Re: Polaroid Image Transfer
michael gudzinowicz (ab366@osfn.rhilinet.gov)
Sun, 3 Sep 1995 22:03:45 -0400
Luis Nadeau <nadeaul@nbnet.nb.ca> writes:
>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.
A year ago, I sent you an e-mail message on availablity
of papers suitable for bromoil in the US, and commented that a
acquaintance of mine who worked for Butterfield & Butterfield
was favorably disposed towards Nash's prints which were made
with a modified Iris printer using _non-fugitive_ pigments.
In interviews, Nash has indicated that he was concerned about
the obvious non-permanence of standard Iris prints, and prior
to purchasing the printer in 1990, those concerns were
adressed to Iris, and subsequently, Nash embarked on a program
to "solve" them.
I was wondering, which pigments does he use, and why do you
consider them to be fugitive? Is there a problem with his UV
inhibitor coating? And why would similar, if not the same,
pigments be more stable in a gelatin matrix? Was Nash the
"user" to whom you referred?
Nash isn't a newcomer to the serious pursuit of photography
(almost 30 years) nor to collecting and archival
considerations. Some time ago, he sold a portion of his
collection for $2.4 million, and donated half the proceeds to
the LA County Museum of Art. By now I'd think he'd have some
idea of what is fugitive and what isn't.