Re: Reasons for alt processes

Darryl Baird (darrylb@airmail.net)
Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:20:03 -0500

> he other thing I forgot to say was that in addition to the aesthetic
> considerations and personal preference, another reason to be leery of
> electronic is the archival problem. (Maybe someone else mentioned this
> as well.) Even the newer IRIS inks are only said to be good for 25
> years, which isn't what I'd consider archival. And of course the life of
> your average inkjet print can be measured in days, if exposed to light,
> and dyesub is about the same

I wonder about the fuss over archival materials sometimes. Isn't 25 years (of
direct UV exposure) long enough for most people? Considering the dark-storage
period for most prints and that's a pretty long time.

I commented to a museum curator about wanting a better archival color process
than C-prints. She replied that I should worry about making the images and
leave the conservation to them...don't sweat the life of a print!

I work very much with digital images. I archive them in two forms, CD-ROM and
color transparency. I know, it's rather odd/humorous that I use film as an
archive, but it is a pretty safe bet, yes?

FWIW, I hesitated making any IRIS prints until this last generation of
pigmented inks were available and tested. I still worry about the life of a
print, just a little less now.

-Darryl