Chromira Print Color Degradation

[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. 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. 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.