Archival qualities of RA-4 process

I would put my money on C-prints. I don't want to get in between Bob and Ron, but with all I have seen in last decade running my own informal tests and given the track record of C-prints vs. the almost complete lack of history on inkjet prints I am far more comfortable with C-prints. Of course they need to be processed appropriately. Too much of the time the cheap way out is taken. The photos that you refer to Bob are typically printed in the cheapest way possible.

Personally I have an inherent trust in what Ron says. I haven't seen any of my various C-prints from various sources degrade in the last two decades including the ones I made when I didn't even know what I was doing. I have seen many, many inkjet prints, pigment or not, look like a mess in just a few years. I don't trust them. The process is still in it's infancy.

Thanks for your trust. I will try to continue to justify and deserve it.

All of the difficult to cover information is clearly outlined in that white paper. There is strong disagreement in the trade and with the ANSI committee over test methods and etc, between Kodak, Fuji and the Wilhelm Institute.

I have reviewed some old notes of mine from the early days of Ektacolor 70 paper showing it to be 2x better than the previous product for overall stability and also my notes show that 3 stabilizers were offered to the trade but about 60% of the process labs rejected the use of a stabilizer. The stabilizer gradually fell into disfavor. This blindsided everyone in the time between about 1970 and 1980 until the problem could be solved as noted in the white paper. There was a rapid fade and pink stain related reaction due to developer carryover that caused excess dye fade. It was missed in the accelerated tests and was only fixed when a stop bath was added to the process.

Today, all of those goodies are built into the papers (Endura and CA both). A Type II stabilizer, used today, would probably double dye stability, but not having the test IDK.

PE

A thought struck me thinking about this thread.

Bob Carnie uses pigments, but there are "pigments" and "pigments". For example, Cadmium Yellow is a permanent Pigment that is extremely stable, on the order of centuries, but then there are yellow Azo dyes that are considered pigments that have stability similar to Ilfochrome print dyes. Then there are lesser "pigments" that are used in some digital printing. IDK what is used where, but without some sort of tests, this is up in the air to me just as much as Bob says analog prints are regarding image stability.

So, there are imponderables all around in this arena.

PE

Not really sure what you mean by the cheapest way I process prints.
The Gurskys, Burtynsky's are processed exactly the same way I process my prints . Ron will concur or maybe not that the more a process is used the better and easier it is to control the plots, therefore all the portrait labs in the world that made all the prints would be guilty of improper care. If you can point me to the correct way of making current RA4 prints I am all ears.
I feel this discussion is going sideways as FWIW , I have since 1976 been printing C prints, which includes time spent at some of the best labs Toronto can offer, I have seen every version of the product Ron has produced, and have spent more time purchasing, plotting and printing collectively on Kodak, Fuji and Ilford products than anyone I currently know.
The mere fact that is what I am printing right today , yesterday and tommorow the materials in question puts me in a unique position. 100% of the last 35 years of income has been derived by this fact.
This does not make me any better than anyone here, but believe me I have a very unique way of looking at this. I trust Ron, I trust what he believes to be true , but I also trust my background , past present and future, and the future does include C prints, but after this discussion I will still not give any archival stamp to this material, others may.
So it begs the question,,, why am I so negative on the archival aspect of C prints,,, I have the most to lose if you want to look at it honestly and clearly, the best line that should be coming out of my mouth is the old Kodak slogan,,*** buy good Kodak film and print for those lasting memory's*** sorry I must be to jaded and brutally honest. I have been around my clients long enough to know better , and am as transparent with them as possible .
BTW I not discussing inkjets here , which also is a complete different set of differences of opinion.

Ron and I disagree,,,, we have done so in the past over my use of the name solarizations for my prints,,,,, thats ok with me and I have no hard feelings about his position about either differing position on both issues.

How about this one as a point of difference... The very best way to make a colour interneg from slide is to do a contact interneg rather than a enlarged 4x5, also the best way I know to balance it out is with the density difference method, than the eye ball the dye not silver step wedge for neutrality.
There are many camps on this and in the day people would swear up and down one was better than the other. Basically a difference of opinion , except one is right.

This discussion is a whole book of differing opinions, actually I think Ctein wrote one about this, I should re-read it.

M. Lointain said:

I would put my money on C-prints. I don't want to get in between Bob and Ron, but with all I have seen in last decade running my own informal tests and given the track record of C-prints vs. the almost complete lack of history on inkjet prints I am far more comfortable with C-prints. Of course they need to be processed appropriately. Too much of the time the cheap way out is taken. The photos that you refer to Bob are typically printed in the cheapest way possible.

Personally I have an inherent trust in what Ron says. I haven't seen any of my various C-prints from various sources degrade in the last two decades including the ones I made when I didn't even know what I was doing. I have seen many, many inkjet prints, pigment or not, look like a mess in just a few years. I don't trust them. The process is still in it's infancy.

Click to expand...

Ron , when I printed cibachromes, I was convinced that the Azo Dyes in Cibachrome was much more permanent than RA4, so much so that we used it to convince clients to print with us.
I did a silly test when I purchased my Lambda, I took a file and made a Cibachrome and a FujiFlex and face mounted each to plexi and put them on the outside of my lab wall, North facing open shade, never any direct light.. The results, both prints faded completely within two years, with neither exhibiting a better ability to not fade.
I lost all my hope at that moment in what I was selling to my clients, Cibas IMO were no more stable in light than RA4.

I am on a tri colour gum and carbon quest right now, funny enough , Sandy K and I were wanting you to help us in a few areas of sensitizing the tissues, We feel that this type of colour print does go a long way to answer my hope to be able to leave behind quality images for future generations to view. I have about 30 years left to print and all the equipment and some young minds with me to make this happen, all it is now about is sorting out the methodology of placing these colour pigments on paper.
One bright hope is that Charles Berger is on this site and I am in Contact with John Bentley who I grew up with and hope to be able to sort this out within two years.

Bob

Photo Engineer said:

A thought struck me thinking about this thread.

Bob Carnie uses pigments, but there are "pigments" and "pigments". For example, Cadmium Yellow is a permanent Pigment that is extremely stable, on the order of centuries, but then there are yellow Azo dyes that are considered pigments that have stability similar to Ilfochrome print dyes. Then there are lesser "pigments" that are used in some digital printing. IDK what is used where, but without some sort of tests, this is up in the air to me just as much as Bob says analog prints are regarding image stability.

So, there are imponderables all around in this arena.

PE

Click to expand...

Bob;

You raise many good points.

Cibachromes are touted to be more stable and this is true in theory, but in practice they do fade. We found that Cibachromes could fade and did so at about 1/2 the rate of 1970 paper or thereabouts. Pigments of the right type do not fade at all, but some so called pigments are selected azo dyes similar to those in Cibachrome (BTW read Ilfochrome for this word as well).

I also found that Cibachromes would yellow and I have some samples here. I also found that Cibachromes in contact during storage caused 1970 paper to fade and discolor due to some residual chemical. The Cibachromes darkened in this case as well.

So, "these dyes like all dyes will fade with time". That is the bottom line. And common digital goes quickly as well. It is not a perfect world.

As for your sensitization question, I would love to help you and Sandy. Send me more information via e-mail. Thanks.

PE

Even oil paints are not stable when their technology and culture spreads in to hundreds of years. Well long life concept entered my mind when I first dialed up to internet and I bought most expensive and rare oil paints on earth to my sister.
When I collected lots of catalogs from paint suppliers , I found there were many colors and their exotic names printed on paper catalogs and with life expectancy. They were very bad and none of the color received a good rating even from factory.
Da Vinci , Michelangelo produced art for weight of gold and for Vatican which can think a art piece for next 1000 years and all colors faded especially Lapis Lazuli blue of Sistine Chapel.
I think our art and taking mountain , tree , river , nude women pictures not deserves a 200 years.
If you can portrait Picasso successfully , your picture used in many books and they survive at Libraries for hundreds of years . Otherwise , talking about 200 years is meaningless.

Sal Santamaura said:

...Were I king of the world (or museums, at least), only pigment prints would be allowed. And that doesn't refer to inkjet prints using pigmented inks.

Click to expand...

Bob Carnie said:

...I am on a tri colour gum and carbon quest...it is now about...placing these colour pigments on paper...and I...hope to be able to sort this out within two years...

Click to expand...

Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Bob, between your Jobo replacement project and this, the analog photography world owes a great debt of gratitude. Thanks, and keep on keepin' on!

Thanks Sal

Its kind of like survival for me and since I am at a crossroads in my professional life, I have the opportunity to go for gold or not. I choose gold.
The Jobo machine we currently have is still working but we are looking to introduce the new semi auto machine next year, Richard Idle has the plans finished and he is ready to go, A few of my key film clients have agreed to front me the money against future film process to make it happen and once it is done I will post all the details here. It will not be cheap but for those still wanting to use their reels and drums, a wise investment. Also allows for wonderful film process.

John Bentley and Charles Berger are recommending me towards an image setter to produce hard dot for the carbon prints., I will play this winter with my silver negs off the Lambda to see if I can make it work my way, I will need the likes of Sandy and Ron to help me at the difficult points where my education shows its weakness. Ron Reeder has offered to help me with any sticky parts of the neg making area and we will work together. I know this is important to a lot of like minded people and for me a critical part of my life. I would be very happy to leave behind a body of Black and White and Colour work to show what we all were doing in this period of time with cameras and photography.

Bob

Bob

Sal Santamaura said:

Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Bob, between your Jobo replacement project and this, the analog photography world owes a great debt of gratitude. Thanks, and keep on keepin' on!

Click to expand...

Bob Carnie said:

Not really sure what you mean by the cheapest way I process prints.....

Click to expand...

Bob, I should have been more clear. In my experience, the photographers that do the kind of photography that ends up on the walls in high schools have always tended to cheap out and just get the cheapest prints made from dubious sources. I did not mean to imply that you made the cheapest prints which I know is not the case. I admire your integrity quite frankly and I respect your opinion. I hope I didn't leave any impression to the contrary. I usually post here late at night and sometimes am not quite clear as you can imagine. My opinion is somewhere in between yours and Ron's. I don't think C-prints will last 200 years but I don't trust inkjets at all. I hope you have success with the other types of prints you are talking about because that would be wonderful. Anyway, I will get out of the way of this discussion now since you gentlemen have much more interesting things to say than I do.

I didn't think you were insulting me, but there are some misconceptions out there about quality printing work and how it is obtained in our photo world..

But Ron will agree(hopefully) that some of the major labs in NA back in those days had an amazing rapport in most cases with the company Kodak, this included much interaction with Kodak technical reps who were RIT grads but even more importantly connected to gentlemen like Ron on the inside of Kodak and most importantly to people like me in the Lab world , very much part of our day to day team, keeping the processes in line. I have many good lifetime friends, who were my tech rep, Tony Connley from Toronto division still talks with me years after leaving the business. He got me into some of the labs where I worked and made countless friends and foes.
It would not be out of the question for our tech rep to be at shops that and I worked at for days on end solving complicated issues. They were part of our team and we valued each others skill sets. A little known fact that the highest paid person in any lab had an amazing eye for colour and their sole role in some cases were to varify others work.

Jay Maisel comes to the business honestly, his family had Maisel Colour Labs, which I am sure Ron will concur , were tightly wound with Kodak for years. Therefore a lot of the portraits of these principles were done in those types of labs, The whole industry has taken a shit kicking and we are not talking any more to Kodak and Kodak is not talking to us, this change sadly started 15 years ago and today I do not know of any official Kodak reps in Canada... My lab switched to Fuji about 10 years ago, simply as I have a direct Fuji account, the factory with paper is within a 20 minute drive and I can talk with a tech rep and yes they will come to my little darkroom. I would love to have the old relationship with Kodak, it was fun and I fondly remember being treated royally at the Toronto Kodak factory.

FYI - There was an PMA test done in the 80's that pitted mini labs against pro labs where a Shirley*test negative* was blindly sent into all PMA labs and mini labs and the quality was compared .. I think Ron remembers this test and the results... The Pro's were humbled by the mini operators... a David and Goliath story if there ever was one. This turned the lab industry on its ears and a lot of printers got fired over the next few years and replaced with machines.

M. Lointain said:

Bob, I should have been more clear. In my experience, the photographers that do the kind of photography that ends up on the walls in high schools have always tended to cheap out and just get the cheapest prints made from dubious sources. I did not mean to imply that you made the cheapest prints which I know is not the case. I admire your integrity quite frankly and I respect your opinion. I hope I didn't leave any impression to the contrary. I usually post here late at night and sometimes am not quite clear as you can imagine. My opinion is somewhere in between yours and Ron's. I don't think C-prints will last 200 years but I don't trust inkjets at all. I hope you have success with the other types of prints you are talking about because that would be wonderful. Anyway, I will get out of the way of this discussion now since you gentlemen have much more interesting things to say than I do.

Click to expand...

Bob;

I do remember that test. It was quite revealing to EK as well. Jay Maisel was a friend of my boss IIRC. I do know that he and his lab were very respected pros at EK. I also know that many pros used Oriental, Mitsubishi, and early Fuji type C products which were very prone to fade. This changed with Fuji in the 80s though. Some of the others were quite good for image quality but poor for stability. Also, many labs cut corners on their processes and got bad results that showed up in 10 - 20 years or so.

We printed the lunar landing photos on E-70 paper and sent out 16x20s because it was the best we had at that time. I have a few on the walls here from 1969.

BUT DONT MISS THIS:

We had a set of colorless pigments that we used to make transfers with. The print had a faint relief image but no color or density variations. It looked like smudged white paper. BUT, if you illuminated it with UV light you got an amazing color image that just glowed. It was brilliant and resembled a projected slide.

PE

"It was brilliant and resembled a projected slide."

Tell us more about that! that sounds fascinating. What was the use for?

It was a one of a kind demonstration and AFAIK, only a few prints were made. That is on the order of 3 or 4.

PE

I too would really like to know more about that.

I assume you used UV-fluorescent pigments/dyes. But what kind of "transfer" was it?

Not the thread to get into it, but very intriguing to say the least.

As per Bob & Ron's discussion; I think that it's fair to say that C-prints have gotten a lot better, and that's a fact. Whether or not these prints will get the "cyan vampire" syndrome, or "high school principle" syndrome (the preferred term in my book ) is to be seen.

Bob, maybe you can concede this just a pinch?? Your extensive experience might actually make this harder to do though.

Chris - as the great Popeye would say** I yams what I yams** I can't concede what I believe to be true.

but I am only one voice to add to this discussion.

holmburgers said:

I too would really like to know more about that.

I assume you used UV-fluorescent pigments/dyes. But what kind of "transfer" was it?

Not the thread to get into it, but very intriguing to say the least.

As per Bob & Ron's discussion; I think that it's fair to say that C-prints have gotten a lot better, and that's a fact. Whether or not these prints will get the "cyan vampire" syndrome, or "high school principle" syndrome (the preferred term in my book ) is to be seen.

Bob, maybe you can concede this just a pinch?? Your extensive experience might actually make this harder to do though.

Click to expand...

They dyes were rare earth pigments, specially prepared for this experiment. The prints were made by a modified Dye Transfer process that transferred the pigments. I have no idea what they were at this remove (30+ years) except that one was a complex of Europium IIRC.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

They dyes were rare earth pigments, specially prepared for this experiment. The prints were made by a modified Dye Transfer process that transferred the pigments. I have no idea what they were at this remove (30+ years) except that one was a complex of Europium IIRC.

PE

Click to expand...

Where's Poppy Montgomery when we need her?

So, here's a brain scratcher. If making a color image from phosphorescent/fluroescent pigments, which in effect are emitting their own light (reimitting from the UV at a lower frequency), do you use the addtive or subtracive colors??

Europium's red phosphorescence might lend the clue.

I'm sorry, this is going way off topic.

You see C/M/Y images superposed as normal giving a vivid color image.

Bob, the guy who did this, was working on metalized dyes at the time. They were azo dyes complexed with Nickel salts and gave ultra stable "pigments". Much along what Bob is interested in. I would not suggest Nickel or any of the rare earth salts though due to toxicity.

Yes, Poppy is Unforgettable!

PE

If we think a bit about the future, image stability and art for a while, I think it is impossible not to draw parallells to the painters and paintings. Well, yes their pigments are not totally stable, not all of them. Some fade, some get damaged in other ways. So how do you handle your precious paintings? Easy, you send them to a conservator/restorator. It's highly possible that in the future, expensive photographs will get some sort of comparable treatment as serious art collectors and museums do with their paintings now. If it wouldn't have been for conservators most classic paintings would have looked like dog poo by now.

Striving for the permanent image is a noble cause, but who expects it? Really? A bit like Don Quixote...

Who indeed- Charles Berger, Todd Gangler, John Bentley, Keith Taylor, Steven Livik, Sandy King, Kerik Koulis, and on and on and on. yes a bit of a journey but worthwhile.

olleorama said:

If we think a bit about the future, image stability and art for a while, I think it is impossible not to draw parallells to the painters and paintings. Well, yes their pigments are not totally stable, not all of them. Some fade, some get damaged in other ways. So how do you handle your precious paintings? Easy, you send them to a conservator/restorator. It's highly possible that in the future, expensive photographs will get some sort of comparable treatment as serious art collectors and museums do with their paintings now. If it wouldn't have been for conservators most classic paintings would have looked like dog poo by now.

Striving for the permanent image is a noble cause, but who expects it? Really? A bit like Don Quixote...

Click to expand...

I agree Bob.

Now, I have a question for you. How are you going to test your "pigment" prints to "prove" that they have a modicum of stability or even archival qualities?

PE

When I think of image permanence, I'm not necessarily considering how long a work can be shown in a museum, or how long it can hang on your wall without fading. On a more modest scale I like to think that someday my grandkids or great grandkids will find my photographs in a box and be able to see nearly exactly what I saw.

More optimisitically (or delusionally if you'd prefer), I think of archaeology... how cool if in 500...1000 years someone can dig up a photograph and see a life-like depiction of life on Earth a millenium ago. I'd like a process that would allow color photographs to survive in this manner; something like the diffraction color photograph (R.W. Wood) etched into titanium.

Well, in that case I have color prints from the 50s as well as slides from the 30s and 40s that my grandkids have seen. So that meets your test for my Kodacolor prints and Kodachrome slides. I have Ektachromes from the 50s as well as Anscochromes that are doing just fine too. Yeah, some are yellowing but not all.

And, I have the negatives and have printed some of those just recently. They look fine too (prints and negatives both)!

PE

Wilhelm has already tested Charles Bergers UltraStable pigment prints , the results are in his book. The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs.
There is another testing site that I would send prints to as well , he seems to be active on DPUG.

any other suggestions for sources?

Photo Engineer said:

I agree Bob.

Now, I have a question for you. How are you going to test your "pigment" prints to "prove" that they have a modicum of stability or even archival qualities?

PE

Click to expand...