Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Tue, 02 Feb 1999 11:04:47 -0800
Bob, thanks for that informative dissertation, I'm going to store inwith
electric impulse on my hard drive for copy later today.
When leaving Utah State after earning a degree, that summer of '67; and with
my trusty Honeywell Pentax, armed with Kodachrome and Ektachrome films; and
not really knowing why I bought both because I didn't know one from the
other, then. I happened upon the Cheyenne Centennial and was the only
photographer on the arena grounds shooting color.
Those 300+ photographs were viewed by the original Friends of Photography
founders for ultimate approval of my [charter] membership as a
'photographer' member back then.
By 1986, I relocated that 'archival box' I'd spend my last dime for in some
art store in Westwood on sale; and pryed open the rusted box to find
perfectly preserved slides.
Both the Kodachrome and the Ektachrome slides were in great shape, and rmain
thus today while re-preserved in poly slide pages in binders on my library
shelf. (Ironically, the prints were replaced during a 1989 show for my US
Navy reserve station after complaints from the sailors that the rodeo shots
showed curelty to animals.) Even the 'unprotected' slides stored in
Carosels, in cardboard boxes which were rotted with moisture, were
printable.
For whatever it's worth.
Steve Shapiro
-----Original Message-----
From: SCHRAMMR@WLSVAX.WVNET.EDU <SCHRAMMR@WLSVAX.WVNET.EDU>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 7:40 AM
Subject: Is it archival?
>Let me put on my other hat. As an archivist I must say that the term
"archival"
>does not have a good definition. It is often loosly used by people who
>manufacture "archival" materials. Several years ago I attended a workshop
>for archivists on the care and preservation of 19th century photographs.
What
>I learned was that humidity was the most important factor (20-40%
prefered).
>Next was temperature. Some museums and archives have resorted to freezing
>images.
>
>I think we can agree that a properly fixed, washed and toned fiber-based
>silver-gelatin print should have a lifetime of 200-300 years (maybe more).
>If you want ultimate permanence then you print platinum on a 100% rag
>paper.
>
>The big question seems to be color prints. Currently, archivists generally
>accept that ordinary color prints start to show noticable fading after 25
years
>if kept in the dark. Likewise, Kodachrome is accepted as the most stable
>color image if stored in the dark and not projected. Ektachrome holds up
>better than Kodachrome under projection so the current idea is to store the
>Kodachrome slides in the dark under low humidity and make copies on
Ektachrome
>for projection.
>
>However, companies that make Ilfochrome prints will tell you that a
>Ilfochrome print which is laminated with UV absorbing plastic will have a
>guarrenteed lifetime of 200 years. (I tell my customers, "If the print
>fades after 200 years, bring it back and I will give you a new one.") ;-)
>
>Recently, the photofinisher that I use for my work for the college told me
>that their prints should last 100 years. They also have a copy machine
>which is really a computer, scanner, dye sub printer. When I asked about
>the stability of the dyes again I was told that the company claims 100
years.
>I don't really believe this and am tempted to try some tests with UV light.
>
>Of course, archivists know that light is an important factor. When
exhibiting
>photographs, low wattage incandescent lights are recommended. I see a lot
>of halogen lights being used in galleries as well as flourescent lights.
>Both of these are bad news in terms of the UV output. I had UV filters
>put on the FL bulbs in our archives, the rare book room and the museum.
>
>I am sure that the stability of the dyes used in modern color prints has
>greatly improved in the last several years but I am unable to obtain
>verifable information about this. If there is an expert on the list who
>knows about this or if anyone knows of a scientic report on the stability
>of modern color prints, I would greatly appreciate the information.
>
>I agree we are going to have a future photograph "gap." Color photography
>began to be used for general photography in 1960 or there about. Many 1960,
>1970 and 1980 prints are badly faded. One the other hand, I have some
negatives
>and Kodachrome slides from the 50s and 60s which are still in pretty good
>shape (dark stored). I also have some Kodachrome slides from the same
>period that are badly faded even though stored under the same conditions.
>I also have some Cibachrome (Now called Ilfocrome) prints that are in good
>shape that I made about 20 years ago.
>
>There is, by the way, a similar problem with books. Many books which were
>printed in mid century were printed on cheap paper and are gradually
>falling to pieces. It is awfully expensive to reprint them so no doubt
>many will be lost. And then there is magnetic media, but we won't get
>into that.
>
>Finally, for those who do not already know, watch out for PVC plastic
>photo pages. PVC deteriorates rather quickly and emits HCl fumes.
>Also those old black page photo album pages test around pH 2 ! Be careful
>where you store prints, slides and negatives. Wood cabinets and shelves
emit
>harmfull fumes. Watch out for newly painted rooms or newly carpeted areas.
>
>Now taking off my archivists hat and putting on my fine art photographers
>hat (would that be a beret?)
>
>Perhaps it will be we alternative process photographers who will save
>photographic images for mankind with our platinum and carbon prints. Just
>think, we will no longer be ignored. People will be falling all over each
>other just to give us tons of money to save their valuable images!
>
>Bob Schramm
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:49