Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:56:45 -0800
In many ways photographs are probably more like to be archival becuase the
materials used tend to be more consistent. There must be hundreds of paints
and paint formulas and fixatives and canvas materials, etc. used by other
artists. In photography we are somewhat limited in what products we use and
these products, many of them at least, have been tested for performance. I
agree, you can never tell what you are getting. There is always risk
involved. I think that the alt process people are a little more in tune
with this because we have to standardize our own materials and then
manuafacturers can change something on us overnight, ie paper comes to mind.
If Ilford gets a bad batch of paper odds are they will get it all replaced
because they have the Q&A system in place to catch it. You and I will have
to be our own quality checkers, always, even on established and tested out
techniques. This paper problem just happened to Palladio and caused them
all kinds of headaches which are over yet.
GM
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com <Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: archival ink for deskjet
>>>You always take your chance when you buy a painting since
>>>there is no easy way to tell what is made with good quality material and
>>>what is not.
>
>then there is the added problem of people taking established materials and
>techniques and changing them. You can't be sure of what is happening.
>
>RM
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:48