Inkjet print longevity

[fdi]

Aardenburg Imaging & Archives is a great resource for information on inkjet image permanence. They are testing lots of combinations of printers, papers and inks that no one else will test. They are not supported by the big three inkjet manufactures. It was founded by Mark McCormick-Goodhart who has worked with Wilhelm. He is doing some of the most comprehensive testing in the world and he is also doing real world testing in addition to accelerated life testing. Since his company does not have the corporate support it is primarily supported by its members. For just $25 a year you can get full access to his large database of inkjet longevity and educational material in addition to helping him continue and expand his work.

I strongly believe in the work that AaI&A performs and I want to help increase their membership which gives you full access to their large growing database of print longevity for a variety of inkjet printers, inks and papers. If you purchase $100 from Frame Destination this month not only will we give you a FREE annual AaI&A membership worth $25 but we will also give you 10% Off your order! Just use website coupon code AP797 (expires Apr 30th, 2010)

Cheers,
Mark

 

[keithwms]

Sorry, but this really doesn't belong on APUG, in my opinion.

 

[PhotoJim]

Agree, this fits the hybrid photography site well but I, for example, don't do any inkjet printing. I print with a laser for print, and with silver for photography.

 

[fdi]

I understand your concerns about this and I thought about them before extending this offer to APUG readers but I decided to post with the following thoughts in mind:

1. This is the Frame Destination sponsorship sub forum which something that my company pays APUG for.

2. Mark McCormick-Goodhart is a film shooter although he often scans and prints digitally. He is also planning on adding support for traditional darkroom printing processes. If more APUG’ers doing darkroom work become members and submit images for testing he will probably start doing so sooner rather than later.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[Tim Gray]

Hey, 10% off and a $25 membership for orders of $100+. Sounds like a deal to me.

 

[photomem]

Usually, I would think this would be something for the Hybrid site.. but, since FDI helps keep the site alive.. they can post pictures of dancing mice as far as I am concerned.

The discount is pretty good too.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I must agree with Mark.

His two reasons are well positioned, and besides, he's not discussing digital imaging directly. He's simply offering APUG readers a membership deal to an organization that discusses digital imaging directly. And, according to him, may expand their efforts into the analog regime.

Don't we here essentially do the same every time we recommend someone to go on over and join the hybrid photo site? Offer them a membership to an organization that discusses digital directly, but without us discussing it?

I see no mention of test results, longevity estimates, comparisons to analog, or digital product recommendations and/or endorsements. Only an effort to further his business a bit, which is, after all, what these sponser forums are all about.

No harm, no foul?

Ken

 

[fdi]

I am afraid I was not aware of hybridphoto.com. I will look into helping support that site as well. It looks like some people are doing some interesting things over there.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[keithwms]

First of all, I mean no harm or insult to the advertiser nor the business and do appreciate that they may be making contributions to APUG.

And yes, hybridphoto was created (I thought) specifically for these types of discussions.

My point is that I thought that all of us here were engaged in trying to keep analogue processes (and therefore analogue businesses) alive. It is a privilege to be a part of this community: a business gets exposure to a huge number of potential clients via this site. And those clients do spend money. How many of us would even know about companies like Photographer's Formulary, the Impossible Project, Lodima and Freestyle, were it not for APUG.

On the other hand, I have found that inkjet paper works quite well for polaroid image transfers And I have posted on various uses of inkjet prints and inkjet printers on other sites like hybridphoto. Currently I am planning to rig an inkjet to spray Pt/Pd solutions economically onto paper

 

[eddie]

Have you thought about combining the same sale, with a 1 year subscription/ extension to APUG? I think, at least here, it would generate more interest.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just for the record, we do allow, for instance, sales of digital equipment like scanners and digital cameras in the "miscellaneous" category of the classifieds, so if a sponsor wants to advertise a digital service or something like this in their own sponsor forum, it may be a marketing faux pas, but it's not against the rules.

 

[Tim Gray]

I didn't really see this as a discussion, but a discount/incentive for APUG members. The first part being the 10% off, the second part being a free membership.

 

[fdi]

Hi Eddie,

That is an interesting thought but I think the needs are little different. Apug has lots of members but needs cash to support the activities of the members such as the web server maintenance. Normally as a sponsor my company is donating cash or discounts to the other company. In the case of Aardenburg Imaging Mark did not just want my cash. He needs members. The members are helping to contribute test items, feedback and assisting with real world testing. For my company to actually help provide members was a lot more complicated and requires special software on the Aardenburg site as well as mine.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[fdi]

To APUG – I do agree that APUG is a wonderful recourse and I enjoy being a sponsor. I was not aware of the hybrid forum when I made the post and I had assumed that although everyone here shot film, that not everyone was using a wet darkroom. Regardless of my sponsorship status I do not feel that gives me the right to abuse a forum and it is of upmost importance to me that the forum owners and members always consider me to be a positive contributor.

My apologies for offending some of the membership and the spirit of the forum with what David refers to as my “marketing faux pas”.

I have learned from this exchange and I will be more careful in the future.

Sincerely,
Mark Rogers

 

[Tim Gray]

I had assumed that although everyone here shot film, that not everyone was using a wet darkroom.

I think that is true. We just aren't allowed to talk about. Though I scan and use a wet darkroom, I don't find the hybrid site to be that useful. It seems more directed at digital negatives, alternative processes, and high end scanners.

 

[keithwms]

I think that is true. We just aren't allowed to talk about. Though I scan and use a wet darkroom, I don't find the hybrid site to be that useful. It seems more directed at digital negatives, alternative processes, and high end scanners.

You could take it in other directions, though. I think hybridphoto got off to a rocky start and people (like myself) who tried to contribute there really got tired of the same old questions over and over: which scanner should I buy? what's the best scanner? etc. If people who wish to explore more interesting topics would participate there and bring some energy to the place, it'd be a lot more active. But there are so many other sites that discuss digistuff.

In my opinion, at APUG, we really need to embrace what makes us different, and that is the analogue process. That's all I have to say about this.

 

[Tim Gray]

You could take it in other directions, though. I think hybridphoto got off to a rocky start and people (like myself) who tried to contribute there really got tired of the same old questions over and over: which scanner should I buy? what's the best scanner?

Agreed. I actually think it's a cool thing they are doing over there with the alternative processes, but one that I'm not in the position to participate in as of now.

However, a lot of people I interact with on the internet DO want to shoot (some) film, want to scan, but don't know where to start. A couple of FAQs might help them out, even if it is here on APUG. A sticky posting in a forum, with a link to a FAQ over at Hybrid photo might do a lot to alleviate problems, both here and there. A FAQ could include an overview of good scanners for 35mm and other formats, as long as some pointers to using Vuescan, etc.

I spend some time on one of the mostly digital forums, strictly as a film user, and often try to help field questions about film usage. People are interested, but are sometimes are a bit put off by APUG.

 

[keithwms]

In your view, Tim, how could APUG be more welcoming to newcomers to film?

This bunker mentality of "shoot film or we won't speak to you" isn't welcoming, I realize that. However, discussing inkjet vs. optical or digital vs. film and all that simply excites all manner of silly emotional arguments.

I do think hybridphoto could be a lot more welcoming. Last time I was there, somebody crawled up a newcomer's ass for showing a digital shot in the gallery that (s)he wanted to print via hybrid means. Some people seemed to think that the work flow behind each and every post on the site had to be agreeable with their [vaguely defined] standards, period. As I tried to point out, hybridphoto is doomed if its mission is that narrow. As for me, I simply haven't gone back since I saw it turning into "What scanner should I buy." I mean, why don't they just rename it WSSIB. What scan software should use, etc. And there are only a few scanners and two or three decent software packages on the market anyway, for crying out loud.

 

[MHMG]

I am afraid I was not aware of hybridphoto.com. I will look into helping support that site as well. It looks like some people are doing some interesting things over there.

Cheers,
Mark

Nor I, but then again, I'm a brand new participant in APUG as well.

I'm trying to get my bearings. I still shoot film, and I have decades of experience in the darkroom. However, when Kodak killed my beloved Dye Transfer process, I went to the IRIS 3047 and at that point, I was an early adopter of hybrid film/ digital workflows. As I now understand it, APUG is trying to confine the discussion to a strictly classical analog photographic workflow. While I understand this philosophical construct really well and have a soft spot in my heart for it, the simple fact is that anyone shooting with film these days is going to be hard pressed not to move to some kind of hybrid analog-digital workflow, if not for all of one's work, at least for some of it. So, I also just joined the Hybridphoto.com site, but I have mixed emotions about all of this. I really hate to compartmentalize my comments along these analog-digital divides. I'd feel much happier in a forum where the members didn't freak out if I was talking about mixing and matching digital and analog technologies as opposed to talking about pure analog workflows only. No doubt, I wasn't here when the decision to move the "gray area" over to a new site called hybridphoto.com occurred. Had I been, I would have strongly suggested it's a mistake. But that's water under the bridge.

Anyway, I want the Aardenburg Imaging and Archives digital print research program not to overlook the classic processes, and indeed add some important ones as benchmarks to compare modern digital output to in terms of print longevity.

I will try to stay all analog on this forum. In that spirit, I would like to say that my years in strictly analog photography leave me with a soft spot in my heart for it. After all, I have a degree in Photographic science from RIT, and it was all analog at the time! My new company, Aardenburg-imaging & Archives is trying to change the game for the way print longevity information is presented to the consumer. In particular, I'm trying to give relevant print permanence information for fine art printmaking community rather than more liberal consumer photofinishing requirements. My test methods lend themselves naturally to digital workflows, but when I created my test targets I kept in mind the idea that the targets should be possible to print using purely analog workflows as well. So, I standardized on a color target the is mostly comprised of the Macbeth ColorChecker Chart. Hence, analog practitioners can simply photograph the ColorChecker target to produce test samples I can evaluate. Similarly, the monochrome target I use, ableit very easy to reproduce in a digital workflow, can in effect by printed using strictly analog workflows as well. What all this means is that the Aardenburg Imaging & Archives light fade testing program is in fact extensible to analog workflows as well.

One of my goals for this year is to get the classic analog color processes of Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) and Kodak Dye Transfer into test using the latest lightfade testing protocols before these materials become totally lost to the ages. Likewise, I'm looking to bring some classical silver gelatin print materials into light fade testing. We've always assumed they have no light fastness issues, but in fact, many have optical brighteners in the gelatin layers, so there may indeed be some lightfastness sensitivity.

Glad to be here,

Mark
Dead Link Removed

 

[Tim Gray]

In your view, Tim, how could APUG be more welcoming to newcomers to film?

...

And there are only a few scanners and two or three decent software packages on the market anyway, for crying out loud.

I do think APUG should stay all analog, for the most part. A simple page discussing scanners and some walk throughs on software would be helpful to some new users. This could even be on Hybridphoto, and just linked to from here. It would probably save a lot of people effort from retyping replies to those questions if you could just reply with a link.

It's a particularly touchy subject when it comes to color. I don't shoot much color, but I do it sometimes. One only has to look in the color subforum to see how confusing it is to even get the right chemicals at home to develop it. Then, if you are interested in printing, sheet paper seems to be going away. I hate to be a pessimist, but if we want to encourage color film usage, I fear we will have to accept the scanning workflow soon.

I agree with you. It doesn't take much research to find the 3 affordable and good scanners on the market (some of which I'm not even sure they make now). Likewise with scanning software. I managed to figure it out with a couple hours of poking about. But, a lot of people don't 'get' this stuff as easily, and putting up some pointers might encourage more usage. Again, it could and probably should be on hybridphoto, but that doesn't mean we can't link to it and put a sticky. But I do know that if I posted a link to my writeup on how to scan B&W with Vuescan, I'd get knocked for it.

 

[keithwms]

I do know that if I posted a link to my writeup on how to scan B&W with Vuescan, I'd get knocked for it.

That is true and it is unfortunate. It would be nice assemble some sort of wiki on scan techniques, at least on the topic of scanning for presenting items in the gallery. (Especially since virtually all of the items in the gallery are scanned)

 

[Tim Gray]

Word. Maybe I'll contact one of the mods about it. I think I derailed this thread enough

 

[fdi]

So Mark of Aardenburg Imaging has joined the discussion and brought up the very analog issue of lightfastness sensitivity of silver gelatin prints due to optical brighteners. Perhaps this thread could move in that direction as opposed to scanners!

Nor I, but then again, I'm a brand new participant in APUG as well.

I'm trying to get my bearings. I still shoot film, and I have decades of experience in the darkroom. However, when Kodak killed my beloved Dye Transfer process, I went to the IRIS 3047 and at that point, I was an early adopter of hybrid film/ digital workflows. As I now understand it, APUG is trying to confine the discussion to a strictly classical analog photographic workflow. While I understand this philosophical construct really well and have a soft spot in my heart for it, the simple fact is that anyone shooting with film these days is going to be hard pressed not to move to some kind of hybrid analog-digital workflow, if not for all of one's work, at least for some of it. So, I also just joined the Hybridphoto.com site, but I have mixed emotions about all of this. I really hate to compartmentalize my comments along these analog-digital divides. I'd feel much happier in a forum where the members didn't freak out if I was talking about mixing and matching digital and analog technologies as opposed to talking about pure analog workflows only. No doubt, I wasn't here when the decision to move the "gray area" over to a new site called hybridphoto.com occurred. Had I been, I would have strongly suggested it's a mistake. But that's water under the bridge.

Anyway, I want the Aardenburg Imaging and Archives digital print research program not to overlook the classic processes, and indeed add some important ones as benchmarks to compare modern digital output to in terms of print longevity.

I will try to stay all analog on this forum. In that spirit, I would like to say that my years in strictly analog photography leave me with a soft spot in my heart for it. After all, I have a degree in Photographic science from RIT, and it was all analog at the time! My new company, Aardenburg-imaging & Archives is trying to change the game for the way print longevity information is presented to the consumer. In particular, I'm trying to give relevant print permanence information for fine art printmaking community rather than more liberal consumer photofinishing requirements. My test methods lend themselves naturally to digital workflows, but when I created my test targets I kept in mind the idea that the targets should be possible to print using purely analog workflows as well. So, I standardized on a color target the is mostly comprised of the Macbeth ColorChecker Chart. Hence, analog practitioners can simply photograph the ColorChecker target to produce test samples I can evaluate. Similarly, the monochrome target I use, ableit very easy to reproduce in a digital workflow, can in effect by printed using strictly analog workflows as well. What all this means is that the Aardenburg Imaging & Archives light fade testing program is in fact extensible to analog workflows as well.

One of my goals for this year is to get the classic analog color processes of Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) and Kodak Dye Transfer into test using the latest lightfade testing protocols before these materials become totally lost to the ages. Likewise, I'm looking to bring some classical silver gelatin print materials into light fade testing.


Glad to be here,

Mark
Dead Link Removed

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

We've discussed these issues at great length on the forum, and what we've decided for some time is that even if many of us are using digital and hybrid techniques, APUG.org should continue to be focused on traditional processes. Lots of APUG members, myself included, are doing some digital work, but we discuss it elsewhere. There are many forums where one can discuss scanning and digital printing, but not so many that are dedicated to being information rich resources about traditional processes, and safe spaces for discussion of traditional techniques. The idea is that if someone wants to learn how to retouch negatives with pencils, dyes, abrasives, and knives, they can find that here without having to wade through a lot of discussion about the cloning tool, and their interest will be encouraged rather than disparaged.

We tried having a "gray area" forum for hybrid discussion, but it was difficult to keep it on topic and to keep the digital discussion from overflowing into other forums. Some people come to APUG to get away from the extensive discussion of digital methods on virtually every other photographic forum on the internet, so Sean thought the best way to give hybrid workers more leeway without losing the focus of APUG.org was to create a separate forum, which is hybridphoto.com. The hybrid forum isn't as big as APUG, but it's quite a bit larger than a few independent spinoffs created by former APUG members, and it's growing steadily, and my understanding is that Sean and JD Callow, who is the main organizer of the hybrid forum, have plans to build it out further as the forum has been attracting more interest.

If there are hybrid topics that haven't been discussed on the hybrid forum, I would encourage people to bring them up there, and chances are, you'll find some very knowledgeable people who have good answers, even if they haven't said anything about those issues before. Hybridphoto.com tends to be more business and less chit chat than APUG, and I think a lot of the hybrid participants like that, because it means that the forum members are engaged and working actively, and there's a sense that it's all new for everyone, and everyone has something to learn and something to contribute. I have participated in many online discussion forums over the years, and it is very difficult to maintain that kind of atmosphere as a forum grows, so I highly recommend that people who are interested in combining traditional and digital processes take a look at hybridphoto.com and enjoy it while it's still small.

 

[MattKing]

I would certainly support a policy permitting lockable threads in APUG directing people's attention to threads on particular "hybrid" subjects at hybridphoto. IMHO, this thread would be a prime candidate for that.