Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Alternative to Epson Exhibition Fiber?  (Read 10594 times)
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 614


« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2010, 09:05:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Alan Goldhammer
Wayne,

I was struck by how the white and paper white of the Epson paper changed dramatically relative to the other two papers.  I don't know about whether it takes a turn towards yellow or not as that is not reported.

Alan

Actually, the data necessary to understand both direction and magnitude of the color changes is indeed listed in the AaI&A test reports. One needs to compare the "Before" and "After" measured LAB values located in the listed tables. Tables of this data are provided at 10 Megalux hour exposure intervals, so one can track the changes as the exposure dose accumulates. Of course, a basic knowledge of the CIELAB color model is needed to understand this data, but I've always believed that with a little effort, photographers and printmakers can come up to speed on what changes in L*, a*, and b* mean to them visually.  Hence, I include the measured LAB data for all tested colors including media white point and maximum printed black value in the reports. Magnitude and direction of color change, plus each system's color strengths and weaknesses can be deduced by looking at these results.

Whether OBA burnout is of consequence depends on your tolerance for fade and discoloration, and that tolerance undoubtedly changes depending on the image content and on the circumstances. I don't particularly care about photos discoloring when they are stuck with magnets on my refrigerator, but I do care when I've spent serious money on a fine art print or believe the photo in question has significant historic value!  Moreover, if initial highlight color and tone weren't important to discriminating printmakers and print buyers, then paper manufacturers wouldn't bother adding OBAs in the paper at all, and we wouldn't be obsessing over UV-included or UV-excluded spectral measurements or insisting on optical brightener compensation in our ICC profiling applications. Nor would we worry about the particular whiteness of the overmat harmonizing with the media highlights when we frame our prints or concern ourselves with the light transmission properties of the glazing materials.  Thus, the rationale that OBA burnout merely reverts the paper to a more "natural" media white point overlooks the subtle color qualities that many strive for in their initial print quality, and it also overlooks the fact that OBA burnout will not necessarily be uniform from one corner of the print to the others. This non-uniform burnout is more likely when induced by gas fading, but non uniform OBA burnout can also occur by light fading because many prints are not illuminated very uniformly in their long term display areas. I have a print by Yosuf Karsh where the "archival mat" board it's dry mounted to (and signed so not possible to replace) exhibits subtle light induced yellowing that is more pronounced at the bottom than at the top of the print due to the way the natural daylight struck the print on display over a period of about twenty years.  Ironically, it's an OBA-free mat board, but clearly has some other unwanted ingredients that discolored with light exposure over time.

In case it appears I"m OBA bashing here, I do want to stress that I'm not one who advocates you should use only OBA-free papers. Some OBA-containing papers perform admirably in my tests, and some OBA-free papers exhibit whitepoint bleaching that is comparable in magnitude to OBA burnout (but generally moving "cooler and brighter" rather than towards yellow).  Thus, whether we are talking about OBA-containing or OBA-free media, one has to test the printer/ink/media combination specifically in order to determine the system performance.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
LynnNoah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2010, 11:08:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Matthew:  

Having worked in China for several years handling cultural exchanges and press & publications affairs, I have some sense of the conditions awaiting your 100 gifts.  I guarantee that, despite a rough passage, they will be received with honor and end up on at least 99 walls.  Many Americans, after an effusive thanks for that farewell banquet and generous hospitality, never follow up with any contact, let alone a smashing EEF 8.5 x 10 photo.

Cost and shipping convenience are factors:  you might try something like Ultra Clear Sealable bags from lightimpressionsdirect.com, with same size Cardstock Paper Inserts, along with a good stiff mailing envelope.  That should look very nice without breaking the bank.  They're not going to museums, and recipients who wish can have them framed according to individual taste and at minimal expense.  They'll be glad to get them and it will be worth the trouble.

BTW I've had unacceptable backorder delays from Light Impressions recently, so you should discuss the items' suitability and availability on the phone first with more than one supplier.

Lynn
Logged
mlondon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2010, 07:21:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Lynn,

Very good suggestions.

I'm curious about your work in China. Please PM me.

Matthew
Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2010, 11:19:24 PM »
ReplyReply

At the risk of being off topic, reading this thread brought to mind a somewhat relevant incident from the past.

My wife, who has a good eye for color, made the unflattering comment that some prints I was making looked as if they were already a hundred years old. She said this because the paper I used was "so yellow looking". The paper was in fact from a sample pack of a 100% cotton fine art paper that contains no OBAs. I commented that this is a very good paper, and though it may look old and yellow, it'll look exactly like this forever.

Personally, I think printing an image that needs bright whites and wide dynamic range on a warm fine art paper so it can look consistently less than optimal for the next 150 years isnít a very good idea. Iíd love to have the longevity of fine art cotton rag paper in something that looks like Epsonís Exhibition Fiber, but it just doesnít exist. So what is one to do? My own answer is that the first priority has to be realizing the maximum potential of the image in the print. My second priority is making prints that last as long as possible without detracting from the images, given current technology. I've read (I think in a Kodak white paper) that without direct comparison to an unfaded reference, it takes something like a 20% - 30% change before a person who is familiar with the original can detect a change.  Assuming the ability of a print owner to detect a change is what matters, and given that no print owner will have an unfaded reference or be taking spectrophotometer measurements over the years for comparison, many high quality OBA containing papers can hang framed on an interior wall for a very long time without any detectable change.

I'm not trying to champion OBAs or any particular paper, but it's easy to get caught up in the numbers and print images on inappropriate papers because of them when it's not truly necessary.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2010, 11:24:41 PM by DeanChriss » Logged

- Dean
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2830


« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2010, 03:44:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DeanChriss
Personally, I think printing an image that needs bright whites and wide dynamic range on a warm fine art paper so it can look consistently less than optimal for the next 150 years isnít a very good idea. Iíd love to have the longevity of fine art cotton rag paper in something that looks like Epsonís Exhibition Fiber, but it just doesnít exist. So what is one to do? My own answer is that the first priority has to be realizing the maximum potential of the image in the print. My second priority is making prints that last as long as possible without detracting from the images, given current technology. I've read (I think in a Kodak white paper) that without direct comparison to an unfaded reference, it takes something like a 20% - 30% change before a person who is familiar with the original can detect a change.  Assuming the ability of a print owner to detect a change is what matters, and given that no print owner will have an unfaded reference or be taking spectrophotometer measurements over the years for comparison, many high quality OBA containing papers can hang framed on an interior wall for a very long time without any detectable change.

I'm not trying to champion OBAs or any particular paper, but it's easy to get caught up in the numbers and print images on inappropriate papers because of them when it's not truly necessary.


This is an opinion I can agree with. Testing properties of papers: fading, staining, discoloration, remains important however. There are grades of whiteners and optical whiteners and the methods to apply them that differ. The paper base can be bad or excellent. The papers have the same whiteness to the eye but show very different results in practice. Tests can reduce that risk.  Epson's Exhibition Fiber paper isn't the worst example in its category.

I wouldn't buy Kodak white papers, not literal, not figurative. I think it refers to the image itself not the paper color. Your wife probably would notice a paper white shift like that instantly. If you insist on a bright white paper to start with why not ask for one that keeps that whiteness? Framing it will ask for UV transmitting glass, acrylic, otherwise the OBA wouldn't act anyway. There are some papers though not Bright White (blueish) that have a high reflectance without the use of OBAs. New and better qualities will appear, with and without OBA.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2010, 08:06:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ernst Dinkla
... If you insist on a bright white paper to start with why not ask for one that keeps that whiteness?

I didnít mean to imply that we should not pick the longest lasting paper we can, provided it has the required whiteness, surface, and sheen required, or that we should not pay attention to paper tests. The issue is that within reason I donít want longevity tests to trump the importance of maximizing the potential of an image, even if that maximum potential will have a more finite lifetime as a result. I say ďwithin reasonĒ because no one wants to print on a paper that will change before their eyes. So the tests are definitely needed, along with some common sense, in order to pick a paper that will make the image look the way it needs to look while maximizing print life within that constraint.

The Kodak white paper may well be relative to the image and not paper white, but I think the general concept that a person is far less able to detect a change without direct comparison to an unchanged reference is a valid one, especially when the changes take place slowly over many years.

One final anecdoteÖ Iíve had people and decorators interested in prints come for second or third looks bringing cloth swatches, carpet samples, and even bird feathers with them to see whether the print ďwill workĒ in their rooms. Thatís fine, but Iíd be willing to bet the prints will last no longer than their couch, drapes, or carpeting. Iím not sure about the bird. The point of course is that the vast majority of prints will succumb to other forces long before they show any changes in the paper. I canít hazard a guess as to how many of todayís prints will be cherished by someoneís descendants a century from now, but Iíd guess the number will be very few.
Logged

- Dean
Bill Koenig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354


« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2010, 10:07:33 AM »
ReplyReply

If someone buys a print from me (usually prints 13x19 or larger) I cut a piece of foam core at least 2" per side wider than the print, using photo corners to hold the print to the foam core, then seal it in a clear poly bag. This does two things, first, it helps provides enough protection to get the print to its destination with out damage, second, it still can be displayed until it gets to the framer. The cost of doing this is minimal, and the person buying the print really appreciates it.
Logged

Bill Koenig,
mlondon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2010, 10:26:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all, OP here.

Thanks for all. I'm taking some Exhibition Fiber in sleeves and the rest in a combination of Premium Luster and Semi-Gloss. The Semi-Gloss is ok, not great, but tough.

Off to China!
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 614


« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2010, 11:04:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DeanChriss
I've read (I think in a Kodak white paper) that without direct comparison to an unfaded reference, it takes something like a 20% - 30% change before a person who is familiar with the original can detect a change.  Assuming the ability of a print owner to detect a change is what matters, and given that no print owner will have an unfaded reference or be taking spectrophotometer measurements over the years for comparison, many high quality OBA containing papers can hang framed on an interior wall for a very long time without any detectable change.

I don't want to drag this off topic either, but the well known Kodak studies on consumer tolerances for objectionable fade don't really give us a good reference for image reproduction quality in more discerning applications like fine art prints. The kodak study was about consumer tolerances for easily noticeable and objectionable fading of photos in the consumer photo finishing market. The study thus used chromogenic color print technology which can fade quite differently in appearance compared to many inkjet systems, and it sought to determine levels of fade that would likely cause the typical consumer to actually object to overall print quality. This is a far different market than the market where my fellow printmakers are discussing the nuances of EEF paper texture and color compared to other expensive papers!  The Kodak study derived the 30% density loss figure largely from mid point density areas in the prints (e.g., 1.0 density patches fading to about 0.7, etc) that could trigger typical consumer objections in overall image quality. This 30% density loss figure of merit is about balanced fade. Imbalanced fading in the color channels is less forgiving, and was found to be about 10-15% to most consumers.  I don't disagree with those findings at all, but for fine art applications the tolerance values will drop much lower than that. We need to put it in proper context when dealing with high quality image reproduction versus "good enough to serve some purpose" print reproduction quality.

If you want to visualize a 30-35% "faded" but still balanced color appearance, take a look at newspaper print reproduction quality and compare to high quality glossy magazine image reproduction. Just look at representative output which strives for decent color balance.  Newsprint white-to-black dynamic range is a very good example of that 30-35% Kodak cited density loss compared to reproduction densities in high-end book and magazine reproductions. While newsprint does indeed serve it's intended purpose and the newsprint buyer isn't complaining about image quality,  does it really take a side by side comparison to recognize the significant image quality improvements afforded by 30% more printable density range?  If you now remove richer more colorful prints from view, you may even start to become more appreciative of low cost plain paper print quality. However, to say that a 30% density change in image reproduction aim points goes essentially unnoticed without a dual-stimulus viewing condition (i.e., two prints side-by-side) is a real stretch.  Hence, I don't believe the Kodak research means people can't notice density losses less than 30% without an unfaded comparison print handy, just that typical consumers won't complain about it when the print in question is an inexpensive photo finished print. And of course, some images have a wide tolerance for reproduction aimpoints, for example, a deep sunset being reproduced as a much lighter "sunrise: picture without anyone really being able to figure out what time of day it was really taken. Other images are far less forgiving. Ask any B&W printmaker how important the absolute image hue throughout the tonal range is to his/her artwork.

Which brings us now back on topic to EEF. Much of the appeal of EEF is indeed it's initial media white point. In LAB numbers, it has a b* value of about -5 (measured with UV-included spectral measurements on a Gretag Spectrolino). Increasingly negative b* values produce increasingly "bluish white" media white points and increasingly positive b* values appear increasingly "yellowish white" under D50 lighting. The typical media white a* values also come into play, but let's save that discussion for another day. Yellowishness versus buishness resides mainly with the b* value.  Photographers are responding favorably to EEF's OBA-induced "bluish white" paper color which incidentally depends on UV content in the illumination, so as others have noted, if you want the viewer to see the appeal of the EEF bright white color, you can't use conservation framing that blocks the UV.

Papers without any OBA can achieve b*=0, but +2 to + 4 is very common. The super bright white OBA loaded papers will get to about -9 or -10 b* (again, UV included data).  A change of 1.0 unit on the b* scale is considered my most color geeks to be a "just noticeable" difference in color.  Looking at the measured values of many inkjet papers, the full b* range for commonly encountered media white points covers a range of approximately 10 b* increments. To put this into more perspective, the I* metric (also based on CIELAB colorimetry) that I use in my tests for color and tonal accuracy evaluations would rate an error in desired media white point of 1 b* unit (instrumental error removed) at 90% color accuracy, a 5b* change at 50% color accuracy, and a 10b* change at 0% color accuracy. In other words, if you took a brand new warm white paper and compared it to a brand new very cool white paper, the discrepancy could be about 10b* units, and the I* metric would say there was little or no retained color accuracy if you desired the cool white paper but ended up with the warm paper or vice versa.  Many people are happy to use all of these media whitepoints interchangeably for their images, so one could successfully argue that for some end-users none of this media white point discussion matters one wit. Yet the profiling process usually adjusts the image colors relative to the chosen whitepoint, and many people like Dean's wife do easily perceive the impact that media white point can have not only on paper appearance but well into the overall image appearance as well. Simply put, media whitepoint color constancy (appearance under different illunminant conditions) and retention of color accuracy over time are both important factors to consider for discerning buyers.

In my own work, I try to balance all of these factors including color constancy, long term stability, and appropriate illumination and framing choices. I do use both OBA and OBA- free papers, but I hold my selections to a tighter initial whitepoint range from about -3 to + 2 b* values for color printing, and up to +4 b* value for certain warm toned B&W images.  I consider the UV included/UV excluded color difference for each paper (which indicates potential problems with UV blocking conservation framing choices), and I evaluate how the initial whitepoint holds up in lightfade tests. If the OBA performance doesn't do well in light fade testing, it has a high probability of being gas fade sensitive as well, Gas-induced OBA burnout can occur far more rapidly and non uniformly than light induced OBA burnout. There are no clearcut recommendations when others ask about paper preferences or alternative, but some papers do maintain their initial qualities much better than others, and I would add scuff resistance to the pile of important factors to consider.  Discriminating printmakers simply need to be aware of the subtle and not so subtle aspects of OBA use in fine art inkjet papers and then make an informed choice.  The best way to evaluate all of these OBA dependent issues is with instrumentation and knowledge of what the CIELAB values mean to visual appearance. That's why I include the media white and max black values measured both UV included and UV excluded on the description page of each AaI&A test report. Its a real pain to gather that data, but it's important information for discerning printmakers.

cheers,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 175


« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2010, 11:44:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Breaking protocol here by not quoting, but I just wanted to thank Mark for his post.

I'm a fan of EEF but now I begin to see why I like it and understand the trade offs with it. I still plan to continue to use it as my first choice, even if it is not perfect given OBA content, because the framed prints I've made from it (museum glass, etc) simply look better than the other papers I have tried up to this point with my images. That being said, I recently have begun printing on my long awaited Canson Baryta paper and while it too has OBA content, it is a touch warmer, not quite as "bright", and has some of the most gorgeous three-quarter tone to upper mid tone range I've seen, and I definitely can see it being my alternate paper choice for images that don't benefit from the "brightness" of the EEF. I still haven't found a non OBA paper that thrills me although a single sample of Canson Platine Fiber Rag (I believe) looked pretty good.

-m

Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2010, 01:29:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DeanChriss
The point of course is that the vast majority of prints will succumb to other forces long before they show any changes in the paper. I can’t hazard a guess as to how many of today’s prints will be cherished by someone’s descendants a century from now, but I’d guess the number will be very few.

I'm pretty much in agreement in your well stated posts.  The concept in your statement is a point which I make regularly.  I've been ask why I don't print on a Canon printer whose prints have greater longevity than the Epson ... my normal reply is they all last a very long time, followed by a comment similar to this one.

I love photography and I love making great images, but I also know I'm no Ansel Adams or Yosef Karsh.  I also believe that if preserving a modern digital photograph for centuries is really that important, doing so with a print isn't the way to go about it.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2010, 01:31:14 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 614


« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2010, 02:09:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
I love photography and I love making great images, but I also know I'm no Ansel Adams or Yosef Karsh.  I also believe that if preserving a modern digital photograph for centuries is really that important, doing so with a print isn't the way to go about it.

I'm sure many people share your point of view.  However, the history of photography informs us that the print is probably the best way to preserve a photographic image. Camera originals, whether they be traditional film or digital, are not easily "human readable" (color slides being the exception) and if people can't hold them up and view them directly, there is a much higher likelihood the object (film negative, or digital file) will be discarded rather than taking the time to first decipher what it means by printing optically, scanning, or worse yet..having to migrate from an old computer format to a new one using obsolete and difficult-to-find computer hardware.

BTW, you don't have to be a great artist to generate historically important images or at the very least, images that will be very sentimental to your children and grandchildren. Future generations are more likely to be able to view and to hang onto a printed digital photo book of some of your favorite images than your computer's failing hard drive.

regards,

Mark
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2010, 03:11:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MHMG
I'm sure many people share your point of view.  However, the history of photography informs us that the print is probably the best way to preserve a photographic image. Camera originals, whether they be traditional film or digital, are not easily "human readable" (color slides being the exception) and if people can't hold them up and view them directly, there is a much higher likelihood the object (film negative, or digital file) will be discarded rather than taking the time to first decipher what it means by printing optically, scanning, or worse yet..having to migrate from an old computer format to a new one using obsolete and difficult-to-find computer hardware.

BTW, you don't have to be a great artist to generate historically important images or at the very least, images that will be very sentimental to your children and grandchildren. Future generations are more likely to be able to view and to hang onto a printed digital photo book of some of your favorite images than your computer's failing hard drive.

regards,

Mark

Count me as one of them.  Let's face the facts, photography is a fairly new medium and we can actually make better prints today than we could 100 years ago.  We haven't had photographs for 200 years, I believe the first was a french man.  We can view digital files very easy today and as screens get thinner (think e-readers) viewing photographs will look and feel just like the "real" thing.  

I agree that you don't need to be a great artist or even be an artist or photographer to generate a historically important image, who knows how long it's historically important, that's another question.  We have amateur photos and videos from Kennedy assassination, plane on the Hudson, WTC terrorist attacks, Oklahoma bombings etc.  obviously they are what they are, nobody stood there for 10 hours preparing for the shot.

Maybe someday we will have an ssd that is "archival".  I'm assuming our prints will look better in 10 years than they do now and probably they will look better in 100 years than in 10 more years.  However, I'd imagine at some point the human eye will be the weak link.  I still believe that paper will not last forever and that we will continue to be able to print.  The problem is, that unless you are world famous, your children, grand children and great grand children will probably hang their own images on their walls.  I do have some of my father's photographs hung, especially from WWII but not many from my grand-father.  Let's not forget that we are taking more photographs than ever before and I personally only print a rare few that IMHO are worth printing.   I hope future generations like them, if not they can print their own!
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 614


« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2010, 03:28:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gemmtech
Let's not forget that we are taking more photographs than ever before and I personally only print a rare few that IMHO are worth printing.   I hope future generations like them, if not they can print their own!

Precisely! You are editing your photos for importance in a way that neither I nor any curator in the future can do for you as well as you can do for us.  And you are printing them, and this is increasing the probability that someone else will find them important and appreciate that you guided them to the subject matter that was of concern to you and your generation. This is really what photography is all about. Recording a "decisive moment" as Henri Cartier-Bresson liked to describe it. Yes, I love the fine art print made by an artist with real genius, but truth be told, give me an amateur's photograph with a sentiment, a point of view, a family relevance any day of week and I appreciate it's humble but enduring value. That's what I really love about photography. And the print format is a great way to deliver it!

cheers,
Mark
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2010, 01:44:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MHMG
I'm sure many people share your point of view.  However, the history of photography informs us that the print is probably the best way to preserve a photographic image. Camera originals, whether they be traditional film or digital, are not easily "human readable" (color slides being the exception) and if people can't hold them up and view them directly, there is a much higher likelihood the object (film negative, or digital file) will be discarded rather than taking the time to first decipher what it means by printing optically, scanning, or worse yet..having to migrate from an old computer format to a new one using obsolete and difficult-to-find computer hardware.

BTW, you don't have to be a great artist to generate historically important images or at the very least, images that will be very sentimental to your children and grandchildren. Future generations are more likely to be able to view and to hang onto a printed digital photo book of some of your favorite images than your computer's failing hard drive.

regards,

Mark

Some good points.  However, I take exception to an assumption that the history of photography and image preservation is an indication of the future.  The fate of silver halide products as compared to digital is like comparing apples to oranges, and I personally believe that efforts to preserve the original data is the best way to insure historically significant images are available in the future, even though there might be the challenge of conversion of that data in the future for images whose importance merit preserving. I also do not automatically assume the current technology will be superseded and abandoned when it comes to standard image file formats - while new formats and technology's may come along that doesn't mean the computers of tomorrow won't still easily read the standard formats of today. (one good reason the camera makers, computer makers, and software companies should get together and really drive a common capture format such as DNG to be a standard).  I see no valid comparison of yesterdays technology to the present and future when it comes to longevity of the original data.

As far as the last paragraph, who knows what value will be placed on my images in the future.  Since my background is portrait photography, certainly some sentimental value may remain for many, but then that sentimental value will have little to do with whether the image has faded or yellowed a little bit, and those prints have little likelihood of physically surviving past the point in time they would fade anyway. As far as significant works that might be collected, there aren't many photographers who are in that elite group, I'm not one. When I sell a scenic to someone I certainly don't imply the thing is going to last 100's of years.  I'm pretty confident it will look fine for many many years.

If a museum or serious collector ever comes my way, then yes, I may be a little more concerned, and perhaps produce something a little different than what I print to decorate the lobby in a doctors office.

But that's just my 2 cents worth ... we all have our opinions and yours is certainly well founded in your background and expertise.  Guess we each have to decide how we feel about this on an individual basis.
Logged

DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2010, 06:58:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
... Since my background is portrait photography, certainly some sentimental value may remain for many, but then that sentimental value will have little to do with whether the image has faded or yellowed a little bit, and those prints have little likelihood of physically surviving past the point in time they would fade anyway.

I sometimes do restoration and reproduction work on antique photographs. These are usually photographs of someone's ancestor, and often from the late 1800 or early 1900s. They're always yellowed and have some significant damage. Interestingly enough, people want the damage (scratches, creases, stains) fixed, but they always want the "fixed" reproduction to retain the same old yellowed color as the original. In other words, they want the finished piece to look exactly like the original would if it had not been creased, torn or otherwise physically damaged. I'm not trying to say that paper yellowing is desirable, but I've always thought this was an interesting aspect of what people seem to want.
Logged

- Dean
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2010, 08:24:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DeanChriss
[...] and given that no print owner will have an unfaded reference [...], many high quality OBA containing papers can hang framed on an interior wall for a very long time without any detectable change.
In addition to all that Mark and the others said, I'll have another objection : if any newer (or whiter, OTOH) print is hanged within sight of the first print, that will make a reference.

Quote
Interestingly enough, people want the damage (scratches, creases, stains) fixed, but they always want the "fixed" reproduction to retain the same old yellowed color as the original.
For B&W, certainly ; we're used to see some toning, sometimes pushed to some sepia extremes, and moreover that kind of yellow tone does indeed says "this is an old photograph".
However, considering any color print more than 15 years old with the usual ugly color shifts, I'd rather think that the majority would ask to have the colors back in the ballpark.

But anyway, we're right in the "consumer market" criteria here, where the main problem is image readability, not conservation.
I'm not shocked by discolored family snapshots as long as they're readable, but I fully expect the paintings of my grand-grandmother, or the watercolors of my mother, to keep their tone and hues intact. Not that they have a great financial value of course, but if they fade, displaying them becomes a moot point.
So, don't underestimate the will of your grandchildren to keep a remembering of you in a decent state on their walls.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 04, 2010, 11:34:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikoJorj
For B&W, certainly ; we're used to see some toning, sometimes pushed to some sepia extremes, and moreover that kind of yellow tone does indeed says "this is an old photograph".

Excellent point.  I almost always add warm tone to my B&W prints, so optical brighteners would seem to be pointless.  On a slightly warm paper, such as Gold Fibre Silk, the results are quite pleasing.

Rob
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #38 on: March 04, 2010, 11:56:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DeanChriss
I sometimes do restoration and reproduction work on antique photographs. These are usually photographs of someone's ancestor, and often from the late 1800 or early 1900s. They're always yellowed and have some significant damage. Interestingly enough, people want the damage (scratches, creases, stains) fixed, but they always want the "fixed" reproduction to retain the same old yellowed color as the original. In other words, they want the finished piece to look exactly like the original would if it had not been creased, torn or otherwise physically damaged. I'm not trying to say that paper yellowing is desirable, but I've always thought this was an interesting aspect of what people seem to want.


Think of it as being the same as an antique piece of furniture, people love the distressed marks on an old piece of furniture and the tarnished brass hardware, repairing it sometimes can devalue it significantly.  The same for cars unless a full restoration is done with matching numbers and everything as it came from the factory the car will be worth less.  

As Wayne has stated, most of us are not in the realm of Ansel and who knows how well he'll be known in 10,000 years.  Time keeps on moving and to worry about a print lasting 100-200-300 or maybe 1000 years is silly.  Enjoy the prints today and don't worry about what happens when you are no longer here.

"Precisely! You are editing your photos for importance in a way that neither I nor any curator in the future can do for you as well as you can do for us."

I'm not that arrogant to believe that statement!  I believe the digital images will be readable far into the future and I believe photo editing software will get better and easier as will printers.  Someday we will be able to scan a print and print it exactly as the original.



Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2830


« Reply #39 on: March 04, 2010, 01:35:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gemmtech
Think of it as being the same as an antique piece of furniture, people love the distressed marks on an old piece of furniture and the tarnished brass hardware, repairing it sometimes can devalue it significantly.  The same for cars unless a full restoration is done with matching numbers and everything as it came from the factory the car will be worth less.  

As Wayne has stated, most of us are not in the realm of Ansel and who knows how well he'll be known in 10,000 years.  Time keeps on moving and to worry about a print lasting 100-200-300 or maybe 1000 years is silly.  Enjoy the prints today and don't worry about what happens when you are no longer here.

"Precisely! You are editing your photos for importance in a way that neither I nor any curator in the future can do for you as well as you can do for us."

I'm not that arrogant to believe that statement!  I believe the digital images will be readable far into the future and I believe photo editing software will get better and easier as will printers.  Someday we will be able to scan a print and print it exactly as the original.


Image fading that made headlines was the Ektacolor 1960-70's affair. No important historic images and no fine art photography but plain images of new borns, marriages, graduates, that bleached and cracked to non existence within ten years and the marriage and portrait photographers had no answer to the customer complaints and got no compensation from Kodak. Even the color negatives were affected. No desktop scanners then to archive the prints in another way. For many familes a lost period in their albums. In my opinion that is more a disaster than the loss of an Adams print. The stupid thing was that before and after Kodak had better processes. At the same time other manufacturers had better processes. If someone asks me what chromogene process to use elsewhere I advice them to get Fuji Crystal Archive at least. For any purpose including holiday pics. The price difference can not be a reason to avoid the better choice. Very often it is only ignorance that delivers a second rate product. It isn't about the importance of the photographer, printer ...  today or tomorrow ... it is about what your customer gets when you print his images or your images. If we discussed centuries of print life this all may be anal but in reality inkjet printing right now varies between 1 year and 200 years for fading properties, white paper shifts included. In fact we are lucky with inkjet printing that Wilhelm shifted his attention so fast from analogue to digital. Otherwise we could have done worse in naivety.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/





Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad