Jeffrey D. Mathias (jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net)
Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:57:30 -0500
Luis Nadeau wrote:
> ... If permanence is of concern, use pigment
> processes. They are the most predictable as far permanence goes....
Indeed, this may be your opinion Luis. However, it is miss-informative
for an author of your stature to make such a blanket statement. I would
urge others to pursue some of the so-called "non-pigment" processes
because they certainly can be archival. And, their permanence is
certainly predictable. Of course no one can predict how any print will
be handled by its owner, but instructions can be offered.
The substrate for the print (i.e.. paper) is a critical element for
longevity. Also, so is the processing and processing technique. For
examples: A) Cyanotypes should not be placed in buffered mats. B) Many
historic Pt/Pd prints were not cleared properly. C) And yes, even the
almighty carbon print will quickly find its demise if a stinker of a
paper is used. Or purhaps if somthing lives and grows in the gelatine.
Also, it must be remembered that not all pigments are archival.
It is good that many of the historical processes are in use today. The
materials and techniques employed today have demonstrated the ability to
render prints from these processes archival with a defining certainty as
to the predictability of their longevity. It becomes simply a mater of
carefully selecting the correct materials and procedures (and hoping the
owner will do the right thing). Simple can be costly or time consuming,
but that's part of the sport of it.
I guess that someone may decide it important to photoengrave the image
into a piece of platinum or some ceramic material. But even then,
eventually the sun will go out and burn it all up anyway.
Just where do the gallery owners get their information???
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:49