Related Links:
Archival Aspects of Resin-Coated Papers
Archival Print Permanence Pages (wilhelm research site)
Epson Inkjet Group (files and posts on archival inks issues..)
Epson Longevity
Epson owner speaks out
Fahrenheit 451 - Protecting Film and Prints from Fire
Lifespan of Digital Files by Julian Jackson
Resin Coated Paper Fading

It is generally not well known that today's modern films and prints are unlikely to last for long without fading away. Many films such as Ektachrome will fade as much as 10 per cent or more of a given dye layer in just their first decade. Most RC prints (which is to say, most currently produced prints) are not likely to last a lifetime either.

This situation is a bit paradoxical, as we have older black and white prints and plates (e.g., albumen prints and ambrotypes and so on) which have already lasted over a century. While Kodachrome is expected to last for decades, the more popular E-6 process films are not likely to do so well.

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998
From: Martin Krieger [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Permanence

There is a wonderful big book on Permanence of Color materials, and preservation, by a fellow in Iowa, that I have looked at at my library. The wedding photographers would be especially interested, to see horror stories of the past. Kodachrome is fine, Fujichrome is fine; things then begin to get iffy. As indicated earlier, black and white is the secret, or pigment prints such as Evercolor.

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Archival wedding photos? -Reply

Jim,

Thanks for bringing up the topic of archival quality. Many people who want a Hasselblad used also want archival quality prints, as you suspect. While my understanding of this topic is limited, I will proceed to give what details I know, ending with a question of my own for the group.

Right around this area, Washington D.C., much of the Civil War transpired. Several photographers, including Matthew Brady and Timothy O'Sullivan, took it upon themselves to document the event by roaming about in a photography van, doing their work. Over one hundred years later, much of their work survives. It was presented in a PBS series, "The Civil War," which was widely enjoyed. So, the good news is that it is possible to retain images, if they are properly prepared for preservation, then kept properly.

Several clients have asked about this topic. What I tell them is that the estimated life of their photos would be greater if they select black and white prints over color prints. My understanding is that the dyes in the color prints will degrade over time, where a black and white print will be less subject to this aging. While I qualify it as a guess, I tell them that a nicely kept black and white print might last five hundred years, and a color print one hundred.

At this point, I indulge in the chance to slam the video tape for having low archival quality. The nature of video tape is that it has magnetic particles, a film, and a binder or glue that hold the mag particles onto the tape. In this case, the glue breaks down, and the mag particles separate from the tape. This is well known; a fellow that collects video tape at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum here reports that anymore, all that is left of a first flight video is the cassette with a pile of magnetic dust. Further, those people who are transferring from 8mm films of the 50s to video are advised to save the film, as it will outlast the video, The general rule of thumb is that a video of a newborn will not survive to high school graduation.

So, film and photo paper are at least a little better than video tape. But digital photo CDs offer the promise of even longer life. A scanned photo can be transferred to CD. I have a detailed study of CD life from Kodak, and I get the impression they will last twenty five years, at least. There are a lot of factors, such as light exposure. But the beauty of CD storage is that a new CD can be made from an intact old one, over and over.

So what have we so far: try CD storage, try B & W. Yes, the housing would be important, too. Light Impressions might be the vendor of some good products. Myself, I am not familiar with their line of goods. I sell Tapprell Loomis(TAP). I called the TAP people, and they told me they "planned to come out with an archival line, just real soon." I asked them how to respond to my clients in the mean time. They said to inform my clients of my own experience with the products, which has been outstanding. Most of my clients accept this. Those who have a problem with it are advised that they can get photos from me without a housing, and research this on their own.

Let's not forget that photos are subject to many risks. Not the least are fire, flood, and mishandling. I've been the victim of a flood myself, and it was not a nice picnic. A local photographer and photo show presenter, Monte Zucker, was a fire victim. From the picture he showed of the structure after this fire, it looked like a total loss. To protect against loss of this type, I advise clients to purchase a large number of copies of important photos, and mail them to several homes, as possible. In this way we fight what photo preservationsists call "The Myth of Reproducibility." i.e. Most negs get printed just once. In Monte's case, one of his friends, perhaps Clay Blackmore, contacted Monte's friends and called for any old prints or slides, then made them into a nice slide show presentation. I suggest this to clients who sustain loss.

Your letter was very good, Jim, in that it pointed out that products like film, paper, albums and framing are so important to the life of the final print. However, wedding photographers alone can not change the whole industry. The whole supply chain from film makers to labs to photographers to clients is involved. Have you heard of the Kodak "Promise of Excellence" program? In this program, Kodak insures any images as long as member providers are involved.

You mention framing. I purchase this service from an outstanding local firm, well trained. They suggest things like mounting prints, and having them spaced an eighth of an inch from the glass. I sure wish more of my prints had this treatment after my flood. Those prints which I had just thrown in a typical department store frame without spacers did not fare well. Oddly, these badly framed prints took it the worst, and those loose in cardboard boxes did better. the properly framed prints did well.

So, I leave you with a question that bugs me in my photography every week. What would I do if I sustained a total loss of my negatives? Is it possible to purchase insurance for a set of negatives? If so, what value do they have? I wonder both about personal and professional negatives I have.

Peter

p.s. I'm going to photograph the Joint Senate and House Republican Dinner tonight. It is a party for 5000 in DC. They don't want me to bring a Hassy, btw. 35mm only on this job.

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Archival wedding photos? -Reply -Reply

The B&W was better 75 years ago than what I produce today!

Today's B&W is mostly on RC paper and as such has NO archival value.

Thanks for making this clear. In detail on this point, I gather that RC paper is not the best choice for archival prints. Traditional, non-RC paper would be better, and it is available. It may not be as good as paper from 75 years ago, but it is perhaps better than using today's RC paper.

Making sure the prints are properly fixed and washed has been stressed as important by B&W paper makers. After the print has been produced, if it kept from light and in a temperature and humidity controlled environment, it should last better than displayed in a hot and humid environment.

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998
From: Richard Mendales [email protected]
Subject: Re: Archival wedding photos? - Reply

Don't forget Ilfochrome prints. Ilford guarantees them for 200 years, although it's a bit hard to imagine enforcing the guarantee in 2198. In addition, there are some other advantages to basing the original on transparency materials, since good transparencies, properly stored, should last longer than most prints from negative materials. They can also be used for some of the new pigment-based printing processes that are supposedly more permanent than Ilfochrome.

Hope this helps,

Richard Mendales
University of Miami

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998
From: Andy Peters [email protected]
Subject: RE: Archival wedding photos? -Reply

From: Peter Klosky [email protected]

[snip]

So, film and photo paper are at least a little better than video tape. But digital photo CDs offer the promise of even longer life. A scanned photo can be transferred to CD. I have a detailed study of CD life from Kodak, and I get the impression they will last twenty five years, at least. There are a lot of factors, such as light exposure. But the beauty of CD storage is that a new CD can be made from an intact old one, over and over.

This begs the question that affects more than just photo CD storage...will there be a CD-ROM reader available in, say, 20 years, to read the CD? Along those same lines, look at all of those people who have old 9-track computer tapes - or even 8" floppy disks - who need to use that data. If there's no playback mechanism, you're outta luck.

-andy

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998
From: Joe McCary - Photo Response [email protected]
Subject: Re: (prorental) What is the archive life of inkjet prints?

The life of inkjet prints varies greatly from product to product. I have heard that the Epsons have a life of between 2 weeks to a few years. It depends on how they are stored. I use the HP PhotoSmart and someone did a test (RIT) and the life is supposed to be about 10 years or so. All of this depends on how they are stored and how much light etc hits them. My printer is great and if the ever get the archival problems fixed and make the ink water proof then they will have a REAL photo quality product. 10 years sounds great compared to others BUT it is a blip in archival standards.

Joe

From: Michael S. Jackson [email protected]
To: [email protected] [email protected]
Date: June 17, 1998
Subject: (prorental) What is the archive life of inkjet prints?

What is an estimated archive life of Inkjet prints? Specifically, we are using Epsons.

For a quick test, I put a test print in a window and in 2 weeks there was major fading.

From: stefan poag [email protected]
Subject: Response to Fine Art Photography
Date: 1998-06-15

Three years ago I spoke to a film company representative (don't remeber which company; was at a conference but I think it was Agfa) who claimed that RC was today as archival as FB if properly processed and kept. UV, bad fixing/ washing were the two reasons why so many prints are not really archival. He explained that when asked, most hobbyists replied that they check fixer and wash prints religously but when analysis is made of prints samples, a huge number ( I don't remember but over half) would not pass the test due to bad processing. So people claim to fix in two fix baths and check baths but really only slosh the print around in a tray with a half inch of exhausted fixer for thirty seconds I guess. He also stated that pros are better at this, but only because so many pros machine process or send it out.

So check your fix and wash for extra long no matter what you do.

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Re: Archival wedding photos? -Reply

I supply albums from a leading manufacturer which carries a lifetime guarantee ...

Can you be specific as to what manufacturer you use?

If the couple wishes to go further with digitized archiving and multiple copies of prints stored in separate locations, they are welcome to go as far with that as their pocketbook will take them. In my experience with average people however, they struggle financially just to get the basics.

My experience is similar. In my market, not all parents are interested in owning pictures of their children's wedding. However, some parents/families/friends do have an interest in the pictures and proceed to request copies of some or, very rarely, all of the prints. And some couples will send photos as gifts around the holidays. This varies from sub-culture to sub-culture, and by region. My area, Washington, DC, is highly transient, so I get exposed to diversity of culture that my clients bring with them to the table.

Another way some do the multiple copies/locations is that the parents get the proof book, and the couple gets an album of a couple dozen 8 x 10s. Another popular technique is the photographer keeps the negs at his place, and the couple gets the proofs. Or the couple buys the negs and puts them in a safe deposit box.

So far, no one has asked me if their wedding photos will be suitable for study by archaeologists.

Perhaps this is because you are doing a nice job of telling them you participate in Kodak's Promise of Excellence program, etc. The two questions I tend to get are "Do you use acid-free albums?" and "How long do you expect these pictures to last?"

What is the big deal about acid-free albums? From a technical viewpoint, how can any improvement be quantified? All I can say from my experience is that peel back pages are terrible, as is rubber cementing prints onto paper.

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998
From: Tom [email protected]
Subject: Re: Archival wedding photos? -Reply

I've standardized on albums made by Art Leather of Elmhurst NY.

fax 1 800 88 ALBUM
or phone 1 718 699 6300 for more information.

The typical album page I use involves taping the print to the back of the mat using acid free photo mounting tape. Then the mat slips into an insert (album page) with no protective plastic over the face of the print. The prints then face each other inside the album with a little air gap between them thanks to the thickness of the page and the mat.

If all else fails, Kodak guarantees the prints under the "promise of excellence" program.

For a reasonable price, I feel this is the best peace of mind one can buy; but the customer is always welcome to purchase as much protection as they can afford.

My policy is to keep the negatives and the copyright. I know there are wedding photographers who will disagree with me on that.

Tom Clark

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998
From: Andy Peters [email protected]
Subject: RE: family history photo gap Re: Archival wedding photos? -Reply

From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]

/* The idea of converting over material from one system to another is a good one, but there are lots of gotchas. Current image and word processing software may not be able to read old file formats, as one example. The old DOS etc. software won't run on current systems or Windows NT etc. */

Ain't it the truth. Or, better yet, Mac software doesn't run on PCs, and Solaris Unix binaries don't run on AIX, or...

/* Magnetic media stored at room temperature gradually de-aligns and degrades, so old media probably won't be readable in the future. */

In the music recording biz, there are always stories about how they're about to reissue some classic album and they find the master tape, only to discover that it's all stuck together and a big mess. They end up doing a low-temperature bake, and can play the tape exactly ONCE before it goes to hell. Luckily, they still use the same tape format.

/* I think the solution is at hand, given the new (AOL-based) services to process film and put your resulting images on a WWW site. I suspect that in the future, most/all film will be scanned and reviewed before printing; in many cases, prints won't be needed as the target is a WWW site. */

The current problem with this scenario is that reasonable-quality images take up large amounts of disk space. AOL gives you, what, 2 MB per screen name disk space? If I scan an 8x10" b+w image at 300 dpi, it's about 7MB right there.

Also, transfer rate is an issue right now - the standard is still 28.8kbps modems, although that problem will go away soon enough.

But! And this is a big ol' but...I think that the disk space limitations above will go away, as storage becomes cheaper and cheaper, and accessing the data will be easier too, once we get faster access in the home. So, perhaps once all that comes to pass, we don't have to worry about archival storage. It's up to the service provider to make sure the data is always available, and it doesn't matter (to the end user) whether they store it on tape, hard disk, holographic cubes, or pastrami sandwiches.

Monitor resolutions are waaaaay below a print's resolution. 1024 x 768 pixels is the consumer standard (Ok, the 21" here at work is at 1280 x 1024), and while that might increase, it'll never be equal to a print. So the issue becomes not one of storage, but rather one of display! Do we create high-quality prints from the original digital image every time we want to, or just use a monitor?

Then again, people think that the cruddy audio from a SoundBlaster card or RealAudio is "good" (hell, they use crappy Labtec "computer" speakers), so I guess the fact that they can view the images on their computer in the first place makes it OK.

The key thing to remember: for highest quality images, the scanning should be done at the highest possible resolution. Is, say, 600 dpi good enough for archiving? Again, to use the audio analogy, there's a big debate about masters done at the 16-bit resolution, 44.1kHz sample rate Red Book CD standard. The point is: future technology will be much better and we'll be able to have higher-quality digital recordings. When you commit to the lower-resolution format (limited more by cost than anything else), you can't "step up" to higher quality later, as technology improves (and the cost for it goes down).

/* In other cases, the user will setup a custom crop and other factors, and the print will be printed locally (as on an epson stylus type color proof printer) or at a semi-custom mini-lab (over the web?). */

That's a cool feature indeed. Instead of using the inkjet, how about a dye sub printer? The Kodak one is very nice. It costs as much as a car, but... And we still have the issue of permanence!

-andy

PS: to bring this back to the list's topic, Hasselblads, I developed two rolls of Tri-X last night. At the rate I'm going, I'll have my vacation pictures from last month developed and printed sometime in the next year.

Andy Peters

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998
From: Joe McCary - Photo Response [email protected]
Subject: Re: Archival wedding photos? -Reply

Peter, I do lots of photo work including some reproduction work at the US National Archives in College Park, MD. This is the govt.. facility that houses the pictures of record for the National Archives (among other things). I see lots of B&W images (mostly) and some color. The color I see is almost all color neg. that has faired only ok imho. The film used 40 years ago was not so great by today's standards. The B&W was better 75 years ago than what I produce today! Today's B&W is mostly on RC paper and as such has NO archival value. The color negs that have been processed in the one hour machines also are pretty poor in their archival qualities. I think that the one hour machines do NOT wash film, rather run it through a clearing bath. The same is true for the prints so that would reduce the time these prints last.

Joe McCary

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998
From: Tom Campbell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Archival wedding photos? -Reply

Joe McCary - Photo Response wrote:

 Today's B&W is mostly on RC paper and
> as such has NO archival value.

Very true...RC is for fast turn-around and short use, not archival use.

The color negs that have been processed in

> the one hour machines also are pretty poor in their archival qualities.  I
> think that the one hour machines do NOT wash film, rather run it through a
> clearing bath.  The same is true for the prints so that would reduce the
> time these prints last.

It's been awhile since I did any conventional color printing, but one problem is that the process in use then (c. 1982) could be used with or without a stabilizer...the lesser-quality labs omitted this process and those prints are now long-faded. Prints I made with stabilizer and a good wash (as good as you can get with RC paper) are still looking pretty good. You can see some degradation side-by-side with a fresh print, but without the comparison, it would certainly still look acceptable to most non-critical consumers. This, of course, excludes prints continuously displayed in direct sun or fluorescent light---even my carefully-made ones are losing it when displayed under those conditions.

Tom Campbell

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998
From: Tom Campbell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Archival wedding photos? -Reply

Peter Klosky wrote:

While I qualify it as a guess, I tell them that a

> nicely kept black and white print might last five hundred years, and a
> color print one hundred.

You are probably conservative for true archivally processed B&W on quality fiber-based paper. I've heard researchers claim up to 1000 yrs.

But I think one hundred years for "C" prints is wildly optimistic. Perhaps Ciba/Ilfochrome, but I doubt even that. My estimate, backed up by some old prints with both processes is 10-25 years for "C" and longer for Ciba/Ilfo, as prints made when the latter process first came out (c. 1975) show NO degradation, while even later-made "C"'s are in various stages of fading, depending on viewing/storage conditions.

Agreed---if you want your great-grandchildren to see your wedding photos, B&W is the only conventional way to go at present.

Also agreed, while I use it, video starts degrading in less than a decade...though with non-linear storage now available, this would be stretched out to the life of the ability to read the disks and then reproduce on whatever media would be available at that time.

Tom Campbell

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998
From: Indranath Neogy [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: BW RC survivability

I forget the exact specs,

but Ilford claims that properly treated, their BW RC papers can approach the first fiber (100 yrs) archive criterion

Indy.

--
Indranath Neogy
Contributing Editor
The Tech
MIT's Oldest and Largest Student Newspaper.
[email protected]

From: "Michael A. Covington" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Life of color
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998

>Wilhelm did a great deal of research on a variety of films, paper, and
>storage methods as to how best to preventing the fading of color
>photographs over time.  Great book, but his recommendations on film are
>based on film that was available in 1992.  He has nothing on Kodak Royal
>Gold series, but he has info on the Ektar series.
>
>Can anyone tell me a source at Kodak or somewhere else where I can look
>to see how the latest color negs, and prints hold up over time?

Until there is a substantial change in chemistry, I wouldn't expect any substantial change in longevity. In any case, the Royal Gold films *are* the Ektar films under a new name, aren't they?

From: [email protected] (SPECTRUM)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Life of color
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998

>Until there is a substantial change in chemistry, I wouldn't expect any
>substantial change in longevity.  In any case, the Royal Gold films *are*
>the Ektar films under a new name, aren't they?

Yes they are.

And BTW don't take that work of Wilhelms to seriously. His findings are full of dispute. for the real standards of permanence check with the Image Permanence Institute in Rochester, NY @ 716.475.5199.

Regards,

-----------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc. - http://www.spectrumphoto.com

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998
From: George Huczek [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Album Assembly - Spraying vs. Standard Acetate Page Leaves
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998

Stuart A. Pearl wrote:

How do you feel about spraying album photos vs. just assembling them in the acetate leaves that most album suppliers offer? An earlier poster - can=92t recall his name - indicated he would never spray his work. Why not?

Spraying may shorten the life of the print. Ctein covers the topic in his book, "Post Exposure" (1997). He also wrote a summary article, based on the book, in a recent issue of Photo Techniques. He has documented how spraying photos causes rapid color fading. In the book he illustrates this with a 1981 color shot of an early Shuttle launch.

He sent out a large number of these sprayed images, and found very rapid fading when they were returned from editors (not due to rough or improper handling.) Unsprayed prints held their colors better.

He also found that with RC papers, in B&W, framing them in sealed frames caused rapid self-destruction, especially Agfa Multicontrast RC, which he attributed to the titanium oxide in the paper base, and some complicated chemical processes that are hypothesized to be taking place. Agfa has added restrainers to newer releases of this paper, to minimize the problem, but use FB paper if image permanence is important.

Very interesting reading, and see also "The Care and Preservation of Photographic Materials."

The bottom line is don't spray your color prints. Change paper types if you want different surface textures.

Can't resist putting in this signature file...

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998
From: George Huczek [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Album Assembly - Spraying vs. Standard Acetate Page Leaves

My last post made mention of two books. For the record, in case anyone is interested in obtaining them, here are the correct titles:

"Post Exposure: Advanced Techniques for the Photographic Printer" by Ctein, Focal Press, 1997. ISBN 0-240-80299-3 "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides and Motion Pictures" by Henry Wilhelm, Preservation Publising Company, (toll-free number1-800-335-6647, fax 1-515-236-0800)

rec.photo.film+labs
From: Kaare [email protected]
[1] Ageing of Kodachrome/Ektachrome
Date: Wed Nov 18 1998

Hi,

I recently inherited about 100 slides that my grandfather shot during several cross country car trips in the late 1950s. They are mostly Kodachrome (some Ektachrome), and the color in most of them remains excellent. A few show minor apparent fading, and a couple have color so intense, that I almost suspect the opposite of fading, whatever that might be called.

In addition, there are 8 Anscochrome slides, all taken in Mexico City. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that Kodak film wasn't readily available in Mexico City at that time. (What I do know is that my grandfather would not likely set out from his home in Maryland with enough film for a year-long trip.) Anyway, all of the Anscochrome slides are extremely faded. Images remain on the film, but weak and washed out. I don't have any way to be sure they were properly exposed, but since this is a collection of what he considered his best, I suspect that at one time they were flawless.

So, Kudos to Kodak.

-kc

From: [email protected] (Kai-ming Mei)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF transperancy mounting?
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999

Is that archival? I found a bunch of slides from the 60's that had great color but the were falling out of the mounts because the adhesive or something rotted the film away. They were in cardboard press and stick mounts.

From: [email protected] (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Foam Outgassing?
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998

>Is there anyway to seal off the edges of gatorfoam. foam-core etc. so
>it's outgassing won't harm your prints? I have tried 3M scotch tape on
>gatorfoam but it won't stick! Thanks.

The last thing you want is scotch tape coming into contact with your print.

You seem to be concerned about archival quality mounting. You might want to take a look at:

http://www.iconusa.com/index2.html

or

http://www.archival.com/

There are other firms selling archive quality mounting supplies.

From NikonMF Digest:
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999
From: "Nelson Kao" [email protected]
Subject: How long does prints last? [Was:Digital backs and stuff [v04.n348/15]]

Hello John and folks,

John Albino wrote in Nikon-Digest V4 #348:

>One other thing about photographs. We know that photographic prints last at
>least 175 years. Digital images eventually fade away without proper
>refreshing. Whether this is soon or not we don't know, because the process
>hasn't been around as long as traditional photography.

It has been a thread in Pentax list about the lasting of digital x photographic prints just last week.

They posted some data that differs from yours, so I'm quoting here for our discussion, so that we can sleep smoothly knowing our photos may last a lifetime.

quoting: Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999
From: Valentin Donisa [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ink Jet photo life

SNIP...

here are some figures from Henry Wilhelm:

Iris on Arches Cold Press Paper (the best paper tested)
       With Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set
                                             32-36 years
       With Lyson Fine Arts Ink Set
                                             32-36 years
       With Iris Graphics industrial Design
       (ID) Ink Set
                                             2-3 years

       Encad GO pigment-based inks
                                             >70 years    
      Encad GA dye-based inks
                                             1-2 years
       Ilford Archiva dye-based inks for
               Encad printers
                                             >50 years

       Epson printer with Epson standard ink
               On Fuji Super Photo Grade Inkjet
               Paper
                                             4-5 years
               On Epson Photo Quality Glossy
               Paper
                                             2 years
               On Kodak Photo Weight Premium
               Glossy Paper
                                             0,5 years
                                                       

       Photographic Colour Negative Papers
               Fujicolor Crystal Archive
                                             60 years
               Kodak Ektacolor Edge 7 and Royal
               VII
                                             18 years
               Konica Color QA
                                             14 years
               Agfacolor Type 10
                                             13 years

               Ilfochrome (former Cibachrome)
               Ilfochrome Polyester and RC
                                             29 years

Thanks for any information

nelson kao
Sco Paulo - Brazil

Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999
From: [email protected] (Scott Gustafson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: thinking of starting own business

(SPECTRUM) wrote:

>        We did the testing on Epson Archival Dyes and they are
>certainly nowhere near 50 years. More like 50 days !
>
>On 27 Apr 1999 16:29:21 GMT, [email protected] (Photo89188)
>wrote:
>>well for all of those who just sit around and diss on digital guess what folks,
>>there are new inks on the market as we speak for the epson printers  that have a
>>life range of no less the 50 years and up......
>>digital is prime time.....

50 days? Give me a break. If you put it in a display window in full sun it would fade faster than that, but why would anyone do that? But in the average home in a frame mounted to a wall, the print should last 1-2 years before fading too much. And certainly not 50 years. The paper will yellow way before that because none of them are acid free that I've seen. They do make some really good archival paper and inks, but they are more for the larger format printers like the EPSON Pro 5000 and 9000.

Check out http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for lots of real data on the longevity of digital and chemical prints.

Anyway, if I really want a print to last, I get a LightJet 5000 print from a drum scan. This uses Fuji Crystal Archive paper and will last 60 years before fading.

Later,
scott

[Ed. note: In case you think Digital is the Solution!]

From: [email protected] (lemonade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Pop Photo says VPS to be discontinued late 99
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999

(Classic Photo) wrote:

> prints, I'd be willing to bet the archival properties of the CD media is
> much greater than that of _any_ film.

This is a matter of debate and has received extensive discussion. My information is the following:

1. While the data is stable on the CD, the CD itself, which is a very complex multilayer product, may delaminate over time. The figures I have heard are estimates of about a 30 year life span, but no one knows: this may be very conservative, or not.

2. This applies only to the mass produced, stamped CD's like for audio albums. The ones you burn on your own, and I presume the PhotoCD's, use an entirely different process. For certain of these, not only is the CD itself subject to delamination as above, but the data itself may not be stable: there are photosensitive dyes involved!

3. Do you really expect to be able to read a CD in 20 years time? Maybe, but I wouldn't count on it. This is a serious issue, and is of great concern to archives all around the world. Think about it: can you read a BetaMax tape, a 400K floppy, 1/2" reel to reel computer back up tape, punched cards, ... Now you may say that these were precursor technologies, and CD is here to stay, if only through the back-compatibility of DVD readers, but I'm not so sure. CD will definitely be replaced by DVD very soon; for how long will the manufacturers still make their DVD readers back compatible to CD? As I mentioned elsewhere, of course in principle you can always transfer to the new media during the transition interval, but in practice this just doesn't happen reliably.

4. As I've said elsewhere, for practical and economic reasons, it's doubtful anyone will have most, let alone all, of their images stored on digital media. Like it or not we will almost all be still using negatives for a good portion of our long-term storage, for the indefinite future.

From: [email protected] (lemonade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Pop Photo says VPS to be discontinued late 99
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999

"Jim Mowreader" [email protected] wrote:

> I would think that having one channel for all films would be a major
> advantage for those of us who don't shoot the "common" films. Face

From what I see on the data sheet there is no indication that Portra is run on the same channel as Gold anyway, but on a separate one for the whole family. In any case even my local Fuji mini-lab has no problems or complaints printing VPS, NPS, Konica and Agfa, so really I don't see what the fuss is about from the photographer's end. If you run a mini-lab that may be a different story.

> at all. Permanence of an Iris print is a different story. Those
> prints are very permanent--on the order of Fuji Crystal Archive. Of

Not by a long shot, unless by "on the order of", you mean anywhere from 10-100 years: check out Wilhelm's latest

http://wilhelm-research.com/Print_Permanence_/print_permanence_.html

which I summarize here (data are for various papers):

Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set:

Arches Cold Press Paper       32-36yrs
Somerset Velvet               20-24
UltraStable Glossy            18-22
Bulldog Photo Rag Paper       18-20
Iris Canvas                   16-18
Arches for Iris               13-15
Liege Inkjet Fine Art          2-3

Iris Graphics Industrial Design Ink Set

Arches Cold Press Paper        2-3yrs


Iris Equipoise Black Ink Only in Monochrome Prints

Various papers                100-150 yrs or more


Compare with:

Fuji Crystal Archive                60yrs
Kodak Ektacolor Edge 7, Royal VII   18
Kodak Portra III Prof               14
Konica QA Type A7                   14
Agfacolor Type 10                   13

--

[Ed. note: lots of problems with earlier computer color printer generated prints fading quickly due to dyes in inks... here is a solution... I hope!]
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000
From: Joe McCary - [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Website Update

Have you tried some of the Epson printers. With the advent of the new "archival" inks available now they are touting 30-35 years for the low grade and 70+ years for the high grade. Check www.lumijet.com for more info. I know my printer, a new Epson 1200 can easily make 12"x44" prints (I did one) they are beautiful. I am waiting for these archival inks for my printer, expected Feb00.

Joe McCary

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Website Update

The Epson 1200 handles roll, photo paper and prints up to 11" by many feet - it does an excellent job.

Dave

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999
From: [email protected] (lemonade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.film+labs
Subject: Film permanence: new data from Wilhelm (Reala BAD, NPS good)

In this April's Pop Photo they have some new data on film permanence from the Wilhelm Research centre, new at least with respect to what's already been posted on photo.net. I am crossposting to MF as well as film+labs because of the relevance to wedding photograpy.

Highlights:

Lifespan in dark storage:

Reala: 20 years
Superia: 20 years
NPS:   100 years
Ektachrome: 100+ years (forgot exact figure)
Kodachrome K14: 200+ years (forgot exact figure)
Fujichrome (presumably including Velvia): Something like 40 years
Agfa HDC (consumer film): about 25 years (forgot exact figure)
Agfa RSX: about 35 years (forgot exact figure)

Note that Fuji literature only lists NPS as having extended dark storage life, not NPH, NHGII, or Reala, all films also commonly used for weddings. In fact, one gets the idea from the NHGII data sheet that it has remarkably reduced image permanence, although the information is not at all clear. It is phrased in a rather Clintonian manner.

No data for Agfa 160 or Konica 160, which each markets as "wedding" film.

And, Fuji Crystal Archive paper is, as well known, way way more permanent than the Kodak competitor.

Conclusion: It could be classed as professional dereliction of duty to use Reala for weddings, as the negatives will have faded before the grandchildren arrive. What about NPH and NHGII? We don't know, but the data from Reala and Superia should give us pause. Until some hard data becomes available, it may be professional irresponsibility to use anything other than Vericolour or NPS for colour wedding or professional portraiture or similar.

From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000
From: Thinh Le [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Interesting info on new archival inkjet printers...

http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/2000p.html

http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/7500.html">http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/7500.html

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000
From: Russ Rosener [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Digital Files.

> Yes, a CD is great for storing scanned images, making them
> virtually permanent, but art (including photographs) must be hung and
> viewed to be appreciated, and that is what must be archival.  And if
> you are one that prizes the uniqueness of a signed, one-of-a-kind
> piece, then a digital file of it would still only be a copy of the
> original good only for inventory and insurance purposes, much as a
> lithograph is to its original.
>
> So where does this reasoning put 100% digitally produced works in the
> world of art and collectors?  Will there one day be auctions of just
> the digital files, since they are the original creation and the
> physical output only copies?
> --
> Patrick Bartek
> NoLife Polymath Group
> [email protected]
>

In 100 years, people in galleries will still be looking at prints on walls. They may be hi-res digital flat screens, but they will still be in large exhibition places for the simple reason that people may crave more interaction due to a lack of it at large. However, there is a huge argument against archiving images on digital media-the pace of technology makes the playback device obsolete. Case in point: Ten years ago the George Eastman House scanned all of its prints to Video Laser Disk so you could look at them without handling the prints...well it's only ten years later and you cannot buy a Laser Disk player to save your life! So now Eastman house is in the unenviable position of buying as many of the players as possible...and when the last one breaks, no more seeing that information!

The great thing about a silver photograph, or ink print for that matter is that no technology is required to view it. It is a self-contained information system, like a written language or stone monument. It can be deciphered relatively easily. Imagine if the pharaohs had put all of their language on 8 track tapes, or vinyl 78 RPM records....it's a bizarre analogy, but you get the point.

Russ Rosener

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] frames and mats

> From: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] frames and mats
>
> Thanks, yes I want them to be archival. My only concern is
> that ultraviolet light and chemicals present in the air may still get
> in since the back isn't completely airtight, though very very close.
> I recall older photos and paintings where the back is completely
> sealed with paper and wax or clued all around the edges.

There is some evidence that this is the worst way to mount photo prints. Even archivally processed prints outgas chemicals over time and they mount needs to be able to breathe so this can escape. There is a section in Ctein's book about this.

Bob

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
From: "Anthony Atkielski" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Best printer for photos?

The weak link for ink-jet printers is in the ink, not the paper. Most ink-jet inks fade fairly quickly (within a couple of months to a couple of years), no matter what paper is used. Epson addressed this with the 2000P, which uses pigment-based inks (instead of dye-based inks) that do not appreciably fade even after years of display. Unfortunately, pigment-based inks aren't as brilliant as dye-based inks (at least initially--they look a lot better than dye-based inks after a few years, though!), and they exhibit metamerism (a tendency to show a slight shift in color depending on the light with which they are lit). Still, a pretty print after ten years is often preferable to a fabulous print that turns to garbage after 24 months.

...

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001
From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Permanence

Les Clark wrote:

>Bob, Austin, and others....
>
>I remember the name of the researcher at RIT who wrote about film
>permanence; it is Doug Nishimura. What I read was a summary of his work
>in one of the newsgroups.
>
>les clark / edgewater, nj / usa

A summary of Henry Wilhelm's "Permanence and Care of Color Photographs" can be found on photo.net, and it's where I read about the major issues:

http://www.photo.net/photo/wilhelm-book

IIRC traditional B/W negative lasts longest. After that, it's Kodachrome, hands down, for dark storage archival. Almost all of the mainstream E-6's beat out nearly all the C-41 color negative by decades. There are a few E-6 dogs in the lot. A lot of the C-41 film shows 5% or more degradation in fading and/or color shift after about 2 to 4 decades. Most of my other half's color negatives from the late 1960's and early 1970's are terrible in this regard. I have some of my own from the late 1970's are shifting and fading. OTOH, my father's early 1950's archive of Kodachromes look like the day they came back from developing and mounting, and I expect they'll still be that way in another century if they're properly stored out of severe heat or humidity, and away from chemicals.

-- John

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Permanence

you wrote:

>Bob, Austin, and others....
>
>I remember the name of the researcher at RIT who wrote about film
>permanence; it is Doug Nishimura. What I read was a summary of his work
>in one of the newsgroups.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>les clark / edgewater, nj / usa
>---------------------------------------------

Doug Nishimura is with the Image Permanence Institute of RIT. He is one of the foremost researchers into the permanency of recording materials. I've had quite a bit of personal communication with Dr. Nishimura, who is very generous with his time.

IPI does research mostly under contract. I don't know what research they have done on color materials specifically, but know that they have done some.

It was a summary of research done for the National Institutes for the Humanities which tipped me off to the failure of Kodak Selenium Toner to protect images. NIH found that recently processed microfilm was developing redox spots despite routine treatment with KRST. IPI found that something had changed in the toner from the form used in the original research and it no longer provided adequate protection. IPI developed another toner which is more satisfactory. This was done about ten years ago.

Dr. Henry Wilhelm, formerly of IPI but independant for many years, is also a well respected researcher in the area of image permanence. He published a book some years ago which treats all sorts of materials, both photographic and otherwise. Its a little old for direct application to current color materials but is useful for learning the mechanisms of image degradation and how to avoid them.

Wilhelm has a web site, which seems to be continuously under construction. I haven't checked it in a couple of weeks so it may be up with new material by now. Wilhelm has been researching the effects of reciprocity failure in accelerated aging tests which may considerably distort the predictions.

Color materials are much more stable today than even ten years ago. Storage conditions are important. If very long life is desired freezing is a workable method. Freezing will stop even the chemical decomposition of nitrate base.

Someone remarked that color separation protection copies were too expensive. No doubt they are expensive but, when compared to the investment in a feature motion picture, they are a drop in the bucket.

The shortest lived color material seems to have been Anscocolor as used for motion pictures c.1950. This stuff evidently faded in a few years. Early Eastmancolor Negative was a lot better, although not exactly archival. Of course, no one bothered to store the negatives decently either.

Another subject. Someone remarked that one reason old video tape doesn't exist is that it was destroyed. Correct. I know what the practice at NBC was. 2" tape was expensive and was re-used, being eventually disposed of. Most of the programs of the time exist now only on B&W Kinescope recordings.

However, my point about the short life of magnetic media stands. There is surviving two inch tape from long enough ago to have some idea of its survival qualities. When I started working for Fox Television, nearly fifteen years ago, our local LA station sill originated some programming from two-inch quadroplex tape. These were often programs which had been originated at the KTTV-Metrotape studios next door. _All in the Family_ was one. The tapes played, all right, but had gotten noisy and the chroma level was low. The masters undoubtedly were better but any tape which is played suffers both mechanical wear and a sort of degaussing due to mechanical flexing. Film is better. BTW, old audio tape has similar problems.

I am not sure what format is contemplated for storage of digital feature pictures but I wonder if anyone has _really_ looked at the life expectancy of such media. I think some of the people involved with pushing digital are so enamoured of "high-tech" they are not very rational about it.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Permanence

you wrote:
>Not sure. Being digital, information stored on CDs, discs etc never 
>goes away as does information that has been stored analog. A faded 
>slide has lost information same as a scratched vinyl disc has. And lost 
>means LOST - impossible to restore. An old floppy disc still has ALL 
>the information on it it ever had. It may be a problem of accessing 
>this information either because the CD crumbled to dust and nobody 
>thought about copying it first or because no working reading device can 
>be found any more. But this is another story: The information is still 
>100% there and if we wish to access it again all that is needed is a 
>new drive, so lets build a new one if needed, the technology is there.  
>But will there be a need? IMO the short life of our current information 
>storage technologies corresponds to the quality or relevance of the 
>information stored. In 1801 information storage was difficult and had 
>to be done by hand - so only relevant information was stored (not 
>counting shopping lists) and what is left from this now is valuable for 
>us. I believe for coming generations the difficulty will not be to 
>access the information they find but to SORT it, because 99% simply 
>doesn't MEAN anything.  
>Lets hope that among the 1% will be some photos taken with a Rollei.
>
>Sven Keller
>

  I think there is a misunderstanding of the nature of digital vs: analogue
storage here. Neither analogue or digital storage is immune to damage.
Digital is probably the more fragile of the two. Compact Discs and similar
media employ elaborate schemes of error detection and correction. The
Reed-Salomon code used for CDs and several other digital recording media
includes four fold redundancy and a very elaborate system of detection,
corrrection, and/or concealment of errors due to data loss. It was intended
to make noisy or somewhat discontinuous media useable. If there is enough
damage to a compact disc it becomes unplayable. If the damage is to the
root directory area (I think its called something else on a CD but its too
early in the moring for my memory to work right) the data becomes entirely
unrecoverable. 

  A simple floppy disc does not have even this much protection and is
fairly easily damaged with loss of all data. 

  With either analogue or digital format its possible to recover most of
the data from a damaged storage medium, provided the damage is not too
extensive. The advantage of digital is, that within some limits, its
possible to reconstruct a perfect replica of the original signal and to
re-record it without degradation, provided the digital information is
regenerated each time. The problem is poor media as far is life time is
concerned, combined with the requirement that the data be transferred
occasionally to new formats as well as new media. 

  Perhaps a different philosophy of information preservation is needed
here. Even with analogue media its necessary to transfer and renew the
storage media on occasion. We are seeing that with old movies. For analogue
there is some degradation for each transfer. Noise increases if nothing
else. The conventional idea is to choose media with a very long life to
obviate the need for frequent transfers. For digital this is not so
critical since a perfect replica of the original data can be regenerated.
Perhaps the idea for the future should be the storage of data on relatively
short lived media with recognition of the need for continuous transfer to
new media and whatever new format is required. If enough of this process
can be automated the archive of the future will not be a static storage
area filled with documents of some sort but a dynamic, continuously
operating system of recording, retrieval, regeneration, and re-storing of
the data contained with new data continuously added in whatever the format
of the day is. 

  Since the system is always operating there will be no problem of having
to play back material on some old type of media in some obsolete format,
nothing will ever get old enough for that to be required. 

  One can speculate ad infinitum about the direction this might take in the
distant future, particularly if someone discovers how to implement some
form  of implanted AI device in humans allowing a direct connection to AI
machines. The ultimate virtual reality. 

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]


From: "bob mcclelland" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Permanence
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 

----- Original Message -----
From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]>

> At least I can hold a Kodachrome up to the light and see it using a
> loupe.   [etc]

Whilst I agree that your points about digital do need consideration for
future storage and accessibility, I don't really see film as that much
safer. In twenty/thirty years time there won't be an enlarger available, nor
a projector etc etc and you will be left with the loupe as the ONLY way to
view 'old' photos. Not too good if you have a wad of 35mm negs  that you
want to see!

My system isn't state of the art, but it's not bad. 1ghz chip, 512Mb memory,
fast 32Mb Matrox graphics card, CD writer, Windows 2000 pro  etc etc -  AND
I have kept a 5.25 inch floppy drive! (of course, when it breaks it's gone
for good).  I only use it to access old data - and infrequently at that -
but when you think these drives were used in the first IBM PC in 1982 it
maybe indicates that it IS possible to move forward AND retain some
potential for looking backwards.............

regards,
Bob
Cornwall (U.K.)
www.marscovista.com


Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Permanence
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

Richard Knoppow wrote:

> Another subject. Someone remarked that one reason old video tape doesn't
> exist is that it was destroyed. Correct. I know what the practice at NBC
> was. 2" tape was expensive and was re-used, being eventually disposed of.
> Most of the programs of the time exist now only on B&W Kinescope recordings.
> However, my point about the short life of magnetic media stands. There is
> surviving two inch tape from long enough ago to have some idea of its
> survival qualities. When I started working for Fox Television, nearly
> fifteen years ago, our local LA station sill originated some programming
> from two-inch quadroplex tape. These were often programs which had been
> originated at the KTTV-Metrotape studios next door. _All in the Family_ was
> one. The tapes played, all right, but had gotten noisy and the chroma level
> was low. The masters undoubtedly were better but any tape which is played
> suffers both mechanical wear and a sort of degaussing due to mechanical
> flexing. Film is better.

That was me as well Richard... I'm beginning to take this personally. [g]

The difficulty with the comparison you are trying to make is that most
studios at least made an attempt to store their film negatives with some
degree of care (though generally they don't do a great job); this
historically has not been the case with video tape which typically had been
stored haphazardly, so the kind of anecdotal examples we may come across do
not represent a level playing field.

I think it is likely true that color negative from the 60s and 70s was a bit
better archivally than the videotape in use then, but probably not by very
much. I can't see how this marginal difference would account for the choice
of film versus tape in the production of these or current TV programs, which
was the original point.

Eric Goldstein


Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Permanence

you wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]>
>
>> At least I can hold a Kodachrome up to the light and see it using a
>> loupe.   [etc]
>
>Whilst I agree that your points about digital do need consideration for
>future storage and accessibility, I don't really see film as that much
>safer. In twenty/thirty years time there won't be an enlarger available, nor
>a projector etc etc and you will be left with the loupe as the ONLY way to
>view 'old' photos. Not too good if you have a wad of 35mm negs  that you
>want to see!
>

  Two points. First, enlargers and projectors are likely to still be around
in thirty years. 

  Secondly, and probably more importantly, they are easy to make. If
someone discovered a cashe of Kodachromes in, say, 150 years, they could
still see the images (assuming they survived) and, if desired, build a
projector or even a scanner to digitize the images. 

  You are talking about very low-tech stuff here. Technology like this
doesn't become impossible to duplicate while duplicating a player for
recovering digital data would likely become at least expensive.  For
instance, a Zip disc drive is not particularly expensive but suppose you
had to make one or a couple in a hundred years to recover some valuable
data on a Zip disk? 

  We always count of technology somehow having the answers in the future.
However, the experience of history is that it frequently does not. At
least, it should not be counted on to automatically solve forseeable
problems. 

>My system isn't state of the art, but it's not bad. 1ghz chip, 512Mb memory,
>fast 32Mb Matrox graphics card, CD writer, Windows 2000 pro  etc etc -  AND
>I have kept a 5.25 inch floppy drive! (of course, when it breaks it's gone
>for good).  I only use it to access old data - and infrequently at that -
>but when you think these drives were used in the first IBM PC in 1982 it
>maybe indicates that it IS possible to move forward AND retain some
>potential for looking backwards.............
>
>regards,
>Bob
>Cornwall (U.K.)
>www.marscovista.com
>
>
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]



From Nikon MF mailing list:

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: Robert Fately [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] digital archiving - Paper 1, Tech 0

On the topic of digital versus analog archiving, I thought this blurb
in  the March 11 issue of Information Week magazine to be rather amusing.

The idea was to create a British tech showcase: a digital time capsule, a
multimedia version of the Domesday Book, showing life in the United Kingdom
circa 1986. The original, compiled by Norman monks in 1086, is doing fine,
but the $3.6 million BBC Domesday Project is already unreadable. The
computers needed to play the 12-inch laser discs are almost extinct.
Specialists are working to recover the discs' data.


Of course, we all know enough to transfer our digitally stored works from
medium to medium as technology improves, right?

Bob




From: "Jeremy 1952" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Status of Kodachrome Slide Films
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002


I thought I might have read that Kodachrome 25 has been discontinued.  Can
someone tell me if that is true?

I just located about 1,000 slides that were stored in my attic for almost 30
years.  I had used 3 emulsions:  Kodachrome 25, Ectachrome 64 and
Eastmancolor 5254/5247 (a cult film from the 70s--Hollywood 35mm color
negative film that was developed and printed into color-corrected slides be
a handful of labs around the country).

The Eastmancolor stuff was junk.  Some of the slides had lost almost ALL of
their images.  The slides were virtually clear!  What a mistake I made,
using that stuff!

The Ectachromes were pretty good, after 3 decades in the attic.  A little
bit of color loss, but not bad.

The Kodachromes were magnificent!  Clear, sharp, with colors that jumped
right out at you!  Scenes that were so razor-sharp that it almost hurt my
eyes just focusing on them.

After 20+ years of shooting print films, I'd like to return to doind some
Kodachromes--if they're still out there.  Can someone fill me in?



From: "Jeremy 1952" [email protected]
Newsgroups:rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002


> > > Wrong. A decent CD-R will last far longer than film will. And you can keep
> > > two incase of a freak failure. CDRW isn't, however, as reliable

The danger in this advice is that it fails to adddress the very tangible
risks associated with archival storage in the digital domain.  Major
libraries, governments (including our federal and state governments, and
private companies) are all struggling with finding the best solution to the
problems that arise when archiving digital data.  If anyone claims that the
answer is simply to "just put it on a CD," he is either uninformed or
irresponsible.

There are at least 3 types of risk with archiving digital data for long-term
storage:

1:  Media failure/obsolescence

2:  File format obsolescence.

3:  Improper maintenance of stored materials

CDs were not invented as long-term storage media.  It is true that many of
them have a 100-200 year life expectancy, but that presumes that they are
stored in proper temperature/humidity/lightproof environment.  Check the
Kodak website for tons of information on this subject.


CDs are subject to failure if scratched or otherwise mishandled.  And,
unlike an analog object, the ENTIRE FILE typically becomes unreadable when
digital media fails.  If my negatives or print become stained, I may be able
to recover much of the image information.

Then there is the matter of media obsolescence.  There is virtually NO
chance that the average consumer will have equipment at hand in 100 years to
read CDs.  There is already a term called "Digital Archeology," to describe
the efforts to decode old digital stuff.  And, because the material on the
CD can't be seen with the naked eye, there is a good possibility that the
future holder of the CD may decide to just chuck it into the trash, rather
than go to any extraordinary effort to unlock its contents.

File formats will almost certainly be replaced.  The TIFF specification is
already on its 6th revision, and revision #7 is in the works.  Already, some
image editing programs cannot read early TIF files, especially those that
were compressed.  There are a ton of other formats that have died, and it is
almost certain that software developers will not support them (FlashPix
comes to mind.  Not only is the format dead, but so is the consortium that
invented and supported it).

Compression schemes are also expected to change.  Most institutions are
choosing to forego compressing files used for long-term archiving, as they
are concerned that it might make them unreadable down the road.

But, by far, the biggest threat to digital data storage is the prospect that
future generations will not take the time to convert the data to the
then-current file formats and media.  It's one thing for a library to budget
for this, and to see to it that a department is in place to keep "upgrading"
their digital collections as time passes.  But what about individuals, or
small businesses?  What guarantee is there that SOMEONE will take the
interest in renewing digital data in the future?

At least, when documents and images were stored in analog form, there was a
greater chance that family members would recognize that many of them were
important, and would afford them some measure of care.  Every family has
"important papers" stored somewhere, even if in a dresser drawer.  And
future custodians of those documents and images can see at once that they
have some historical value.  Not so with digital data.

There is every reason to believe that some unenlightened moron from a future
generation will take all of the data that we have lovingly created and just
junk it!  People "clean house" all the time.  Think about 78 RPM records, as
one example.  Once turntables dropped that speed, people threw the records
out by the ton. How many families can claim to have kept Grandpa's old
records?  Only a small percentage.

Digitization has many advantages for storing, using and distributing
documents and images in the short term (say, 5 years or less).  I am in no
way "down" on digital.  And, to be sure, many documents and images are "born
digital," which means that there ARE no "negatives," etc. (I suppose one
could print an image, then store the analog print).  But we must be
reconciled to the fact that there is a lot of digital data out there that
was never available in analog form.

My point is, the guy that carefully stored his prints, slides and negs might
have produced the longest-lasting products of all.  I certainly would not
recommend that anyone scan their negs and throw away the originals (some
people are actually doing that!)

I read that the National Archives was actually printing millions of emails
from Bill Clinton and Al Gore on PAPER, to ensure that they would remain
available well into the future.  If the US Government, with all of its vast
resources, is having a problem finding a digital archiving solution, what
makes any of us think that the answer is so simple?

My recommendation:  Go ahead and archive on CD, but keep those negs, prints
and slides, too (assuming that they exist in the first place).  There is no
way to know where this process will have gone over the next hundred years.
Best to keep both analog AND digital, until a better solution presents
itself.



Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
From: [email protected] (root)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002


Mark [email protected] wrote:
>
>Obsolesence - Not gonna happen with ISO CDs

Why?  Yes, they are popular but they will indeed be shortly made
obsolete by various multi-gigabyte smaller media.   It's now harder
and harder to play vinyl, soon you will have to go out of your way
to play, eventually way out of your way.  I no longer have a working
turntable.

>> 2:  File format obsolescence.
>
>Not gonna happen with TIFF, PNG, or JPEG

What a strange irony that the same week you write this, the ISO moved
to declare JPG to no longer be a standard format, and people rushed
to replace it.


The real way to keep your data is to keep it in online, not offline
forms.  Online forms can be copied to new online forms relatively
easily.

Offline forms are what you should worry about.


From: "Paul Saunders" [email protected]
Newsgroups:rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002


"Bernard Hill"  wrote

> >Actually I was thinking of investing in a printer that uses archival quality
> >inks.
>
> But with digital why worry about longevity? Simply reprint when the
> photo fades.

Not really practical.  I'd rather just print it once and be done with it.

> Of course you don't want to do this every couple of months
> but my experience is that it's nothing like that, more like a year on
> the latest inks/papers. I wish some of my old 35mm heirlooms shot by my
> dad (negative lost) had not faded - the problem is not unique to
> digital.

Have you read about the latest archival quality inks?  200 years apparently,
check this out;
http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/7356.html

> Having sold all my 35mm equipment and now gone digital there are 2
> things I miss:
>
> 1. Wide angle. I loved using my 18-24mm lens.

I couldn't live without wide angle.

> 2. Aspect ratio. 4:3 is different to 3:2 and the occasions I go back to
> 35mm cameras I love the 3:2.

Yep, I like that too, I'd prefer 2:1 in fact!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk


From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups:rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
 

Paul Saunders wrote:
... Three that spring to mind are;
>
> a)  Colour characteristics.  There's something about the colour of Velvia
> for example which is really special, and scanners don't seem to be able to
> capture it very well, especially the rich greens.

Digital is still far behind in dynamic range. If your exposure isn't
just right, you've lost either bright or dark end.

> b)  Long term storage.  Although digital is infinitely copyable with no
> quality loss, current storage media are far more fragile.  I'd sooner trust
> film than a CDR for the immediate future at least.

The long term worry isn't the permanence of the storage medium, but the
availability of drives. No magnetic data storage format has lived long.
When the U.S. Census of 1971 (IIRC) was needed in the 90's, there were
exactly two (2) drives left that could read the tapes. I don't see good
reasons why commercial lifetimes of different CD formats would be even
that long.

You might claim that new CD players are backward compatible with old
disks, but that is not certain. The laser wavelength is different. Old
promises for storage longevity were based on wide ir lasers, not narrow
blue ones. There is no quarantee that the CDs of today could be read by
any machine in 2030.

Film can be "read" with eyeballs.

<...>
> 2.  Format Advantages.
>
> a)  Digital.  No grain.  ...

Assuming you need only the lowest "film" speed. I still count it as a
plus that films are available at a wide speed range. The "speeds" of
digital cameras are mathematical simulations, not the real thing.

...
> c)  Medium Format.  You tell me!  I can't think of a convincingly good
> reason...

There's no replacement for square inches ;->

-- Lassi



From: "Jeremy 1952" [email protected]
Newsgroups:rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002


>I have recovered 32-year old tapes made on an obsolete computer as
> recently as last year. Tapes are EASY.

 I thought that digital preservation was a sensible course of action, just
like you.  After reading up on it, I have done an about-face.

The topic is too exhaustive for me to post anything meaningful here.  But,
as a beginning, have a look at this link.  You may find it to be an
eye-opener.

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub80-smith/pub80.html#preservation



From: "Roger N. Clark" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Woes in scanning 4 x 5 images.
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 


Leonard Evens wrote:

> In that connection, what kind of CDs do people generally use for storing
> digital images?  There is a web site which explains some of this, but I
> haven't seen the recommended CD types on sale anywhere I shop.   Right
> now I use standard brands like Imaton, and I presume the stored images
> will last as long as I am likely to.   But it would be nice to leave
> something more permanent for any of my descendants, biological or
> spiritual, who might want to recover those images.
>
> --
> Leonard Evens      [email protected]    

Be careful about cheap CDs--they may last only a few months.
See:


http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/issue12.html

Around here (Denver area) only cheap CDs seem to be
available, even though they say "Gold" on the cover.
I buy mine mail order in lots of 50 to 100.

Contrary to many of my recent posts in this thread, I do
have a life (of sorts).  This morning I woke up at 3:30am.
hiked to a mountain top (a little one: ~11,500 feet) before
sunrise, and got some nice 4x5s at sunrise with the continental
divide in the distance.  Then I went up
a ~14000 foot mountain and photographed mountain goats,
including 4x5s of mountain goats.  And including baby
goats playing. A very good morning!
Only I didn't see any Perseid meteors while hiking the
trail.  ;-)

Roger



Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 
From: Bernard Ferster [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Forver?

This article, just published in the New York Times, reports on recent
archival solutions. Oh, if only someone, a hundred years from today, would
want to see one of the images I made ! ;-)

Excerpts:

  Now, Dr. Raymond Lorie, a researcher at the I.B.M.  Almaden Research
Center in San Jose, Calif., has proposed a system that he hopes will become
that lingua franca. He has developed a prototype for a "universal virtual
computer"  a system with architecture and language designed to be so
logical and accessible that computer developers of the future will be able
to write instructions to emulate it on their machines.
...
For the universal computer to work, it would first have to be adopted as a
standard throughout the computer industry. Developers of new software with
new file formats would need to write additional software that could read
and display the files in the language of the universal computer. At the
same time, descriptions of the universal virtual computer would need to be
widely available for future computer developers.

Then, assuming that the universal computer is simple and logical enough,
people 100 years from now using different computer architectures would face
only one relatively basic task to read old formats on new machines  write
a set of instructions so the universal virtual computer could be emulated
on whatever machines exist then.


Emulation is a common computer technique in which one computer acts like
another  for instance, code is written for a Mac that mimics in every
detail the operations of a PC so that programs written for a PC will run on
a Mac.

In his approach, Dr. Lorie said, a program written for the universal
virtual computer extracts all the data stored in a file, for instance, the
data in a PDF file. This program does not try to reproduce the full range
of services offered by Acrobat Reader.
...

Dr. Lorie has successfully tested the key parts of his universal computer,
proving that it will work in the future, said Dr. Robin Williams, associate
director of research at Almaden. To do this, Dr. Lorie first wrote a
program in the universal computer language that could read and display the
contents of a PDF file. Then he wrote programs to show how his universal
computer system could work on computers with different architectures, Dr.
Williams said.

Johan Steenbakkers, director of information technology for the Dutch
national library, which hired I.B.M. to investigate a way to preserve
electronic publications, said Dr. Lorie's virtual computer had been
successfully demonstrated there.
...
Meanwhile, Jeff Rothenberg, a senior computer scientist at the RAND
Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., who raised the problem of long-term
preservation of digital documents in an influential Scientific American
article in 1995, takes a different approach to preservation.

Mr. Rothenberg wants archivists to preserve the original software ...
rather than adopting the data extraction program that Dr. Lorie proposes.
...

B.F.



Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 
From: Charles Carstensen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] off topic -- plastic sleeves

Hello Fritz,
Try Light Impressions. Yes, they are archival.

http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com

Chuck Carstensen


I've seen matted and mounted photos for sale in plastic sleeves that fit
like a glove.  I guess they come in standard sizes, and have a self-adhesive
fold-over flap.  Does anyone know who sells these sleeves?  Are they
archival?
-Fritz



Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:37:06 -0700
From: David Meiland 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: off topic -- plastic sleeves

>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 
>From: "fritz olenberger" [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: off topic -- plastic sleeves
>
>I've seen matted and mounted photos for sale in plastic sleeves that fit
>like a glove.  I guess they come in standard sizes, and have a self-adhesive
>fold-over flap.  Does anyone know who sells these sleeves?  Are they
>archival?
>-Fritz

You can get a variety of them from a place in Sacramento.


www.clearbags.com

You can get samples sent to you by requesting them online. I found it was a
little hard to figure out the right size, so order several samples.


from camera fix mailing list:
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Fungus (New CD Technology)

[email protected] writes:

 I guess that CD's are a little like Nikons, with the proper care, they
might last forever? 

I think some of the new studies that have been done on the longevity of CD's
has alarmed a lot of folks who thought that they could archieve documents on
this medium.

It turns out the the CD as we know it today is not very stable. Some
deterioration has been observed even at this early date.

There is a new technology that will soon be adapted by the industry. The disk
will be much smaller (new compression techniques) and will also be made of
newer materials.

If I recall correctly, the main ingredient in today's CD is aluminum, which
is a very unstable material. I don't know what the new disks will use.

Roland F. Harriston


from camera fix mailing list:
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
From: "Abdon Gonzalez" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Fungus (New CD Technology)

And to top it off, the recordable media you can burn at home has just a
tiny fraction of the longevity of factory-burn media; it must be softer
so it can be "burned" by the low power laser on your home system.

- Abdon


From minolta MF mailing list:
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 
From: "D. Patterson" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: digital vs. film (I am asking THE question)

[email protected] wrote:
>
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Digital files one hundred years from now......???
> > Smitty
> >
> Smitty,
> Actually I won't be around 100 years from now, so I could really care less.
>
> Bill B.  (USA)


For some photographers, it is essential for the photographs to last one
hundred years and longer. I'm just finishing a project in which four
dozen photographs that are already more than one hundred years old have
been photographically copied under safe illumination and/or scanned,
retouched, repaired, re-printed, captioned in albums, and archived as
digital files on CD-ROM media with an expected Life Expectancy (LE) of
100 years or greater. The photograph of an ancestor born in 1798 is used
in the title page of the photographic album and on the jewel case cover.
The photograph of his wife is on the jewel case back cover. A photograph
of their adult son appears with more text on the jewel case inside
cover. The prints were made using the Hewlett-Packard HP Dekjet 5500 and
its photo 7-ink system that is advertised to be lightfast for about
sixty years. Six sets of these photographic albums, data CD-ROMs, and
framed photographs are being distrubuted to six families.  When
conserving historical and family historical photographs, 100 years is
only the beginning.

When the Brady photographs lost popularity for awhile, the bulk of the
glass plate negatives were sold as scrap to a greenhouse owner. After
being used to construct glass greenhouses, the Brady images were
bleached by the sun into oblivion.

I inherited a small original photographic print of Abraham Lincoln. A
2nd great-grandfather was a charter member of the Republican Party, and
his wife's brothers were attorneys serving in the same Illinois court
circuits with Abraham Lincoln. When Abraham Lincoln was running for
political office, this photograph of Abraham Lincoln was given to the
family in return for their friendship and political support. This
otherwise mundane political trifle is now a 140 plus year old
photographic treasure.

Dallas Patterson
[email protected]


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 
From: Tan Wee Yeh [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: digital vs. film (I am asking THE question)

Smitty wrote:
> It is sad to here that the Velvia is fading already.

Velvia fade is likely very easy to pick up given it's strong
colours.  Archival is Kodachrome's very strong point and they are
rumoured to hold their colours in the dark for close to a century
(according to some studies I read somewhere).

E-6 slides wins when projected.  I noticed that most of my
kodachromes (not a lot) decolours significantly faster than all
my other slides when I project them (by comparing the areas
in/out of the mounts).  I have not done any scientific study to
support this claim though.

Anyone had similiar experience?

Of course, I borrowed a Minolta film scanner from HunYang to scan
in my favourites (just to keep on topic).

        Just me,
        Wire ...
--
Tan Wee Yeh     [email protected]     http://www.pobox.com/~wytan


From: John Stafford [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: In Terms Of Archival Quality . . .
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 

Roy L. Jacobs wrote:
> Kodachrome is really the only archival color film generally available.
> [...] I have Kodachrome movies from the later
> 1940's which my parents took, and while they have some color changes,
> they are still well balanced and completely usable.[...]

According to Wilhelm Research in terms of archival quality of
transparencies, Fujifilm is the best overall and Kodachrome comes in second.

(Henry Wilhelm is the founder of ISO WEG-5 Task Group 4)


From: Sarah Smith [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: 120 developing..
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 

>> Is it really possible to see anything on an exposed film which is not
>> developped after years???
>
> It's certainly possible. After a death in the family
> a camera was found to contain film last shot before
> the the spouse's death twenty years earlier. It
> developed quite well (probably as well as it
> ever would have).

I had a similar experience. Shortly after my grandfather passed away three
years ago, my grandmother went through his things and found a roll of film
in an old camera bag. She had it developed, and judging by the ages of the
family members in the photos, it was estimated the roll was taken in the
late 50s...Pretty amazing. The photos came out pretty good, especially
considering they were 40-45 years old. It's a shame he couldn't have seen
them...


From: "Mr. Free Notes" [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Article On Digitizing Old Photographs
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 

Interesting article on the topic of digitizing old photographs at:

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_1/garner/index.html

CKLee
http://www.thelinksociety.com/LinkDirectory/index.htm



From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: cds for archiving.... digital musings and well wishes Ted and Tina


Duane Birkey wrote:
>I bought a large stash of the Kodak Gold Ultima CDRs back when I heard Kodak
>was gonig to stop making them...
>
>According to Kodak.... Those Gold Ultima cd's last 6 times longer than the
>silver/gold ones they replaced them with...
>
>Kodak licensed the technology for the Gold Ultima cd's from Mitsui. The
>next time I buy cd's they will be the Mitsui Gold ones....
>
...

Hi Duane,

The Kodak Pro literature on CD's, back when they sold them, said that the
Gold Ultima life was not substantially longer than any other good quality
CD unless the very strict burning, handling, and storage conditions were
adhered to. Which was; burn at a very slow speed, don't write on it or
stick any labels on it (the ink/glue migrates into the chemical layers and
reeks havoc,) keep it in the dark (light also deteriorates the chemistry in
a laser burned CD,) 50�F and no more than 40% humidity. Oh yeah... don't
use them unless you are copying them for a backup...

One thing about silver photographs, you can see when they start to fade or
otherwise give-up. You can then retouch them if necessary and then copy
them to new silver media. Funny, The same media (silver) and method
(photography) is available today as what made many of the images which are
a hundred or two years old. This certainly is not true in the digital
world. Technology rarely lasts five years much less a century or two.

In reality, I believe that CD/DVD's will probably last long enough for some
sort of permanent digital storage to come along. And then you can copy all
of the hundreds (maybe thousands for some folks) CD/DVD's onto this
permanent media.

For me, until some sort of *permanent* digital storage, one that won't be
made 100% obsolete and unrecoverable in fifty or a hundred years, comes
along, I'm not interested in storing any of my work digitally.

:-)

Jim



From: "Sherman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Name one digital camera that can surpass 4x5.film quality....
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 

"Wim" [email protected] wrote
> John Stafford [email protected] wrote:
>
> >ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >Archival quality? Digital color printing is so superior in that respect
> > even at this early stage. Anyone interested in the fine details
> >regarding digital printing and permanance should bookmark this:
> >
>
> I just looked at the site of this highly respected institute. The life
> expectancy of of inkjet prints, all categories included, ranges from 2
> to 85 years. ALL inkjet prints will fade unacceptably within 100
> years ! ! And the institute warns agains artificial life expectancy
> predictions, even their own. How does that compare to Cibachrome ?
>
> Wim

Color prints from a wet darkroom are generally considered to have a life of
about 20-25 years. Cibachrome and a couple of other color processes have
life expectancies of 65-75 years.

Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com


From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]] 
Sent: Tue 8/5/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Storage options 



WILLIAMS, DAVID R. (JSC-DV1) (USA) wrote (using HTML):

I just purchased my new Hasselblad system just before I took off on a 3
week trip to the Pacific North West. After getting the 40 rolls of 120
Velvia 100-F processed there are some prime shots I would like protected.
Are those Gepe Anti-Newton Glass mounts Mfr Cat# 452601 the best way to
protect your most important transparencies? [...] 

I think the best way to protect slides is in archival quality sleeves. Not
in mounts, especially not when these contain glass (which tends to break...
;-)).

There are several brands of good sleeves, and you can get them with or
without cardboard (again: archival quality) mounts. I prefer them without,
though with mounts they look better on a light box.



From: [email protected] [[email protected]] 
Sent: Wed 8/6/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Storage options

Are those Gepe Anti-Newton Glass mounts Mfr Cat# 452601 the best way to protect
your most important transparencies?

I use selfsealing cardboard mounts and archival sleeves to store my 6x6
transparencies. I place a single transparency in the selfsealing mount,
slide a clear protective sleeve over the mounted transparency, and store
the transparencies in a clear page that holds 6 mounted transparencies.

For 6x6 self-sealing mounts (I like the black ones) see:
http://www.inkjetart.com/sp/66.html

For pages (you?ll want #6037)see:
http://www.inkjetart.com/sp/pages.html

For sleeves (you?ll want SS99) see:
http://www.inkjetart.com/sp/sleeves.html

Ed Post
www.edpostphotography.com


Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 
From: "Francis A. Miniter" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art,rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.misc,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Making your mark

I recommend you read Levey, Irish & Kazdan, "Photography: Composition
Color Display" (Amphoto, 1979) if you can find a copy. [A number of
copies are for sale on alibris.com and abebooks.com] It has an
excellent 50 page chapter on the fundamentals of display, including the
proper use of the terminology. 

In particular:

mount: any stiff material to which a print is affixed to
keep it flat. 
Full-mount: the mount and print are of the same size. 
Mat-mounted: the print is smaller than the mount. 
border: the non-image margin surrounding a picture.
mat: an add-on border. 
Overmat: a mat placed on top of the print. 

And there are more. 

As to materials for signing, the authors recommend a black pencil [most
pencils are gray, not black] or black ink. They mention that if you
write on the print itself you will dent or emboss the emulsion. Their
recommendation is to place the signature on the front of the mount, near
the print. 

I recall once reading about a famous print - either Stieglitz or Adams,
and he had signed the mat. As the years went by, the mat aged badly,
but the museum hesitated to do away with the mat because it had a
valuable signature. 

Francis A. Miniter


G V wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm a little confused about something, and I suspect it's the
>terminology that's causing me the confusion. (Mat/mount/etc!)
>
>I'm going to mount some prints as limited editions and sign/number
>them. Am I right in thinking that the accepted convention is to sign
>and number below the print, but inside the mount? (IE. On the print,
>in the white border surrounding the actual picture.)
>
>Furthermore, what's considered the best thing to sign with in this
>way?
>
>Thanks,
>Gabrielle



From: "Carrigman" carrigman@DEATHTO SPAMMERShotmail.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Nasty Digital Surprise
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 

I use a small Fuji A303 for snapshots and the like. At Christmas I
photographed, while still relatively sober, a family group about to tuck in
to the turkey. I printed off a 10x8 on my HP Deskjet 990cxi on HP paper and
gave it to one of the group. Visiting her house today I was shocked to see
that the photo had long since lost any semblance of its original colours. I
know all photos fade with time but the deterioration in just over six months
was astounding. In future I'll stick to film and conventional prints.

Carrigman


From: "Chris Barnard" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Serious Digital Still Photography's days numbered?
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003

"Bob Monaghan" [email protected] wrote 
> Related research showed that a very large number of UK's 5 million digital
> camera users did NOT have any backups of their digital photos or albums,
> but relied entirely on hard drive (cf. virus attacks..). No CDROMs, nada.
> Again, I am suggesting that these are accidents waiting to happen, and all
> the blah blah about digital's benefits fails to highlight that users have
> a large burden to backup their images, if they want them to last.

{over-long lecture mode}
This is a major issue. However, I don't think the biggest danger is from
virus attacks - it is almost always possible to rescue hard-drives from
virus attacks. A bigger risk is hard-drive failure. Back in the early 90's
(even maybe the late 80's), all the way up to maybe around '98 or '99, I
never had a HD failure, even though the risks were supposedly high. I think
a lot of that came down to the fact that I changed computers every couple of
years. Since then, I've had several of my own hard-disks fail - some give me
plenty of warning but I've also had ones that crashed almost overnight.
Occasionally even software failure can cause severe loss of data. In most
cases, a lot of the data on the drive can be resurrected, but in my
experience, it's always been the stuff that I most wanted that's got lost.
I work predominantly in the computer repair business and I'm seeing more and
more disk failures these days, with more and more companies/individuals who
don't back up. It seems to me that the latest improvements in hard-drive
technology have come about too fast. We're up to 160GB now, which is great
for storing all your RAW captures or whatever, but they do seem to be more
prone to disk failure (IMO). IBM now gets all it's drives made by Hitachi.
At one point, the IBM Deskstar series was considered one of the most
reliable options available. The 80GB IBM Deskstars (made by IBM, not
Hitachi) failed at an alarming rate, most after about 1 year of use.
My advice to anyone who is serious/obsessive about their photography is
backup regularly onto CD - or, if money allows, invest in a decent hardware
RAID setup.
{/over-long lecture mode}

Chris.


From: "William Graham" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Serious Digital Still Photography's days numbered?
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 
...
I don't even have a digital camera, but as soon as I got my new CD burner
installed last month, the first thing I did was back up all the photographs
I had on my system.......



From: "Bill" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Suggestions for 2-1/4 negative files?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 


If you choose sleeves (for 3 or 4 frames in a strip), rather than pages,
a handy way to store them is in a small filing cabinet. The
one I use for 120 came from ORGANIZE NOW, in NJ (800.631.2233). The model
MD123 ($78) measures 11 w x 13 h x 17 d and has three drawers of 9 x 14
in. (inside bottom) by 3 in. deep. I lined it with acid-free mounting
board, which also is the material for dividers (by year for me). The
sleeves stand on edge, at right angles to the front, so the number/title is visible on
each of them by looking from the side.

I like the metal because it is non-reactive (helped it to that state by
placing it in a moderate oven for about 20 minutes--boiled off the
volatiles :-), and doesn't invite mold (compared to wooden cases).

There's a model MD125 with 5 drawers ($89) that fits 35 mm sleeves.

WAF

 Paul Schoenfeld wrote:
> One & all:
>
> I've recently purchased a Mamiya 645e after finally finishing an
> ages-long darkroom-building process. Have been "out" of photography for
> too many years and am looking to start up again. Used to use Paterson
> negative files--have about a dozen of their 35mm binders that are
> overloaded with now yellowing glassine pages, and want to change over to
> something with more permanence.
>
> Any suggestions--what do you folks use for storing your b&w and color
> negatives?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Schoenfeld


From British Journal of Photography PROFESSIONAL NEWS - 20 August 2003

An imation survey of 130,000 users worldwide showed 90% still used magnetic floppy
diskettes, while less than 10% had DVD burners. Some 90% of the computer users are
reported to have a CDROM burner (?)...




From: Peter De Smidt usenet@_spam_desmidt.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format 
Subject: Re: Max Enlargement 
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003

According to http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/info/1000-hours.html , 
wilhelm uses a 30% fade level to come up with his longevity 
predictions. *If* this is true, then noticable fading will occur much 
sooner than Wilhelm's predictions indicate. 


From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs Film cameras.
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 

The same relative will throw out the old film or even old prints without
looking at them - especially if they smell bad -- like mildew fer instance.
The girl at the front desk of my lab, when presented with a print the
customer would like duplicated and/or enlarged always starts with the
question "Do you have the original negative?". The most typical answer is
"No. If I'd known they were useful I wouldn't have thrown them away."
Sometimes these people only picked up the film the day before, and the negs
are already sleeping with last night's fish course.
The general state of the world is that no one really gives a damn about
preserving anything they think will be there forever -- which is why I and
so many other restorers can make a lot of money turning a small soft print
that has Gramps or Fluffy off in a corner, into the portrait they never had
made while said person (or animal) was alive. There is an entire industry of
portrait painters who work from photos of the dear departed. No one ever
thinks about it until it's too late.
That is one of the reasons that archival materials are a delusion.
Nothing is archival without an archivist - Stonehenge is wearing out, the
Rockies are getting shorter, the Lescaux cave paintings have been sealed up
to attepmt to preserve them from the destructive damp caused by human
breath. Most of the Brady Civil War collection was destroyed to clear out
the space in Ford's Theater by a new owner - less than 15 years after the
end of the war. 50% of all movies made before 1950 rotted in the can or were
lost in fires -- more than one major studio was stupid enough to store ALL
the copies of many films in one, flammable warehouse. Time is the enemy of
all.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com

"Jeremy" [email protected] wrote...
> "Paul Rubin" http://[email protected] wrote >
> >There are some technical points that they don't understand
> > about how open formats are far less affected than closed formats, but
> > they've been burned enough times by the problems of preserving
> > obsolete media to be justified in their concerns.
>
> They just may understand some of those technical points all too well . . .
> If we limit our time frame to, say, 50 years or less, than your concept of
> "Open Formats" may be valid. But, open format or proprietary, do you really
> believe that today's file formats will be easily readable in a hundred years
> or more?
>
> Anyone that archives information digitally must rely upon future generations
> to migrate the data to both new file formats and to new types of media.
> This is uncharted territory. We simply do not know that future generations
> will have the time, manpower and financial resources to take on this task.
> With the amount of digital information increasing exponentially, the fear
> that some person or entity may decide simply to chuck this stuff at some
> future date is valid.
>
> The best minds have been unable to come up with a foolproof solution as of
> yet.
>
> I believe that the problem will be resolved, but for right now there is some
> degree of risk in relying upon digitally-converted files as a permanent
> substitute for preservation of the originals (the issue of how to handle
> "born digital" files is another problem, as there ARE no analog "originals.
> But we'll leave that discussion for another day).
>
> For now, the US Government insists upon microfilm copies as the only
> acceptable archival medium. Microfilm has limitations on the types of
> originals that are suited to be microfilmed, so it is far from a universal
> solution. But it does have a life of over 500 years, and it can be "read"
> with just a light and a magnifier, so the problems of obsolete media and
> obsolete file formats are eliminated.
>
> The troubling aspect of this is that the typical consumer that shoots
> digitally just assumes that the images stored on his accumulation of CDs is
> "safe" and "permanent." I cringe at the thought of some stupid descendent
> deciding in the future to discard boxes filled with "those old CDs" without
> even trying to find out what treasures may be contained in them.


From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs Film cameras.
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 

"Paul Rubin" http://[email protected] wrote 

>There are some technical points that they don't understand
> about how open formats are far less affected than closed formats, but
> they've been burned enough times by the problems of preserving
> obsolete media to be justified in their concerns.

They just may understand some of those technical points all too well . . .
If we limit our time frame to, say, 50 years or less, than your concept of
"Open Formats" may be valid. But, open format or proprietary, do you really
believe that today's file formats will be easily readable in a hundred years
or more?

Anyone that archives information digitally must rely upon future generations
to migrate the data to both new file formats and to new types of media.
This is uncharted territory. We simply do not know that future generations
will have the time, manpower and financial resources to take on this task.
With the amount of digital information increasing exponentially, the fear
that some person or entity may decide simply to chuck this stuff at some
future date is valid.

The best minds have been unable to come up with a foolproof solution as of
yet.

I believe that the problem will be resolved, but for right now there is some
degree of risk in relying upon digitally-converted files as a permanent
substitute for preservation of the originals (the issue of how to handle
"born digital" files is another problem, as there ARE no analog "originals.
But we'll leave that discussion for another day).

For now, the US Government insists upon microfilm copies as the only
acceptable archival medium. Microfilm has limitations on the types of
originals that are suited to be microfilmed, so it is far from a universal
solution. But it does have a life of over 500 years, and it can be "read"
with just a light and a magnifier, so the problems of obsolete media and
obsolete file formats are eliminated.

The troubling aspect of this is that the typical consumer that shoots
digitally just assumes that the images stored on his accumulation of CDs is
"safe" and "permanent." I cringe at the thought of some stupid descendent
deciding in the future to discard boxes filled with "those old CDs" without
even trying to find out what treasures may be contained in them.



From: "Gabriel" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs Film cameras.
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003

Sure...

The problem with electronic records of any sort - including digital images
and video - is that they are a nightmare from a management and preservation
perspective. .

As far as digital versus film - there is NO comparison in terms of physical
preservation. If I take a box full of photographs and throw them in a
drawer, and I don't open that drawer again for another 50 years... at the
end of the time (assuming nothing catastrophic occurs) I have.... a box full
of photographs. If I do the same thing with a bunch of magetic and optical
media what I'm left with is a pile of useless plastic, some of which will
make nifty coasters. Similarly, data management for hard-copy formats
(including microfilm) is vastly easier than for electronic records of any
sort.

I'm not sure exactly what the original poster's precise issues were with the
records at his "slack campus" but I can make some guesses. Perhaps you
might try grasping the kinds of records management issues that exist when
you're dealing with a large corporate environment with thousands of
individual users creating widely disparate record types on a variety of
formats. This is bad enough in a highly centralized system like a business.
In a decentralized environment such as a university, where individual
colleges and faculties often operate like petty kingdoms, it is a thousand
times worse. Even data migration is not a cure-all because of the inevitable
decay of electronic data over time. Have you checked your old Word Star
files lately to see how much data loss has occurred?

I like digital images because they are easy to distribute and provide access
to. But for family photos that I want my children to be able to look at
decades from now, film is the only way to go. Yes, digital images can be
printed to paper, but realistically, how many will be? And of those that
are, how many will be done in a way that will ensure their physical
preservation for more than a very few years? Damned few, I'd say. At
Christmas this year it seemed as if everyone and his dog was snapping away
with a brand-new digital camera... and here' s me with my little ol' film
camera, still stuck in the Lower Stone Age. But five years from now it will
be my pictures that survive to document Christmas, 2003.

The telephone was once called the "great robber of History" because of the
amount of written correspondence it replaced and the corresponding loss of
documentation of human events. What the long term effect of computers will
have on the recording of human activity remains to be seen, but is likely to
be quite similar.

Regards,

Gabriel
...


From: [email protected] (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs Film cameras.
Followup-To: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 19 Dec 2003 

I agree with your points that off-site storage is a good idea - and one
that should be better emphasized in amateur photography - film or digital

but you protest too much about "perfect"; the reality is that a duplicate
print or slide or negative doesn't lose enough contrast etc. in the
duplication process to make it any less desirable for the vast majority of
uses, including use in stock libraries for sale to picky buyers ;-)

the good news, per Fuji UK's study of 5 million UK digital camera users,
is that 37% of the digital images are on longer life print media and inks
or backed up on CDROMs etc.

the bad news is that 63% of digitally made images are at risk, meaning the
majority of digital images being made today, either from the lack of
backup of hard drives or because images were printed with nonarchival
papers or inks or other reasons.

the big news here is that digital users seem to be much more at risk of
losing their images, per fuji UK's study, than we would expect for most
film users (who get negatives/slides plus prints which today are
relatively archival media etc.).

so I think the correct perspective, and the folks who need to be most
warned about archival and backup issues, are those nearly 2/3rds (63%)
of digital image makers who are at risk of losses of images per Fuji UK.

the losses to fires and floods etc. from non-backed up film or digital
images is only a trivial level compared to 63% of images, right?

regards bobm


From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs Film cameras.
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003

"Sheldon Strauss" [email protected] wrote 
> This is a pretty silly discussion the fact that the digital data never
> changes. Yes the storage meduim may detriorate but data does not. Film will
> detriorate with time especially color negative film.


Not that silly.

Even though the data remains unchanged, there is every liklihood that file
formats will change--and future software may not be able to read today's
formats. TIF, for example, is on its 6th incarnation, with #7 in
development. There are already problems reported with today's software not
being able to read early TIF images, especially those that used compression.

FlashPix, my own former favorite format, has been discontinued (it was the
closest format to Kodak's PCD format--which is proprietary).

I could go on, but you get the picture.

The other major risk is media obsolescence. I doubt is anyonw will have
equipment on their home computers in 50 years that will read CDs. When was
the last time that you saw, for example, a 5" floppy disk? I had one--in
1990, when I got my first computer. Try to find a place that can read and
convert any data from 5" floppies today--it may not be impossble, but it's
not going to be easy. And we're talking about a floppy format that is not
yet 15 years old.

Up to now, if a document or image survived, it could be read by anyone
without any specialized equipment. Not so with digital data--you can't just
look at the media and determine what is there--or whether it is important
enough to preserve.

For the first time in human history, data that we create (i.e., digitally)
will need to be migrated to newer technologies as time goes on. There is no
absolute assurance that future generations will take on this task.

Digital data is excellent for use in under-5-year time horizons, but the
long-term archiving prospects are unproven. Also, CDs were not designed as
archival media. There are wide variations in quality among the various
manufacturers.

It is ironic that the U.S. Government still specifies microfilm as the
long-term archiving medium for all essential documents. Properly stored,
microfilm has an expected life of over 500 years--and all one needs to read
it is a light source and a magnifying lens.

The problem of how to store digital data will certainly be solved
eventually. But for right now, plain old film and plain old photographic
prints may still be superior to digital data as an archival storage method.



From: [email protected] (Phred) 
Newsgroups: alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,aus.computers.cdrom 
Subject: Digital archives on CDR [Was: No more film R&D, we're going digital: Kodak] 
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 

"dvus" [email protected] wrote: 
>Pulver wrote: 
>> dvus wrote: 
>>> Is it a given amongst serious photographers that digital will 
>>> replace film in the future, or will there always be a place for film 
>>> in the foreseeable future? 
>> 
>> As digital equipment quality improves and prices drop, film sales 
>> will decline exponentially. 
>> 
>> Photographic films, particularly colour films, have very short 
>> shelf life, made shorter by warm environments. Pros have to buy 
>> large quantities of one batch number and keep it in a freezer, 
>> and have to shoot a dozen or more test rolls of each new lot, in 
>> order to get consistent results. Amateurs frequently get bad 
>> results despite excellent equipment and techniques. 
[snip] 
>> 
>> Poloroid was an instant success, despite high prices and poor 
>> quality, because it was "instant". With digital, anyone can take 
>> some family pictures on the lawn, go inside and print enough 
>> pictures to give everyone a set in 10-15 minutes. How can 
>> Photomat beat that??? 
> 
>I quite agree. Even a rank amateur like myself can attend an event, take dozens 
>of pix with a relatively cheap 64 or 128 Mb memory stick in the camera and edit 
>out the real bad ones as you go. I can end up with a few really decent pictures 
>from the remaining ones without hardly spending a cent, and then print out what 
>I want on good photo paper and still not have spent a fraction of what it would 
>have cost with film. 
> 
>Add to that the ability to archive one's pix on a CDR with a good chance of 
>keeping them in original condition for a long period of time and the need for 
>film methods drops to nil for me and, I suspect, the vast majority of others. 
An interesting point. But just what *is* the realistic archival life 
of CDRs? 
Early in the piece they seemed to be claiming "100s of years". Then 
we had Kodak Gold CDRs with turned to silver and then back to "silver 
plus gold" for "six times the [unspecified] life", or something like 
that. 
Finally, a week ago, the local ABC morning computer guru said that 
"new Dutch research has shown that the life of CDRs may be a little as 
two years". Now that's a bit sad, if true. 
Let's be optimistic and assume they're out by a factor of ten and 
allow a fudge of 2X, and we get about 40 years. Still not real 
brilliant when you consider you can still make good prints from 
B&W negatives 100 years old, and Kodachrome slides can do better than 
40 years anyway. 

Cheers, Phred. 


From: [email protected] [[email protected]] 
Sent: Sat 1/10/2004 
Subject: Science News e-LETTER



...
[Materials Science]
News That's Fit to Print--and Preserve: How long can libraries hold on to their newspaper collections?
Analyses of newsprint materials suggest that, despite their frail appearance, newspapers can last more than 200 years in storage--a fact that calls into question the merits of microfilming.
http://www.sciencenews.org/20040110/bob8.asp
...


End of Page