm sure there's plenty of silver remaining in those prints.

Rick "who still has that excellent Oriental print washer somewhere" Denney

[jvuokko]

So currently we don't know practically nothing about RC paper longevity as the materials has changed during years. Same goes with fiber papers.
For sure everyone know that fiber lasts longer than RC, but does current papers last as long as sulphide toned silver prints from 19th and 20th century?

Different dyes and inkjets, no one cannot say for sure. Only give some educated guess based on accelerated tests. Everyone knows that ink itself has really good lifetime (I have seen ink paintings that are way over thousend years old). So it goes for the paper and manufactoring of the ink...

After reading whole thread again, something got my eye - the PET coating. How does this relate with films that has PET based emulsion instead of gelatin? They're becoming more and more popular and the lifetime of the negatives are rated really high ( "polyester base support guarantees the highest level of archive stability (LE 500);").

So far I guess that if one really want's that prints are archival and lasts long after he/she has passed to the another world, one must use good archival paper and do palladium/platinium prints?

This way the quality of the paper's base is known.

But how important is really long lifetime of the print? This is a question that needs time to answer.

Initial answer could be that ofcourse prints must have more lifetime than printer himself/herself. But... Who really cares? The exceptions can be, like photographer who cames really popular, but they're rare.

In the long run, the photographs of the family are the ones that really matters. That is something that I have come across. Founding old photograph from 100 years back from now, seeing my grandmother's parent's in that photograph. It is something important.
I personally think that archival quality of that kind of pictures is most overlooked. No one takes care of the pictures, they will have value after a generation or two. Mostly people don't look so far.

Wasn't it mentioned already in this thread or not, I don't remember. But it is a bit funny how keen photographers are for getting maximum archival quality. Compare that with other picturing arts. How often do you see painter's to chose inks or colors by searching almost endless the facts for their longevity? Or chosing the canvas by it's longevity?
Most (if all) simply does not care. They will paint on almost every material.
If some work will become significant during the years and decades, the art conservator's will take care of it.

Why does not similar approach work with photography? It should. Nowadays there's scanners etc. The original work can easily duplicate without loss of quality.

[cowanw]

It's a yuppie thing. Everything we do is important. That's why I insist on archival postit notes.:D
Regards
Bill

[Bob Salomon]

I have RC B&W prints made the day my daughter was born that are still fine after moves from FL to CT to ME to CT to NJ. They have been displayed everyday since they were printed in June of 1964 with no ill effects. Paper was Kodak roll stock processed in a Kodak Versamat processor while I was in the USAF.

[Oren Grad]

After reading whole thread again, something got my eye - the PET coating. How does this relate with films that has PET based emulsion instead of gelatin? They're becoming more and more popular and the lifetime of the negatives are rated really high ( "polyester base support guarantees the highest level of archive stability (LE 500);").

RC paper is coated with polyethylene (PE). Sheet film (and the occasional specialized roll film) is coated on a polyester base, a completely different material. The only generally available traditional photo paper with a polyester base has been the Ilfochrome/Cibachrome glossy material. Among inkjet print materials, I believe that the Pictorico Hi-Gloss White Film is polyester.


So far I guess that if one really want's that prints are archival and lasts long after he/she has passed to the another world, one must use good archival paper and do palladium/platinium prints?

Yes.


Wasn't it mentioned already in this thread or not, I don't remember. But it is a bit funny how keen photographers are for getting maximum archival quality. Compare that with other picturing arts. How often do you see painter's to chose inks or colors by searching almost endless the facts for their longevity? Or chosing the canvas by it's longevity?
Most (if all) simply does not care. They will paint on almost every material.
If some work will become significant during the years and decades, the art conservator's will take care of it.

Why does not similar approach work with photography? It should.

It does. You can use whatever materials you want. I don't print anything in Pt/Pd myself. Not only that, I use RC paper along with my FB. :)

[rdenney]

Compare that with other picturing arts. How often do you see painter's to chose inks or colors by searching almost endless the facts for their longevity? Or chosing the canvas by it's longevity?

Actually, you see considerable care by artists who want their works to last. Painters treat their canvases and then are very careful about how they apply washes and layers of paint so that the surface doesn't seal undried paint underneath, which can cause it to crack and bleed later.

Some haven't been as careful. Albert Pinkham Ryder, for example, was known for applying brittle and fast-drying paints on top of thick oils before they had dried, and the surface has cracked, allowing the paint underneath to bleed out. You can see it in this (public domain) image of a painting that is now about 112 years old (young for a painting):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flying_Dutchman,_the.jpg

This painting has been cleaned up, as I recall, but the cracks are still very obvious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Forest_of_Arden.jpg

During my days of studying art, his work was used as an example of what not to do in terms of craft.

Rick "who pays attention to longevity, within reason" Denney