>The 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 am in the midst of a study on permanence of photographs, and I will agree
in general with what you say, except that most dyesub prints have a longer
life than inkjet prints. The basic reason is that inkjets require liquids
that will not clog the jets, while dyesub uses dyes imbedded in resin. The
only computer printer that does not use dyes (except in what they call
"photographic" mode) is the ALPS which, in the Photo-Realistic mode, uses
pigments. I do not have the laboratory equipment necessary to test these
pigment-based prints, but my sunlight tests show no degradation long after
the inkjet prints have faded. And sunlight is not the only deteriorative
factor: there is atmospheric and locally generated ozone, sulfur and other
ambient gases, humidity, etc., etc. The resin-based dyes are fairly immune
to these.
This is not all bad. Unlike chemically-produced color prints (which also
are not archival, except for Ilfochrome) the computer-generated prints can
be remade in exactly the same configuration every time, so prints can be a
throwaway, with the image on CD the archived photograph. The present issue
of Photo Technique, incidently, has some very interesting correspondence on
the deterioration of RC prints. As Judy Siegel and I have discussed, we may
see a return to "alternative" print making to insure permanence! So,
perhaps, instead of looking backward, we are actually looking at the future!
Sil Horwitz, FPSA
Technical Editor, PSA Journal
silh@iag.net
Visit http://www.psa-photo.org/