Black and White Resin Print Archivalness

I often see on professional lab sites that they make resin and fiber prints by hand but they recommend fiber prints because resin prints and NOT ARCHIVAL.
But this is something I personally have never agreed with, would someone here with scientific knowledge of photographic materials please set this straight? and just how long does something need to last before it can be deemed Archival? ide have thought a toned resin print which is processed to the specifications would be quite archival???

Stephen, some early B&W RC papers weren't archival and there were issues of images fading, while taht appears to have been solved no-one can be certain how long they'll last, where as FB prints have lasted OK from very early on.

The major issue now is that Galleries, Museums, Collectors etc prefer Fibre based prints on the basis that they are more archival even though current RC papers may be fine.

Ian

Something to do with putting RC Black and White prints in frames, In my early days of printing for others we did RC . After a few years we saw a lot of the RC coming back because of **de silvering** which we did not see any from fibre.
Same chemicals and same finish.
At that point we stopped making rc prints other than contacts or proof prints.

this problem has maybe been fixed , but we now are only working with fibre and plan to stay that way.

I don't know for sure but I know that for years the general rule is that Fiber is much more Archival than resin coated but some people on here have said that if a Resin Coated print is made well it could be as good as fiber.

Bob Carnie said:

Something to do with putting RC Black and White prints in frames, In my early days of printing for others we did RC . After a few years we saw a lot of the RC coming back because of **de silvering** which we did not see any from fibre.
Same chemicals and same finish.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I experienced, the were differing technologies in use in the early days by Ilford, Agfa & Kodak, there were PE & RC papers, in fact I was using PE papers (ex Government/MOD) before they were sold in the consumer market.

You could tell the differences by ripping a scrap print, the chemicals sused in the base attacked the silver when in a frame or stored in plastic wallets etc. Testing for these issues can't be simulated like normal aging/light fastness tests, so you need real time testing over many years, I worked in a alb where dyes from Ciba Geigy etc where tested for light fastness.

Ian

Well, there's a very good body of work on keeping paper around for hundreds, even thousands of years - and even if it starts to decay, that process is pretty well understood. (I'm talking paper itself, not even anything to do with photographs, which add the obvious additional complexity.) And then there's a lot of empirical data that shows manmade plastic substances start getting weird after just a couple of decades. We've all seen what happens to camera foam. I also work on old cars and old pinball machines, and the earlier examples of plastic and foam in those get downright disgusting (gooey or turning to dust) in ways probably nobody could have imagined until enough actual time had passed.

So they may have made great strides with RC coated paper, but my money is still on FB paper to outlast it.

Duncan

Stephen Frizza said:

I often see...resin prints and [are] NOT ARCHIVAL. But this is something I personally have never agreed with...

Click to expand...

You can't agree or disagree with it. It's a meaningless statement that's been bandied about for many decades. There's no definition of "archival."

In reality what should be of interest is a given material's life expectancy (LE) under specified conditions of storage and use.

Stephen Frizza said:

...how long does something need to last before it can be deemed Archival?...

Click to expand...

Since photographic prints can't be deemed "archival," a more useful question would be "what are the LEs of RC and fiber based prints under typical conditions?" For an authoritative answer, I'd refer you to Wilhelm's opus

Dead Link Removed

as well as Ctein's "Post Exposure." My summary after reading both is that RC can be useful for moderate LEs (say, 25 - 50 years) when not framed and kept in a pollution-free environment. For anything that will be (properly) framed or expected to have a 500 year LE under appropriate storage, fiber is the only option.

I'm glad to have typed this post. Now, when -- not if -- the same topic comes up again, I'll simply link to it.

Bob Carnie said:

but we now are only working with fibre and plan to stay that way.

Click to expand...

bob, is this for *EVERYTHING*, prints AND proofsheets? I've been considering re-doing my favorite rolls proofsheets on fiber. just don't have ready access to a darkroom right now

-Dan

Can the youngest member here please report back to APUG in say 60 years time. Then can that person's grandchildren do the same in say another 40. We older ones will be waiting with baited breath. No wait, we won't actually be breathing, come to think of it!

pentaxuser

Can the older members here who have BW RC prints say anything about their state? And to be more specific, prints made with something after the 1st generation of RC papers?

It's as simple as this:

Fibre-based papers are well understood and known to be archival, if properly processed.

RC papers have shown that they often are not archival. It us believed that modern RC papers are much better in that regard, but until the decades pass, we will not know for sure.

One added bonus of fibre paper is that the images often look better on such paper. While it is harder to get a nice gloss with fibre (without ferrotyping at least), I find that I like the look of prints on fibre paper more than I do the same print on RC.

My problems were with the early Ilfospeed, I haven't noticed any problems with prints made on other papers, I also used Kenthene and Agfa occasionally and some the images have been stored in exactly the same way as the early ones that suffered image bleaching mainly of the highlights, but are fine.

So I'd say I've had no issues since Multigrade (the RC version) was introduced, probably earlier but I've no way to know what images were which paper, but in the early 1980's I switched back to Fibre based papers for all of my personal work and only use RC commercially.

Ian

Ctein's investigation found that the light-driven reaction that leads to silvering-out in framed prints on RC papers (but not FB papers) is, in the short run, suppressed by treatment with selenium toner, Sistan, or both. We don't know what this means for the long run, or for other storage conditions.

Past experience with FB paper stability proves little, because today's FB papers are not the same as those made decades ago. And it also depends what you mean by stability. If you are concerned about any possible change in the appearance of your print, you can write off many (most?) of today's FB papers too, because they contain brightening agents which are themselves unstable.

Use the paper that best meets your esthetic preferences and logistical requirements, process it according to best current knowledge, and then don't obsess about it. If you are certain that your work is so important that it must be preserved for the ages, take your pictures on sheet film, which has a polyester base, print in Pt/Pd on acid-free rag papers, and store your prints in the dark under controlled temperature and humidity. And if you're selling prints on paper for display, especially silver prints of any kind, *don't* market them as "archival". Bronze sculptures, maybe. Prints on paper - no.

Oren Grad said:

Ctein's investigation found that the light-driven reaction that leads to silvering-out in framed prints on RC papers (but not FB papers) is, in the short run, suppressed by treatment with either selenium toner, Sistan, or both. We don't know what this means for the long run, or for other storage conditions.

Click to expand...

Well that doesn't explain the fact that most the image bleaching occurred in the dark The issues were the plasticisers used in the base.

Ian

the image permanency institute and kodak claim that rc paper is as 'archival' as fiber paper.
this was maybe 10 years ago they made this claim.

i don't really believe it.

i suppose archival means different things to different people ...
public and private archives i have submitted work to have until recently
asked for all submissions to be on fiber paper, never rc ...
these days, strangely enough, they are accepting ink and paper, from only a handful of sources ...
i suppose that is archival, seeing ink and paper have been around since
ancient times ...

if i have a print that i want to be around
after i am gone, and the rest of my work is in the public landfill,
i will make sure it is on fiber paper and washed correctly, or a bromoil transfer ..

Fibre-based papers are well understood and known to be archival, if properly processed.

Click to expand...

Why, because some of them have lasted for decades? How many of them did NOT last that long and were chucked in the trash?

RC papers have shown that they often are not archival.

Click to expand...

Why, because some of them are known to have conked out in a few years/decades? What about all the ones that didn't?

I see a heck of a selection bias going on whenever this is discussed. Typically FB lifetime is justified with "We have some surviving prints from 120 years ago on FB!!! (of course that's all there was for over a hundred years)" and short RC lifetime is justfied by "I saw l some RC prints that died after only a few years!" The only meaningful comparison would be to print a lot of prints on both, wait the same amount of time, and then see how many of each were left.

maybe you should call the company who makes your paper
and ask them about the archival stability of their paper.
speaking with them is always better than a room full
of opinions, some right some maybe not as right and some salt.

BetterSense said:

I see a heck of a selection bias going on whenever this is discussed.

Click to expand...

Of course there is sample bias but there is also some common sense that can apply to this.

Paper is well understood. Fibre papers are essentially a standard paper product. We have centuries of history with papers and know their properties quite well. Control the acidity and you can control the longevity.

Photographic emulsions are well understood. Fixation is well understood. We know how emulsions are made, and we know what affects them. This is somewhat of a moot point anyway because RC papers have emulsions too, so this is something that both forms of paper have in complete common.

The difference is the paper base, of course. RC papers are a plastic-coated paper product. Plastic is well understood and it is known that plastic does not always age all that gracefully, even though it lasts a very long time (sometimes too long, because its life in existence is longer than its practical life in a lot of cases). The questions that come up are these:
- does the plastic base affect the longevity of the emulsion in any way?
- irrespective of the above, does the plastic base have keeping properties similar to or better than those of conventional paper products, such as a fibre paper base?

Essentially we are adding an unknown here. Our understanding of paper products is terrific. We do not just have photos from the 1830s, we have books from centuries before. Of course some papers are poorly made and some papers are poorly kept. The fact is that paper *can* last this long. Emulsions, if properly processed, seem not to affect this longevity in any negative way.

The jury is out on the plastic. There certainly are plastics with a long life (bakelite items from the 1920s and 30s are still fine in many cases), but the softer, thinner, different plastics that are in use in RC papers are less well understood. Sure, we can subject them to artificial aging tests but the only way to know for certain is to let the time pass.

There is no concrete evidence that fibre papers are *worse* than RC papers, let's say it that way. Aside from the processing disadvantages (mostly an issue of time, not supplies cost) and the slightly higher cost of the paper itself, there is no reason not to use fibre papers for photos that are to be kept a very long time. As I mentioned above, to some the papers have superior characteristics in terms of how the image is presented on them. I vote for using the less risky paper since I like it better anyway.

This is a risk management question here, really.

One other comment - I've heard of both RC and fibre papers being discarded because of poor processing (e.g. fixer damage). I've heard of many examples of RC papers being discarded because of issues with keeping that seem separate from processing issues. Are there examples of fibre papers failing years after processing that can be separated from processing?

pentaxuser said:

Can the youngest member here please report back to APUG in say 60 years time. Then can that person's grandchildren do the same in say another 40. We older ones will be waiting with baited breath. No wait, we won't actually be breathing, come to think of it!

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I'll come back to let you know ....I wonder if I am the youngest member....

Ian Grant said:

Well that doesn't explain the fact that most the image bleaching occurred in the dark The issues were the plasticisers used in the base.

Ian

Click to expand...

This is not correct according to the article by Ctein.

Overwashing of RC prints led to the problem which was caused by atmospheric effects. By reducing the wash, Ctein showed that small amounts of Sulfur were retained, which by forming Ag2S helped stabilize the image. This is similar to the effect of Sistan and Ctein showed the relationship.

However, one must treat image stability (Ctein's study for example) apart from the stability of the support itself. Early RC supports tended to crack after years of exposure to the sun and to the atmosphere. In most cases, the images were fine.

After about 1970, the RC papers were fine and image stability was fine for B&W prints as long as they were not overwashed.

PE

Is there any kind of test (besides the test of time) that can be done to figure out if you washing is over or under? I made a makshift print washer out of a tray and I use a washing agent and I'm not sure if what I do is right.....

If an RC print gets ugly, make another. It is cheap, easy, and quick.

I have FB prints I made in the middle 1960s, processed without selenium toning, washed without use of a wash aid, and washed less than I wash prints now and stored in cardboard boxes in the basement. They seem to be fine, thus far.

My reasonable expectation is that current work should "last" longer.

Ektagraphic said:

Is there any kind of test (besides the test of time) that can be done to figure out if you washing is over or under? I made a makshift print washer out of a tray and I use a washing agent and I'm not sure if what I do is right.....

Click to expand...

Wash until the print passes the retained hypo test. This will leave a tiny amount of sulfur in the print. If you wash longer (as Ctein was doing - more is better?) then it makes things worse.

PE

what would the retained hypo test be?