• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

HARMAN technology Limited...our little surprise.....

I interpreted this initiative in a slightly different manner. To me, apart from providing a marketing approach for both Ilford and analog photographers, it's a (not so) subtle way of informing photographers to be very cautious of their process before making vaunted claims as to the quality or longevity of their prints. If you are going to affix this sticker anywhere near your prints, I would hope that your work stands behind your claim. Unless we are stupid enough to believe that the sticker itself will help us create higher quality work, I fail to see the down side.
 
Sometimes on APUG there is a tendency to overthink good things to the point of missing the sweet spot entirely...

Ken
 
Ken Nadvornick said:
Sometimes on APUG there is a tendency to overthink good things to the point of missing the sweet spot entirely...

Ken
Click to expand...

Agreed. I like this move by Ilford, and look forward to the stickers. Just curious Simon, how many stickers per pack? One sticker per sheet? If so that's great cause we all know we may use a whole box of paper to make one finished print. And therefor the other stickers can go on previous work. I like the idea, though I would never stick to the back of my print, but rather on the mount, or back of frame or sleeve as Shawn mentioned.
 
Oren Grad said:
Nor of any 100 year old prints made with the same paper stock and emulsions used to manufacture current Ilford FB papers.
Click to expand...
I agree with this and all that Oren wrote in his earlier posts in this thread. I'm very concerned for HARMAN's liability exposure from photographers' use of these stickers.

That said, of all the "real" papers available today, I'd be least uncomfortable projecting 100 year life expectancy for properly processed, mounted and framed Multigrade Warmtone fiber. Its lack of metamerism suggests an absence of OBAs. Of course, I don't even consider the Ilford sequence adequate for maximizing print life expectancy, and wouldn't discuss any type/brand of RC paper if long-term archiving is important.
 
I wonder if we are taking this a bit too seriously?

Granted longer lasting prints are better than the ones that don't. But for my own purpose, I do my best to be archival and wash out all the stuff out of my prints. But I really don't have any way to test if my "stuff" really lasts 150 years. I guess we can submit it to accelerated aging testing but even then, how do we know it's even accurate? As our air pollute and we use more and more chemical products even at home, and let's not forget we display our images and enjoy them, not just keep them in climate controlled environment.....

I took Ilford's stamp to mean "this is a print I did my best to produce the best" stamp.

Realistically or sadly, none of my prints will have any meaning after my departure.
 
Well done, Simon! Great marketing initiative.

I've used Ilford products for many years, and hope to do so for many more.

- Leigh
 
Sal Santamaura said:
and wouldn't discuss any type/brand of RC paper if long-term archiving is important.
Click to expand...

Considering the extra effort needed to wash chemistry from fibre paper, I would expect RC to be more archival now.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Considering the extra effort needed to wash chemistry from fibre paper, I would expect RC to be more archival now.
Click to expand...
Well, you shouldn't try to remove it by washing alone.

Use a proper hypo clearing agent to neutralize it and it washes out quite easily.

- Leigh
 
Steve Smith said:
Considering the extra effort needed to wash chemistry from fibre paper, I would expect RC to be more archival now...
Click to expand...
  • The relative wash times for RC and fiber are unrelated to life expectancy of an RC print
  • Advancements in RC print life expectancy were made some time ago, in large part stemming from Agfa research, but those improvements do not substantially accrue when displayed in a sealed frame.
  • "Archival" is a useless word in this discussion. It has no precise meaning in English or American.
 
Sal Santamaura said:
... a useless word in this discussion. It has no precise meaning ...
Click to expand...

But that's what makes for argument^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion. If all the words had precise meaning then there isn't any discussion. Imagine discussing what "one" means - what's to discuss? I mean, if Bill Clinton is excluded.

But I agree, there is a tendency to go overboard on these matters.

They are nice stickers. I like the whole initiative.

Like many I have a cupboard and freezer full of boxes of Ilford papers and only restock every few years [or when something really neat, like "Art 300" comes along]. It would be nice for there to be a way to get a retroactive supply. "Send $5 and the UPC codes from two boxes of Ilford paper to P.O. Box 123, Hacketstown NJ 10121".
 
I think it's a great thing. I might stick on the cellophane wrap or backboard of framed print.

Little promises like these are what make me re-evealuate my processes.

Reminds me of the weekend several years back when my son and a friend did some photograms. I'm sure while processing I made some outlandish claim of longevity because when I delivered the dried print and said "that'll be good for 200 years" she said... "What? You said it would be good for 600 years!!!"
 
Toffle said:
This is great, Simon! Thanks. The stickers were not in the packs of MGWT I purchased last week here in Canada, but no doubt that is older stock.

I had not heard of using Washaid to dilute Selenium. What is the benefit of this?
Click to expand...

I've heard of it. I believe Ansel mentions it in his books, as does Bruce Barnbaum (who does not use it for the same reasons I don't) and almost certainly others. It does work, and the advantage is that it saves a step and some time. The disadvantage is that the washaid is both dirt cheap and environmentally innocuous while the toner is neither. The toner, mixed separately with water, will last far, far longer than the washaid. I don't want to mix fresh toner and dump it (or, correctly of course, arrange disposal of it) every time I process prints. So I mix fresh wash aid and dump each time. The toner I mix with water, it goes back into a bottle, and I re-use it until I no longer see the increase in d-max and/or change in color I know to expect from a given paper. Then, like Barnbaum, I pour it into an open container and just let the water evaporate. It leaves selenium (and maybe a trace of fixer and silver) plated to the bottom. This can go on for many years. Eventually you can take the container to a hazmat facility. The savings in both money and environmental impact seem well worth the extra time of separate toning and washaid steps to me. Separating them also allows different times for the two. I otherwise follow the Ilford sequence, but I almost never tone for 10 minutes. Adox MCC 110, for example, starts to take on a purple cast that I find unpleasant after 5 minutes in KRST 1+19. I stop that one at 4 minutes for a (very) slight cooling and increase in d-max.

EDIT: I see now that Ilford says with selenium to just treat for the color/toning you want. This doesn't seem consistent with the 10 minute wash aid step without it. I prefer to tone for effect plus wash aid for 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

This was my thought as well, though I don't think the mixed selenium/Washaid is intended to totally replace the wash step, just to supplement it.
 
Even Kodak mentioned Selenium + HCA method in its literature. I keep my Selenium toner diluted to my preference in a bottle and reuse this over-and-over. I can't do that if I mixed with HCA. Since the toner mix lasts quite a while, it seem to be wasteful to do the mixed method.
 
Since KRST contains a lot of thiosulphate, putting HCA in the toner isn't going to help much, is it? Maybe it helps wash out the fixer intermediate products just leaving nice clean thiosulphate which can be washed out later (with more HCA, I would think).

Given that KRST can last a long time, and HCA can't, makes it seem pointless to me to add them together, as the above post points out.
 
Sal Santamaura said:
The relative wash times for RC and fiber are unrelated to life expectancy of an RC print
Click to expand...

STRIKE 1!

Advancements in RC print life expectancy were made some time ago, in large part stemming from Agfa research, but those improvements do not substantially accrue when displayed in a sealed frame.
Click to expand...

STRIKE 2!

"Archival" is a useless word in this discussion. It has no precise meaning in English or American.
Click to expand...

This is a fly ball out to left center field and caught by the fielder for the final out.

Instead of wasting time by trying to educating the poster I'll simply refer him to, inter alia, pages 18 to 20 od The Variable Contrast Printing Manual by Steve Anchell.

Thomas
 
I'm not sure what your ridiculous little exercise was meant to accomplish. Anchell's book has been on my shelf since 1997. He's a good printer, but not someone I'd refer to for definitive information on the life expectancy of RC paper, whether he's rambling about photographers' opinions within those two pages or elsewhere.

You seem to have missed the points of my post. First, even when wet time of RC prints is held to a recommended maximum, life expectancy is not in the same league as properly processed, mounted and displayed fiber based prints. Second, read pages 158 through 168 here


to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in RC print deterioration. Ilford and Kodak certainly improved their products and Agfa undertook research aimed at impeding deterioration mechanisms, but, even today, there's no way RC prints can be claimed to approach the life expectancy of fiber based prints.

Finally, for an extensive treatise on the problems, see pages 578 through 595 here:

Dead Link Removed​

While there have been improvements, no manufacturer definitively claims the RC drawbacks Wilhelm documented in 1993 have been completely surmounted. They've been mitigated, but still exist to varying degrees. RC has its place, but that isn't sealed in frames and on display for a long time.

Methinks you doth protest too much. Are you selling RC prints?
 
Frankly the claim made on the site is just not appropriate. Photographers using the paper haven't agreed anything. Photographers aren't registered as authorized to use the sticker after signing something and agreeing something. There is no guarantee photographers will use due diligence. There is no guarantee that the sticker is applied to Ilford paper in fact. This kind of claims seems, to me, to push the boundaries of dolus bonus a bit too far.

If I had been Ilford I would just have phrased the text in the web site saying that when properly executed, a print on that paper will very likely last X years. It's not just a question of liabilities, the problem is more treating photography buyers as intelligent persons. A claim which is unsustainable just doesn't help the image of the firm. A professional product like this cannot be sold with the same kind of exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims which is used for the sale of toothpaste or washing powder.

If people begins using the sticker on paper of lesser quality, that might in the long run even damage Ilford reputation.

Overall the initiative certainly goes in the right direction of highlighting the quality and value of a traditional print.

A possible further scenario would be involving other paper producers and create a common sticker, industry wide. Do you remember the "It's very well made in Taiwan" campaign? Something like that. An industry-wide sticker stressing the technology used rather than the make. It's the industry as a whole which should defend the value of the technology.

Or a sticker with two parts: common content "printed on ..." and a place for the firm logo.

In general though I think it's a marketing mistake to spread around stickers with a logo that might well be applied to material of different producers, especially when the sticker is that of a high-quality producer.
 
tkamiya said:
It would be nice if you could make a small brochure of some kind and make them available with explanation of Silver Gelatin prints.
Click to expand...

I think the best way to do this would be to prepare some PDF and to allow them for download on the site. Photographers can print them with a simple B&W laser printer and give them to the buyer. The PDF should be generic about how well a print is supposed to last if properly executed. The photographer might add a separate sheet, signed by him, stating that the procedure described in the PDF was strictly followed. Or simply the PDF has a place for the photographer to sign that he certifies he used ILFORD paper and followed the procedure.

Now that I think about it, the sticker could be changed to allow room for the photographer's signature. The wording on the sticker would be made in such a way that the signature would not just give paternity to the printer, but also certify that the "archival" procedure was followed. By placing a signature on the sticker, the photographer guarantees the client that he used that ILFORD specific material, and that specific procedure.

That would be much better in the long run than an anonymous sticker that anybody can stick anywhere and tomorrow anybody can deny having sticked (especially if the print changes hands).

Fabrizio
 
I think this is a good idea if only to highlight proper silver prints set against the hoard of digital fibre prints. Maybe the best thing to do is to have a special embossing press made, but I have been too busy to sort that out yet.
 

I would agree 100% with the sentiment of this post. The sticker is a great idea, but too specific to a stated process which even we cannot agree on (HCA in selenium toner or a separate step) and is out of the hands of the sponsoring company. Especially as the sticker idea appears to be aimed at "serious" buyers of images, a generic educative tool may in the long-term have more value. Just my 2p worth though!
 
I've just found 18 stickers in a box of 50 sheets of MGIV FB. I think you are slightly over estimating my ability to make the final print
Click to expand...

This is a great idea and I applaud Ilford for actually stepping up to the challenge of marketing traditional materials, as Kodak so blatently fails to do.

I also find it odd that RC gets no stickers, but oh well.
 

Of course. I'm just going to ink out "Ilford" and stick 'em dead center on the framed print's glazing, where they won't be in contact with the print AND can't be missed. Problem solved. Game, set, and match!
 
BetterSense said:
This is a great idea and I applaud Ilford for actually stepping up to the challenge of marketing traditional materials, as Kodak so blatently fails to do.

I also find it odd that RC gets no stickers, but oh well.
Click to expand...

"Proudly printed on paper that looks almost as good and might last almost as long as fiber based paper, but is less expensive and a whole lot less trouble for the printer!"



Note that I have said before that given how good current RC papers are, and how much less trouble, I ask myself why I bother with FB. So seriously, maybe something like "silver gelatin photo paper" for RC and then add the bits about fiber (or fibre, whatever spelling) to those stickers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register