are black and white photographers vain, all this talk about archival image making

removed account4 · Jan 29, 2016

Ken Nadvornick said:
What a beautifully evocative phrase. It also effectively answers the larger general question of why for film in only nine simple words. Really, really well done.

I may have to start sending you royalty payments to post that in my darkroom...

Ken

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BROADER QUESTION OF FILM vs.DIGITAL SO PLEASE DO NOT BRING THAT NONSENSE AND BS AND BAD KHARMA INTO THIS THREAD

thanks

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 29, 2016

jnanian said:
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BROADER QUESTION OF FILM vs.DIGITAL SO PLEASE DO NOT BRING THAT NONSENSE AND BS AND BAD KHARMA INTO THIS THREAD

thanks

Threads evolve, John. You don't control them. Even when you start them, they don't belong to you.

Besides, my comment was not directed at film v. digital. Or directed at or about you. It was simply in praise of a wonderfully concise and beautifully turned phrase. I enjoy good writing as much as I enjoy good photographs. And this was good writing.

Please don't start trashing one person's compliments to another. Especially when you are neither person.

Ken

removed account4 · Jan 29, 2016

i can see if it is a commerical product, something made for someone else who buys it
that there be some sort of integrity around the sale, but every b/w image needs to be archival and selenium toned
which is what a lot of the "stuff" says ... i understand mundane imagery and material culture and images of "now"
for museums and archives ( i do work for the habs project and i am a historic preservation consultant so i am intimately familiar with that )
but a lot of people obsess about archival quality when selenium toning of everything ( even contact sheets ) probably isn't necessary.
and from what i understand , most of the people whose desired medium is color imagery ... there is no such thing as archival quality unless they are
invovled with gum over ptpd. gum over cyanotype, bromoils. trichrome negatives or other processes that aren't "modern color processes"

removed account4 · Jan 29, 2016

Ken Nadvornick said:
Threads evolve, John. You don't control them. Even when you start them, they don't belong to you.

Besides, my comment was not directed at film v. digital. Or at or about you. It was simply in praise of a wonderfully concise and beautifully turned phrase. I enjoy good writing as much as I enjoy good photographs. And this was good writing.

Please don't start trashing one person's compliments to another. Especially when you are neither person.

Ken

whatever ..
it has nothing to do with thread evolution but your never dying film vs. digital, or endlessly trying to
discredit me nonsense... unlike YOU, i will give the benefit to the doubt that you are actually being honest in what you said ...

just to elaborate on my motives of this thread ....
first of all i couldn't care less about what people who
make digital imagery do, print analog by digital means/hybrid GREAT! more power to you ( yes, i do that )
this thread has to do with chemical photography .. the stuff we do on APUG.
im talking about processes that evovled from 1839, and involved chemicals and inks, not computers and scanners

rc and fiber prints is what i am refering to, not electronic image making, no mater how hybrid ( paper/film internegative &c )
so, please do not go on about digital or ink jet or any other of that.
thanks

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 29, 2016

jnanian said:
whatever ..
it has nothing to do with thread evolution but your never dying film vs. digital, or endlessly trying to
discredit me nonsense... unlike YOU, i will give the benefit to the doubt that you are actually being honest in what you said ...

I wasn't the only other reader to respond to that person's post. It was not only well written, but written from a position of greater authority than most other opinions expressed. Including both yours and mine. And many of those other responses were far closer to film v. digital than what you incorrectly read into my response. Why no all-caps outrage over those?

No one here requires your benefit of the doubt to participate. I certainly don't.

It's not always about you, John...

Ken

Sirius Glass · Jan 29, 2016

jnanian said:
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BROADER QUESTION OF FILM vs.DIGITAL SO PLEASE DO NOT BRING THAT NONSENSE AND BS AND BAD KHARMA INTO THIS THREAD

thanks

And here I always thought that the shift key on your keyboard was broken. Jus' sayin'

removed account4 · Jan 29, 2016

Ken Nadvornick said:
I wasn't the only other reader to respond to that person's post. It was not only well written, but written from a position of greater authority than most other opinions expressed. Including both yours and mine. And many of those other responses were far closer to film v. digital than what you incorrectly read into my response. Why no all-caps outrage over those?

No one here requires your benefit of the doubt to participate. I certainly don't.

It's not always about you, John...

Ken

again ... whatever
this has nothing to do with me or control, but your non-stop anti digtal diatribes.
i completely agree with summicron1, i do work for government archives and understand "material culture"
your venting, and typical anti digtal angst was not the point of my original post.
so, please keep your anti digital sheepshank to a minimum in this thread

( summicron1 - this has NOTHING to do with you or your post )

removed account4 · Jan 29, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
And here I always thought that the shift key on your keyboard was broken. Jus' sayin'

i use it when it is necessary (formal letter )
and most of the time ( according to my friend e.e. ) it isn't necessary

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 29, 2016

jnanian said:
again ... whatever

please keep your anti digital sheepshank to a minimum in this thread

Apologies for the unexpectedly ugly diversion, summicron1. I wasn't expecting it either. All I can say is it's still a nice bit of writing that says a lot with only a little.

Ken

Theo Sulphate · Jan 29, 2016

summicron1 said:
Because I work in a museum (www.theunionstation.org) and it is a daily discovery, no kidding, how valuable even the most mundane images from the past are when we discover them in the present -- especially if they have identifying information on the back.

...

We get plane jane ordinary images all the time shot 100 years ago that are beyond fascinating now ...
...

These statements have brightened my day. I have always thought that even the most casual snapshot has inherent future value. Part of my hobby involves photographing places and things that I know will forever change and I want to preserve images of the way they used to be.

wiltw said:
... I have shot images of ... Mort Sahl ...
You do not know that one of your images contains the photo of an infant who would become the 50th president of the US, or the infant who becomes the Premier of the world's 1st Global Confederation of Earth. ...

Mort Sahl - that was certainly some time ago...

Good observation as well.

removed account4 · Jan 29, 2016

according to a lot of people
printintg on RC paper is almost not worth it

the paper is plastic and has no lifespan
and is only meant to be used as a teaching tool, "proofs". not for "serious" work
(many commercial lab prints are on rc paper )

as mentiond previously kodak, wilhelm and others have said that
RC paper is every bit as archival as FB. i never made prints before 1980/81 so i
don't know rc paper before that time .. but i have rc prints that were not washed for hours
were made by a teenager in a 1/2 hour 45 min class and look as good as the day they were printed.
they were probably washed for 10 mins. i am SURE RC papers today are better than that by 10-fold
36 years old, not archival processed, not selenium toned ...
while the literature says it isn't good enough, is fixer remover/perma wash &c and their recommended wash good enough?
and will it last long enough for the family, social or government archives to find it, stabilize the prints and learn from them ?
i'm not talking about "under glass" and outgassing and d'silvering but storage ( normal person storage, not museum quality )

Sirius Glass · Jan 29, 2016

jnanian said:
i use it when it is necessary (formal letter )
and most of the time ( according to my friend e.e. ) it isn't necessary

You went to school with e.e.? Are you that old??

CropDusterMan · Jan 29, 2016

The only thing I fixate on is content. Cameras are tools. There are good ones and bad. A socket wrench is a socket wrench until
you've used Snap-on. So I use only the best tools. Archival quality is the end result of good work practices. Ultimately, nobody
cares about my work other than me. If I'm going to sit in freezing temperature at Yosemite for five hours waiting for the light to
be magical, it's worth doing right.

Tis Himself · Jan 30, 2016

In general, most people are "visual." We cluster around television sets watching the news and expecting to see images related to every story. We visit museums and art galleries for one purpose ... to see the exhibits. Most people that I know enjoy seeing photographs from bygone eras. Despite reading about past events and forming a mental image, photographs from the same time period bring such visions into focus. I believe we owe it to future generations to provide as much visual imagery as possible. While digital images and video tape will hopefully someday prove to have "archival" longevity, in my opinion, only film/photos has a proven track record. Even motion picture film was not archival in its infancy. We've all seen news videos from ten or teeny years ago that has significantly deteriorated, while motion pictures from the 1930's and 40's (even without restoration) remain crisp and clear. A question of vanity? I say no ... archival standards are an obligation.

Bill Burk · Jan 30, 2016

summicron1 said:
...images from the past are when we discover them in the present -- especially if they have identifying information on the back...

So this is what we should be doing. Writing on the back.

eddie · Jan 30, 2016

Iluvmycam said:
Now, where snobbery and BW come together is when they ruin a photo that should be in color and force it in BW due to a bloated ego.

You're kidding, right?

summicron1 · Jan 30, 2016

Ken Nadvornick said:
Apologies for the unexpectedly ugly diversion, summicron1. I wasn't expecting it either. All I can say is it's still a nice bit of writing that says a lot with only a little.

Ken

no offense taken. I'm retired after 42 years in journalism, I'm a huge fan of history, I get to work in a museum and I have a camera collection that lets me play with some of the finest machines ever created.

Life is good.

Charles Trentelman
Ogden, Utah

aka summicron1

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 30, 2016

summicron1 said:
no offense taken.

summicron1 said:
I'm retired after 42 years in journalism...

Well then, there you have it. Silly me. I should have guessed.

Good things never happen for no reason. Thanks, Charles.

Ken

Xmas · Jan 30, 2016

Ken Nadvornick said:
What a beautifully evocative phrase. It also effectively answers the larger general question of why for film in only nine simple words. Really, really well done.

I may have to start sending you royalty payments to post that in my darkroom...

Ken

Silver gelatine on paper can degrade in 2-3 years if you don't...
Just not as quick as D76.
Bromide drag on film is frequently under fixing...

georg16nik · Jan 30, 2016

RobC said:
I think those are from the framing/display industry and are more about the materials used to mount and/or store photographs rather than actual prints themselves.

Let me ask you directly, what does the standard say the life of an archival print should be without reference to other materials.

The "Fine Art Trade Guild" in the uk has standards but they mostly relate to display materials how they react with photographs and not the photographs themselves.

....

I have quoted several ISO docs on APUG and shared my experience but this time I will just keep it simple.
[...]
ISO 18909 Processed photographic colour films and paper prints -- Methods for measuring image stability
ISO 18903 Films and paper -- Determination of dimensional change
ISO 18937 Photographic reflection prints -- Methods for measuring indoor light stability
ISO 18901 Processed silver-gelatin-type black-and-white films -- Specifications for stability
ISO 18904 Processed films Method for determining lubrication
ISO 18911 Processed safety photographic films Storage practices
ISO 18907 Photographic films and papers -- Wedge test for brittleness
ISO 18915 Methods for the evaluation of the effectiveness of chemical conversion of silver images against oxidation
ISO 18917 Determination of residual thiosulfate and other related chemicals in processed photographic materials
ISO 18929 Wet-processed silver-gelatin type black-and-white photographic reflection prints -- Specifications for dark storage
ISO 18929 Pictorial colour reflection prints -- Methods for evaluating image stability under outdoor conditions
ISO 18941 Colour reflection prints -- Test method for ozone gas fading stability

removed account4 · Jan 30, 2016

Iluvmycam said:
Now, where snobbery and BW come together is when they ruin a photo that should be in color and force it in BW due to a bloated ego.

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com...lack-and-white-snobs-as-well-as-colour-snobs/

i understand what you are saying, but the point of this thread wasn't about snobbery of any sort. it has nothing to do with digital or people's use of anything but film, paper and chemistry.
unfortunately as usual, there has been a bit of "digital creep" but that was not my intent ( cause i couldnt' care less what medium someone uses or how they make their work as long as
it is what they want ) the intent of this thread was to ask questions about archival processing .. and why we do it even for things that we might just throw away.
it isn't as if to archivally process a piece of film or paper ( rc or fb ) print takes little effort, time and water resources ( and $ ) but we archival process our test strips,
we archivally process test prints, stacks from tabletop to ceiling of prints that will get tossed into the rubbish bin at some point. like charlie t, i am involved with preserving the public record
i have submitted work to the habs project ( at the federal and state level for 25 years ) and there is an awful lot to learn and understand from a mundane photograph.

i know you have a bone to pick with snobby photography ( equipment / project snobbyness and other "stuff" ) i read your blog posts every time you make them and enjoy your work
but as i said, this thread doesn't really have much to do with anything more than archival processing.

good luck with your fellowships and grants !

RobC · Jan 30, 2016

georg16nik said:
I have quoted several ISO docs on APUG and shared my experience but this time I will just keep it simple.
[...]
ISO 18909 Processed photographic colour films and paper prints -- Methods for measuring image stability
ISO 18903 Films and paper -- Determination of dimensional change
ISO 18937 Photographic reflection prints -- Methods for measuring indoor light stability
ISO 18901 Processed silver-gelatin-type black-and-white films -- Specifications for stability
ISO 18904 Processed films Method for determining lubrication
ISO 18911 Processed safety photographic films Storage practices
ISO 18907 Photographic films and papers -- Wedge test for brittleness
ISO 18915 Methods for the evaluation of the effectiveness of chemical conversion of silver images against oxidation
ISO 18917 Determination of residual thiosulfate and other related chemicals in processed photographic materials
ISO 18929 Wet-processed silver-gelatin type black-and-white photographic reflection prints -- Specifications for dark storage
ISO 18929 Pictorial colour reflection prints -- Methods for evaluating image stability under outdoor conditions
ISO 18941 Colour reflection prints -- Test method for ozone gas fading stability

And how many people use any of these in the real world and which one tells us what the minumum realistic life of a B&W print should be.

The really great thing about standards is there are so many different ones to choose from.

miha · Jan 30, 2016

jnanian said:
as mentiond previously kodak, wilhelm and others have said that
RC paper is every bit as archival as FB. i never made prints before 1980/81 so i
don't know rc paper before that time ..

Not my experience unfortunately. All my 20+ years old Ilford FB prints are still OK, no signs of deterioration visible, on the other hand some of my Agfa and Kodak RC prints show desilvering, framed and unframed.

removed account4 · Jan 30, 2016

Bill Burk said:
So this is what we should be doing. Writing on the back.

bill

make sure you use a soft pencil
and if it is an rc print you use wheat or rice paste and archival bond non buffered paper
paste the tag on, and write with pencil on that. wheat or rice paste is reversible
so if you have a problem, just put the print in water and the paste will dissolve.
if you are tipping your rc prints onto rag paper ( pasting the top edge ) you have to be careful
because the materials being pasted together dry &c at different rates and you will have to put
waxed paper on the print in a matboard sandwich with some weight on it. then when it is dry
you can write your notes on the paper-mount. kind of like making "scrap book pages" ...
and if you want you can take all your pages, and some cover stock and book cloth
and a 1/4 inch drill bit and some book /binding posts and make your own book of images
careful though, once you start, it is kind of addicting.
its too bad the BSA got rid of bookbinding merit badge making scrapbook and repairing a book is how i got my start
and it would be a great way for you and your now photography-saavy troop to link the 2 skills together.

this book is easy to find ( in the rain forest )
and offers advice and info on using non-advanced stuff
( like a nipping press which is hard to find and wicked expensive )
http://www.librarything.com/work/248503

all of keith smiths books are great too, a bit advanced at times but once you get started ...
its like a bag of lay's potato chips ...

removed account4 · Jan 30, 2016

miha said:
Not my experience unfortunately. All my 20+ years old Ilford FB prints are still OK, no signs of deterioration visible, on the other hand some of my Agfa and Kodak RC prints show desilvering, framed and unframed.

good to know !

maybe we can start a list someplace on this website for papers to keep an eye on because of issues ...
i seem to remember somewhere someplace somthing being said about the rapid papers had troubles
because of incorporated developer or magic-stuff in the emulsion. i know the good folks at liquid light
used to suggest people put a little dektol in their emulsion to boost the iso, but they stopped suggesting that
because it caused problems that showed up after ...

are black and white photographers vain, all this talk about archival image making

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency