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

[removed account4]

I must be bored... but I googled vellum paper it seems you can get it everywhere, but from this copy and paste it seems that its no longer the real deal

Vellum is a unique type of paper used for arts and crafts. Though it used to refer only to a type of paper made from calfskin, modern vellum is made from cotton andwood pulp. It can be used for making greeting cards or scrapbooking, as well as for tracing designs.

Ok so who is using calfskin for their prints?????

i don't use calfskin vellum but the cotton and woodpulp and it works great for classic cyanotypes and hand coating with silver gelatin emulsion. i don't know how long it will last for
though, ive only been using it for about 10 years... and i get it at an art supply store, a pad of it costs only a few dollars... as the good folks at building 19 used to say " good stuff, cheep "

 

[NedL]

FWIW, I love this Calotype: Robert Adamson, David Octavius Hill 1843 - 1847

Minor quibble: it's a print from a calotype on salted paper, not the calotype itself. The printing process used by Hill and Adamson was not made public and we are left to speculate about it. It's possible this print was sensitized with ammonio-nitrate of silver. Interesting reading here.

 

[NedL]

Vellum is a unique type of paper used for arts and crafts. Though it used to refer only to a type of paper made from calfskin, modern vellum is made from cotton andwood pulp.
Ok so who is using calfskin for their prints?????

That's right and nowadays the word "vellum" has been so corrupted that it hardly means anything at all. Sometimes it means a kind of tracing paper and sometimes it refers to the surface texture of opaque paper. Also the word "linen" has been abused horribly and most "linen" paper these days is not made from linen (flax fiber) but only means the surface has been textured with crisscrossing lines to look like fabric.

When paper first became more available in Europe in the 13th century, most governments continued to use animal skin vellum ( or even imported papyrus ) for official documents because they -- with good reason -- didn't trust the paper to last. In the past year, I've read several books about the history of paper: "Paper, paging through history" by Mark Kurlansky is a good one. He also wrote a fascinating book called "Salt" about the history of salt, so he covered two subjects near to the heart of people who make salt prints!

 

[Bob Carnie]

That's right and nowadays the word "vellum" has been so corrupted that it hardly means anything at all. Sometimes it means a kind of tracing paper and sometimes it refers to the surface texture of opaque paper. Also the word "linen" has been abused horribly and most "linen" paper these days is not made from linen (flax fiber) but only means the surface has been textured with crisscrossing lines to look like fabric.

When paper first became more available in Europe in the 13th century, most governments continued to use animal skin vellum ( or even imported papyrus ) for official documents because they -- with good reason -- didn't trust the paper to last. In the past year, I've read several books about the history of paper: "Paper, paging through history" by Mark Kurlansky is a good one. He also wrote a fascinating book called "Salt" about the history of salt, so he covered two subjects near to the heart of people who make salt prints!

Thanks Ned

I was getting neerded out for a second there, thinking after 15 years I had heard about all the possible concoctions , and methods and Alan pipes in with Vellum.. to get a 25 sheets of 22 x 30 I am going to have to raise cattle and when the time is right slaughter a few calves to make my paper, I think this is not a wormhole I am willing to go down... I have trouble killing spiders in a shower , knocking down a calf is out of the question, no matter how long the print will last.. I draw a line in the sand right here...

 

[Bob Carnie]

why do you make archival photographs ? ---- The OP asked this question in 2016 and is still a valid question....


For me I like the idea that someday if we do not blow the living shit out of ourselves and this planet , future generations can pick up a signed print I made and cherish it.

 

[avb]

I always thought the reason for wanting prints to outlast ourselves stems from the fear of our own mortality.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Minor quibble: it's a print from a calotype on salted paper, not the calotype itself. The printing process used by Hill and Adamson was not made public and we are left to speculate about it. It's possible this print was sensitized with ammonio-nitrate of silver. Interesting reading here.

I proposed that this was a "salt print" to my resident MFA Art Historian and was corrected that it was a callotype. My resident expert was not hold reference works in hand so... In any case your comment is fair but for my purposes, it is way old and I like it unlike a huge number of images from that time.

Yes, it was a good read, thank you for the link.

 

[pdeeh]

When paper first became more available in Europe in the 13th century, most governments continued to use animal skin vellum ( or even imported papyrus ) for official documents because they -- with good reason -- didn't trust the paper to last.

In the UK, Acts of Parliament are still inked on animal-skin vellum.

A couple of years ago, there was a a bit of fuss about a proposal to move to paper (cost and availability of vellum becoming problematic), but eventually it seemed to be decided that the money could be found, and thus we carry on scraping and curing animal skins.

I can't remember whether it's still all calf or whether some is goat tho'.

 

[NedL]

... it is way old and I like it unlike a huge number of images from that time.

Me too, and to OP's point, some of them are remarkably well preserved. Including some of Hill and Adamson's.

( I won't argue w/ an MFA -- I don't agree, but I won't argue )

 

[pdeeh]

I absolutely understand the reasons why it might be desirable for photographs to be 'archival', however that is defined.

But the amount of threads it generates seems to me to be out of proportion to the "significance" of most photographic output.

Is it one of those cases where the people have got so lost in the process involved that they've lost sight of why they're doing it?

The discussion gets saturated in moralising language: "It's the right way of doing things" ... well, no.
It is, however, a way of doing things, and no worse or better for that.

Still, if someone wants to spend forever "perfecting" their archival washing toning and mounting techniques, washing and testing and washing and testing, when their prints are destined for shoebox rather than the archives of the British Museum, who am I to decry that?

I make cyanotypes. I flatter myself that some of them are beautiful, though I'm less sure that they are works of art.
Sometimes I stick them in the window for other people to see. It's south-facing.
They get UV damaged, window condensation gets on them, spiders and flies shit on them, and after a couple of years they are so degraded that they are really good only for the bin.

I also once did a little bit of documentation work for a performance artist.
I made the prints as good as I could given my lack of skill & interest in darkroom work, and tested them for retained silver and whatnot so that I was reasonably confident they'd be good in her archive long after we're both dead.

 

[faberryman]

I absolutely understand the reasons why it might be desirable for photographs to be 'archival', however that is defined. But the amount of threads it generates seems to me to be out of proportion to the "significance" of most photographic output. Is it one of those cases where the people have got so lost in the process involved that they've lost sight of why they're doing it? The discussion gets saturated in moralising language: "It's the right way of doing things" ... well, no.It is, however, a way of doing things, and no worse or better for that.

There is no mystery or magic. It takes so little extra effort to process archivally, I don't understand why anyone would not want to do so. Of course, you do have a choice in the matter, so, like most things in life and photography, it is up to you what you want to do.

 

[removed account4]

hi, its me, the OP of this old thread ..

the idea behind me starting this thread had to do with me digging through 35+ year old boxes of
high school and college prints. i never threw anything out, ever. i found poorly made prints, in both fiber and rc,
test strips and final prints. the test strips and bad test prints were all processed archivally like the final prints, i figured
there really is no point in not processing anything archivally, i thought they were interesting enough to save at the time, and at one point
a college roomate laughed because i took that puddy stuff and covered a wall or 2 with all this stuff where i was living. it was kind of fun but
at the same time i still can't figure out why i saved or bothered to save it all. and i haven't looked in the boxes again so i don't remember if
i put them in the trash or decided they were important enough that they be saved.
the idea that someone ( me ) would save scraps of paper that mean nothing i thought was kind of absurd. then, here on photrio ( then apug )
people are making every single thing they make archival. it got me wondering whose archive are we all making these images for ?
i know if i am lucky 1% of what i have made will have any sort of artistic, cultural or archival importance. was i just vain for just saving it all ?
i still archivally wash everything, i still perma wash everything i still take care and do things right ... probably out of habit not vanity ...and when i
make retina prints and sun prints if i open the dark drawer 1 month or 1 year or 1 day later and the images are still there on the paper i am secretly happy they didn't vanish

ned and mike
i wondered the same thing about calotype vs salt prints ... and i contacted a photo historian at a museum years ago
and what i was told was a little bit of what you both said. the process to make the NEGATIVE is a calotype a print made on salted paper is a salt print
AND ... if a calotype negative is printed on a salted paper print it might be called a calotype print or a salt print and a talbotype...
its too bad lord whft isn't here to actually correct us cause it is kind of confusing !

 

[Arklatexian]

That is vandalism and it defaces the rock.

Besides, that rock already has writing on it. It says:"Jesus Saves". At least the ones that I have seen out West do. Anything else has a pictograph already on it left there by an earlier traveler, probably before Columbus was born by a thousand years or so which, unlike many, I think should be left alone. However Sirius summed it up in fewer words.........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

hi, its me, the OP of this old thread ..

the idea behind me starting this thread had to do with me digging through 35+ year old boxes of
high school and college prints. i never threw anything out, ever. i found poorly made prints, in both fiber and rc,
test strips and final prints. the test strips and bad test prints were all processed archivally like the final prints, i figured
there really is no point in not processing anything archivally, i thought they were interesting enough to save at the time, and at one point
a college roomate laughed because i took that puddy stuff and covered a wall or 2 with all this stuff where i was living. it was kind of fun but
at the same time i still can't figure out why i saved or bothered to save it all. and i haven't looked in the boxes again so i don't remember if
i put them in the trash or decided they were important enough that they be saved.
the idea that someone ( me ) would save scraps of paper that mean nothing i thought was kind of absurd. then, here on photrio ( then apug )
people are making every single thing they make archival. it got me wondering whose archive are we all making these images for ?
i know if i am lucky 1% of what i have made will have any sort of artistic, cultural or archival importance. was i just vain for just saving it all ?
i still archivally wash everything, i still perma wash everything i still take care and do things right ... probably out of habit not vanity ...and when i
make retina prints and sun prints if i open the dark drawer 1 month or 1 year or 1 day later and the images are still there on the paper i am secretly happy they didn't vanish

ned and mike
i wondered the same thing about calotype vs salt prints ... and i contacted a photo historian at a museum years ago
and what i was told was a little bit of what you both said. the process to make the NEGATIVE is a calotype a print made on salted paper is a salt print
AND ... if a calotype negative is printed on a salted paper print it might be called a calotype print or a salt print and a talbotype...
its too bad lord whft isn't here to actually correct us cause it is kind of confusing !

When I said I was taught to archivally (as much as possible) process prints in my darkroom, they only meant the final print or prints, not test strips, etc. because they were just that, TEST (use and throw away unless you have further use for them). One of my mentors is still alive and I could send him an email and ask him but he would probably think I was joking so I will wait until the next time I see him in person so I can bring him a glass of water if he needs it before answering........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

I absolutely understand the reasons why it might be desirable for photographs to be 'archival', however that is defined.

But the amount of threads it generates seems to me to be out of proportion to the "significance" of most photographic output.

Is it one of those cases where the people have got so lost in the process involved that they've lost sight of why they're doing it?

The discussion gets saturated in moralising language: "It's the right way of doing things" ... well, no.
It is, however, a way of doing things, and no worse or better for that.

Still, if someone wants to spend forever "perfecting" their archival washing toning and mounting techniques, washing and testing and washing and testing, when their prints are destined for shoebox rather than the archives of the British Museum, who am I to decry that?

I make cyanotypes. I flatter myself that some of them are beautiful, though I'm less sure that they are works of art.
Sometimes I stick them in the window for other people to see. It's south-facing.
They get UV damaged, window condensation gets on them, spiders and flies shit on them, and after a couple of years they are so degraded that they are really good only for the bin.

I also once did a little bit of documentation work for a performance artist.
I made the prints as good as I could given my lack of skill & interest in darkroom work, and tested them for retained silver and whatnot so that I was reasonably confident they'd be good in her archive long after we're both dead.

Screw the word "archival". I was taught to treat the prints so they would last "as long as possible", no more. You can use your own definition of what that means. There may be someone in this world who is busy "perfecting archival technique" but in over 60 years in photography, I have never met that person. I know these people exist because books have been written on the subject. The "its the right way of doing things" has, for me, no moral connotations. However, "it is the right thing to do" does.........Regards!

 

[pdeeh]

I knew I should have put this thread on ignore as soon as I saw it had had the electrodes stuck in it.
But, junkie that I am, I had to wade in ...

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Me too, and to OP's point, some of them are remarkably well preserved. Including some of Hill and Adamson's.

( I won't argue w/ an MFA -- I don't agree, but I won't argue )

I don't argue with her, either. I take an executive approach and let her be in charge of that stuff.

 

[faberryman]

There may be someone in this world who is busy "perfecting archival technique" but in over 60 years in photography, I have never met that person.

If you can follow the instructions, you can "perfect archival technique". It is not alchemy. There are a lot of people that want to wrap shooting film and darkroom printing into some sort of mysterious process like they are members of the Illumanati.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

hi, its me, the OP of this old thread ..

the idea behind me starting this thread had to do with me digging through 35+ year old boxes of
high school and college prints. i never threw anything out, ever. i found poorly made prints, in both fiber and rc,
test strips and final prints. the test strips and bad test prints were all processed archivally like the final prints, i figured
there really is no point in not processing anything archivally, i thought they were interesting enough to save at the time, and at one point
a college roomate laughed because i took that puddy stuff and covered a wall or 2 with all this stuff where i was living. it was kind of fun but
at the same time i still can't figure out why i saved or bothered to save it all. and i haven't looked in the boxes again so i don't remember if
i put them in the trash or decided they were important enough that they be saved.
the idea that someone ( me ) would save scraps of paper that mean nothing i thought was kind of absurd. then, here on photrio ( then apug )
people are making every single thing they make archival. it got me wondering whose archive are we all making these images for ?
i know if i am lucky 1% of what i have made will have any sort of artistic, cultural or archival importance. was i just vain for just saving it all ?
i still archivally wash everything, i still perma wash everything i still take care and do things right ... probably out of habit not vanity ...and when i
make retina prints and sun prints if i open the dark drawer 1 month or 1 year or 1 day later and the images are still there on the paper i am secretly happy they didn't vanish

And this speaks to part of my point. At the time you thought this stuff was important. As you endured 35 years of experience your context changed as did your sense of importance. I have an image that I shot very early in my learning the camera and film from 1975 which got printed that same year. It is still crisp and neutral toned. Contemporary efforts to print it have benefitted from digital management but none of that is possible unless the neg was properly exposed. That said, archival or not, good chemistry properly processed is the key. Nothing artsy-fartsy, or densitometry geeky, just following the recipe.

 

[jtk]

chemical based black and white photographers are fixated on a lot of things
from getting beautiful full scale images, to the perfect combination of grain and sharpness and bokeh
to getting positive vibes from using old and new beautiful cameras that could probably be in a museum somewhere
but they are also fixated on archival quality of images.
some say if procesed correctly a black and white fibre ( and maybe rc ) prints can last 500 years.
unless the images are in a public or private archive or museum why do we care if our photographs are able to last hundreds, or some say close to 1000 years.
are we vain ? are our photographs that interesting that they will dodge the dumpster and make it to the future ?

im guilty of some of the things ive mentioned, i like using old junk cameras, i like making photographs i like to make
and some of them make it to the library of congress or state archives, some of it to a pile on the darkroom shelf,
even though theyare archival i am not quite sure teh ones on the shelf will dodge teh dumpster.

why do you make archival photographs ?

My photographs are inherently archival ... that's because I don't consider them finished until I've backed them up (they're digital, either original or scan).

 

[removed account4]

My photographs are inherently archival ... that's because I don't consider them finished until I've backed them up (they're digital, either original or scan).

digital files are inherently archival?
that's the first i have heard of that ...
people i know who are heavily involved with this digital age we are in
cringed when i told them state and local HABS/HAER submissions
were digital. they remarked that digital is not archival at all.

 

[jtk]

digital files are inherently archival?
that's the first i have heard of that ...
people i know who are heavily involved with this digital age we are in
cringed when i told them state and local HABS/HAER submissions
were digital. they remarked that digital is not archival at all.[/QUOTE

Hearsay rules in some circles.

 

[removed account4]

Hearsay rules in some circles

LOL if you say so

 

[jtk]

This lecture was presented at the 3D Digital Documentation Summit held July 10-12, 2012 at the Presidio, San Fransisco, CA.

Archive of Digital Data for HABS, HAER, and HALS

"The NPS creates a variety of documents and records, such as inventory and monitoring plans, drawings, photographs, and conservation treatment records, to assist in the planning, management and preservation of cultural resources. Most of these, including many of 3D digital documentation products, are permanent records under the NPS Records Retention schedule, requiring the NPS to preserve them in some form. In addition, under NPS Director’s Order 19, cultural resource management records are mission critical, required for the management of the cultural resources within our parks, and must be permanently preserved. Programs such as HABS/HAER/HALS create large amounts of electronic data, such as point clouds, CAD files, and digital field photographs that constitute valuable field data permitting the verifiability of the final documentation.
Electronic records, particularly laser scanning and imaging technologies, present long-term preservation and storage challenges. Even technologies that allow for a file format with an open standard, such as a point cloud conversion to ASCII, are still problematic because of inadequate IT infrastructure within that does not facilitate storage, migration and retrieval of digital data. Moreover, the Library of Congress (LOC), which houses traditional print HABS/HAER/HALS documentation and is the sole repository designated in the National Historic Preservation Act for engineering and architectural documentation produced for Sections 106 and 110 compliance, has collections policies prohibiting proprietary software and storing of data directed at a limited audience that would prevent the inclusion of many of the products being discussed at this summit.
Despite on-going efforts for several years, resolving these issues has proven problematic. The LOC and HABS/HAER/HALS are jointly exploring born digital equivalents to large-format film photography that is currently required to meet Secretary of Interior Standards, but the lack of standards within the commercial photography community as well as the high cost of large-format digital capture and storage makes writing standards difficult. Likewise, the lack of industry standards for technologies such as laser scanning, and the reliance on proprietary software and file formats, discourages the LOC from accepting these files into its collections. Because of this, HABS/HAER/HALS uses laser scanning as a tool to create traditional print drawings on vellum or mylar that can be permanently preserved at LOC, rather than producing laser scans as an end product in and of itself. HABS/HAER/HALS also is consulting with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to determine if some of these file types can be preaccessioned into the Electronic Records Archives (ERA). Currently the file formats that can be preaccessioned are extremely limited, but we hope that NARA can accommodate more in the future. With no other public repository for these files, NPS has few alternatives but to maintain its own digital records and confront the technological and financial challenges this presents. NPS has no IT preservation system in place to prevent the gradual decay of storage media over time and the corruption of electronic files, also known as bit rot. Creating a digital storage system modeled on Open Archive Information System (OAIS), which runs file integrity checks to guard against data loss, would require a significant investment in infrastructure and money at a time when the NPS is facing a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog for its historic structures.
In sum, 3D digital documentation can produce some exciting products that were not previously possible, but we must recognize that the challenges associated with digital preservation put all of these products at risk unless we find solutions that permit their responsible and economical curation and preservation."

In other words (maybe), this government agency is unable to store certain images digitally because it lacks the technical capability and is burdened by government regulations and it's own existing (2012) limited awareness and practices.

In 2012 (when this doc was written) it wasn't even aware that Sony would for theatrical presentation (not just popular distribution) digitize Lawrence of Arabia, revealing startlingly more detail than could be seen in the distributed 70mm prints.

The solution to "bit rot" involves multiple backups on multiple media (HD, tape, thumb drives, DVD, cloud etc etc) tc...but govt agencies are stuck with regulations and political interests that prevent obvious solutions. As well, of course, they avoid the most obvious solutions, which boil down to mass distribution.

 

[removed account4]

i am aware of the issues at the habs office ( having submitted habs jobs for nearly 30 years )
they do not accept digital files for several reasons
1. a digital 4x5 or 8x10 back is prohibitively expensive, and they want unmanipulated files, not photoshopped dslr files.
2. the digital medium is still in its infancy and it is not archival and they don't want to lose files important to our national heritage.

currently they accept film and silver prints and / or film and ink jet prints on a special paper.
state and local planning departments SHPO offices mostly accept digital files and ink prints
not because they are archival ( although the claims they are archival came out 30 years ago
just like the 1st gen ink prints ) but it is mostly a space saving exercise.

funny thing is, 25-30 in jet prints labelled and boxed
with the index, and sketch map and cd of images takes up more space than 25-30 4x5 contact prints and 4x5 films, sketch and index.

feel free to call the habs office in DC, they might be able to shed more light on the archival permanence of digital files, their staff is well trained and knowledgeable.
you can also call the LOC and ask the folks there, as well as the new england document conservation center and see what they say.

good luck with your files!