petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk on 03/19/98 04:13:00 PM
Please respond to petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
cc: (Bob Maxey/MTN/US/3Com)
Subject: Re: dye sublimation prints
>Mr. Marshall, you are wrong about your reply. The comment that computer
>output not being archival is correct. Regardless of the paper used to
>print the output on, the fact that it is a material similar to
>photographic paper means very little. It is the dyes or pigments used,
>the manner in which they are applied, the way they are handled, stored or
>displayed also factor into it. There is absolutely no proof that a
>digital image will be here even 5 years from now. None. Nada.
>>I am talking exactly about prints made on photographic paper.
>>I've seen - and handled - prints by all of the great
>>masters of both b/w and colour printing - including for example Weston,
>>Strand, Steiglitz, Adams (Robert & Ansel), Penn, Sudek etc.
As have I, and some times, the quality of the image is less than what one
might normally expect. I am a great fan of Ansel Adams; but I have seen
examples printed by him, that are less than what I expect to see. I have
seen pure crap from Strand and Penn as well.
>>>Computers can print to genuine Fuji (or even Kodak etc) photographic
paper
using a suitable printer - as I said. These prints are on exactly the same
paper and have been through the same processing as any other photo print -
and thus are exactly as archival as prints produced by standard
photographic printing.
Here again, the discussion was not about printers that use conventional
photographic paper, Ink Jet and other output was what was mentioned. Please
comment on what was actually said. These techniques are not new; I have
seen these types of prints for some time now.
They can also produce absolutely neutral b/w prints
on colour paper by the way. The Fuji material has the longest display life
of any normal colour photo display material, though certainly not quite in
the carbon print league.
I have a number of Carbon images made in 1937 through 1940 that are less
than ideal and certainly not what I expect to see when looking at an image
of this type. Carbon DOES NOT imply permanence. Carbon images will indeed
fade if made without care. And what do you mean by normal color display
material? Prints like Dye Imbibsion have lasted since the day they were
made. Later on, Dye Transfer was developed and popularized by Eastman. Here
again, the potential for longevity is proven. Like my father's Kodachrome
slides, they are as perfect now as the day they were made. These images
have a proven track record, Fuji Can't say this as of yet. Please refrain
from making statements that are not proven.
Incidentally, Technicolor 3-Strip films are as nice today as the day they
were made. No color stock made today has this potential for longevity. And
the 3-strip process was also a dye transfer process.
>>>>>Plenty of people have tested these materials, not least Henry Wilhelm.
So what? In the opinion of a number of experts in the fields of
photochemistery, there are questions being raised by some of the claims
certain often quoted people have made. Tests for example might not have
been done as accurately as they should have been. I know that a number of
recent studies done on current materials used in Ink-Jet printers are also
being questioned. Results are not repeatable; a requirement for any testing
of materials. One major problem is that there are no standards and no
absolute consistency between inks or dyes used by the various
manufacturers. You can pull 10 ink jet cartridges of the shelves over a
month or so and tests will show different formulations. With conventional
photographic materials, everything is absolutely consistent.
>>>Obviously this isn't done using an ink jet, but with special printers
that
use a LED light source. They print direct from jpeg images. The result is
a genuine photographic image from your computer file.
We already covered this. The post and my comments were not regarding any
output to conventional photographic paper or film.
>>>You obviously have not seen
any of these prints (or at least have not been aware of how they were
made) if you think you can tell them from those made by normal printing.
Possibly the only clue is that they are a little too perfect!
>>>Lasers have of course been used for some printing for a long time - I
remember paying a fortune for some Cibachromes that were printed this way
to reduce the contrast many years ago.
>>>Photoshop enables you to easily do many things to prints which skilled
hand printers find either difficult or impossible. Colour correction of
areas of prints becomes simple, and dodging and burning and altering
contrast are possible beyond the limits of the darkroom. I've also
retouched a number of damaged negatives which would certainly not have
been an economic possibility without the computer. You can even do some
correction of mixed lighting if this is impossible to avoid when taking a
picture. Beyond this sort of correction of pictures the possibilities are
more or less without limit.
Actually, what these programs have done is make lazy photographers more
productice. I am amazed at the number of people who have the attitudes that
they can just fix it in Photoshop rather than do it right. You mentioned
all of the famous photographers...what did they do without Photoshop? I use
Photoshop, but I do not overuse it which is what many people do today. It
seems amazing to me that this tool is a part of every photographers arsenal
these days. All many do is use it to fix problems they should had avoided
in the first place.
Years in the darkroom, years of mechanically striping emulsion layers,
years of spraying gallons of inks and dyes through an airbrush, have taught
me a thing or two, and yes, I will bet I can tell the difference between an
image made using computer systems and conventional negatives /
transparencies; at least most of the time.
>>>You are even wrong about ink jet images by the way as the tests that
have
been done on some of these using suitable inks and paper give display
lives roughly 50% greater than - for example - any Kodak colour paper.
Wrong, there have NEVER been any tests that can be repeatable or
conclusive. Often certain experts are quoted; one was mentioned already in
this post. The problem is that the efforts are being reviewed by better
experts and some early conclusions are false. Regardless of if you want to
believe it or not, there is absolutely no proof that any of the current Ink
Jet materials will have any live beyond a few years. This is simply a fact.