Andy Darlow (andy@andydarlow.com)
Tue, 02 Feb 1999 01:29:48 +0000
Speaking of archival issues, does anyone have a fairly simple and affordable
method of protecting negs, chromes and prints from the dreaded f word(fire),
without compromising the inherent film bases and various types of prints.
I recently read about Ansel Adams's loss of many negatives from fire many years
ago (in a View Camera article), and it got me wondering about the subject.
Maybe a fire proof safe is the answer. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
-Andy Darlow
Steve Shapiro wrote:
> Subject: Re: Is it archival
>
> Or, think of it this way: An artist wants it their way, the look, the feel
> the smell; and it all comes together once. One try out of dozens of trials
> and error corrections.
>
> Finally, when they get it right, they want it to be that way and to offer
> their work THAT WAY; and to think it's goingto change is discouraging.
>
> I know many photographers who stopped doing any work because the permanance
> in color just wasn't there/ When they looked at their work over and over
> again, it just wasn't there.
>
> Archival quality has a lot to do with creative expression in and of itself.
>
> Steve
>
> >Dan;
> >
> >I think that you are correct. Permanence seems to be a part of human
> >nature, the idea of creating something that will the last the centuries. I
> >am sure that the Greeks and Romans wanted their architectural works of art
> >to last forever. Just as we all seek immortality in some way or another.
> >Maybe this chase after a piece of archival art is our quest to leave behind
> >our mark so that many people will know of our work and can appreciate it
> >many years later. Since photography isn't that old (about 150 years or so)
> >we may not fully appreciate this as much as say the fact that we have some
> >marvelous ancient piece of artwork. I for one know that I am glad that I
> >can see photos from the late nineteenth century. I am glad that they are
> >still around.
> >
> >GM
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Dan Koons <dkoons@pld.com>
> >To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> >Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 10:01 AM
> >Subject: Is it archival
> >
> >
> >> Gary you brought up a good question about the concern on if photos must
> >>be archival. I sell as many as 3 prints a year, and to be honest those
> are
> >>the only ones I wonder about( I wash and tone anything I mat and display)
> >>On the other hand a co-worker who does a lot of wedding photography and
> >>sells hundreds of prints a year doesnt seem to worry about it.
> >>Interestingly enough my parents are the ones telling me to take pictures
> of
> >>my son in black and white because color fades, my son is 1 yr old, my
> >>parents are 72, they more than likly will never see a faded color photo of
> >>my son. SO? maybe its the feeling that somthing that lasts longer is
> better
> >>just because it will. dan
> >>Dan Koons
> >>Southwest Medical Center
> >>Radiology Department
> >>PO Box 1340
> >>Liberal, Kansas 67905
> >>316/629-6286
> >>Fax: 316/629-2435
> >>E-Mail: dkoons@pld.com
> >>
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:46