Hey, it's perfectly legal to disagree with me, or, as is the case here,
with my sources. My sources, above, were the proceedings of an
international conference that took place a couple of years ago on the
preservation and conservation of plastic materials. These were scientific
papers reporting the results of closely monitored empirical studies. They
were not theories, or speculations; they were faits accomplis. Of course,
this being a (relatively) free world, one can choose not to believe them,
the same way one can choose to believe that, for instance, the Earth is
flat, or Elvis is alive, or whatever;-)
I wish I had time to elaborate on the meaning of "archival" which is
obviously misunderstood by many. It is not a clear cut issue. Even the
burnt-in photoceramics I have been researching for some time may not be in
certain cases very permanent. I have not seen faded or damaged carbon
prints but I found a few references to problems in the literature.
Platinotypes are more problematic. When you make them, thanks to the
catalytic power of Pt, and the mineral fillers, etc. in the papers you can
never tell for sure what will happen to the support. There is a discussion
on this in the 3rd ed. of my Pt book.
Polaroid transfers, mentioned below, are way down the scale in terms of
archival qualities. A simple look as to their nature, discussed in the more
recent editions of the Neblette and elsewhere and you know immediately that
you'd better keep them cool, dry and in the dark if you want them to last.
Although unusual effects can be obtained with Polaroid transfers, I'd never
pay a dollar for one. I'd never pay a buck for a lot of things indeed. This
is not to say easy and instant processes should not be used as learning
tools. In art schools students use the cheapest paints and papers they can
get they their hands on. They are just learning and 95% of what you produce
while learning is expected to end in the trash can, so who cares. It should
be the same with photographic processes.
This discussion reminds me of the "early" users of Iris ink-jet printers.
Because the results were beautiful, the machine cost a quarter of a million
dollars, and names like music star Graham Nash were associated with the
process, users expected the results to be fully accepted by the artistic
community. This, even after being told by everybody in the conservation
field that the prints were not only non archival. They were quite fugitive.
One of these users got very upset when I pointed out to him that Evercolor
in California was using Iris prints as "throw away proofs" for their
customers who wanted a quick preview of what the permanent Evercolor prints
would look like.
Just because one likes or doesn't like something has nothing to do with
weather a process is acceptably permanent or not.
Luis Nadeau
NADEAUL@NBNET.NB.CA
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
>not ONE person has said boo about
>Polaroid and archival. I happen to have a little transfer made onto
>splendid 100% rag paper two years ago on my desk....it already has lost
>lustre, gotten a sunken-in look. OK, so it doesn't look so MARVELOUS to
>me since I've been looking at gum, but fact is, even the company admits,
>well let's say they say they're working on it.
..