>>>500 years is considered by many to be permanent enough. One of my
upcoming
books, History and Practice of Photoceramic Processes will tell you more
about photographs that have the potential of lasting 40,000 years or more.
I have used that process. My technique is in using Dichromates to sensitize
ceramic pigments, coat the substrate, expose, develop and fire. I would be
very interested in your book when published.
>Illfochrome has materials that they will guarantee for 150 -
>200 years or more depending on how they are handled. these specialty
>
>There are so many holes in your writing that I just don't know where to
>start. Let's try here, but I'll have to be brief as I don't have all day.
>My first meeting with the Ilford chemists in charge of permanence issues
>was in 1976 in Europe. We worked on a black & white project that was later
>called Galerie paper. The advantage of working directly with industry (and
>archival) specialists is that one can get a lot of insider's information
>that nobody would be caught dead putting in writing. After some networking
>I learned that Cibachrome (formerly Telcolux and Cilchrome [1963]) was no
>longer to be advertised as "archival" when an interior decorator had to
>redo a job because the Cibas had faded quite badly in a record time
(months
>under a lot of light). Cibachromes, because of their azo dyes, were 3 to 7
>times better than conventional chromogenic materials (a far cry from being
>"archival") and were to be referred to as "fade resistant" from that point
>on. Nowadays they are not as permanent as some Fuji papers.
FYI: There is a world of differnece between Cibachrome and the material I
was referring to; Ilfochrome Color Micrographic Film. Unfortunately,
discontinued. It is used specifically because of its archival nature, and
is/was widely used as an archival storage medium.
>microfilm materials are, after all designed for permanence. Yes, some are
>perminent...visit any museum that displays some of the Old Masters. Earth
>pigments tend to be as permanent as possible.
You are not teaching me anything new here either. Take a look at my
_History and Practice of Carbon Processes_, (1982), out of print but
available through inter-library loan.
I did not think I was...i have seen your site describing your collection of
images created by various processes
>>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.
>>>Many have but many have not. Dye prints are not the most light-fast
color
>>>prints. They are very stable in the dark though.
>
>My Dye Transfer Prints and many existing Technicolor Motion Picture
Release
>Prints are still with us, and in perfect condition. I have a Dye Transfer
>
>In my fadeometer I had no difficulty making Kodak dye transfers fade.
>Others, including Kodak, had similar results. I eventually found a set of
>pigments suitable for tricolor carbon printing that never faded in 3 years
>of 24 hours/day exposure 1 cm away from fluorescent lights. Some
>"permanent" pigments, especially yellows, faded significantly after 3
days.
>
>>>Sorry but you are wrong. Some Fuji materials are very permanent.
>
>I did not say they were not, what I said - (clearly pasted above) is that
>Fuji can't say that they have a proven track record for longevity.
>
>If they can't say it I know of others who can comment favorably about some
>of their chromogenic materials. I also have two beautiful Fuji full color
>photoceramics here, complete with balistic tests, no less, that will be
>published in my photoceramic book.
I thought we were talking about photographic paper Vs Ink Jet output - not
photoceramics? there is absolutely no doubt photoceramica I make will be
here in a thousand years if cared for. It is not the same thing, it is
ceramics.
RM