[alt-photo] Re: ARCHIVALITY

[Loris Medici]

Agree, but that's another aspect; what brougth gum / carbon or pt/pd
printing to us in the 19th century was the urge/search for a stable (or more
stable) medium in the first place...

Thanks for the trouble of asking to Gamblin and passing information.

Regards,
Loris.


-----Original Message-----
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
[mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of
Diana Bloomfield
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 6:25 PM
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: ARCHIVALITY

Hi Loris,

That's a valid point, of course (and goes hand-in-hand with labeling the
work correctly, don't you think?). ;)

But I think the reason "photography has already been stigmatized,"  
though, is not necessarily because of the perceived lack of stability of the
medium; rather,  I think that stigmatization stems from the fact that we can
produce negatives, or digital scans, and so photography is viewed as being
infinitely copied/repeatable, and so-- less valuable.  Making very "limited
edition" prints is a factor which helps, I'm sure, but I like to think that
the one-of-a-kind alt process prints we do makes a bigger dent in that
"infinitely repeatable and so less valuable" theory.

By the way, I wrote to a "product specialist" at Gamblin about their PVA,
which is what I use for sizing-- though others may be using a different type
of PVA.  Not sure this is really definitive w/regard to the archival
question, but here's what she wrote:

...