New Image Permanence Report, for traditional printing methods?

Hello,

This evening I was looking through Dead Link Removed, for information about traditional B&W silver prints. While a few articles noted traditional papers, it seemed most were concerned with modern digital prints from pigment printers and such. Please stop me if I have missed a recent study about more traditional printing methods and permanence. :confused:

Well this got me thinking it would be interesting to have a report about the current materials we use. A report, including image permanence for both FB & RC papers, along with some alternative processes, and the respective processing procedures for each.

Now I realize there are numerous printing processes, but I still feel it would be nice to have updated reliable information as opposed to speculation. Anyway, how many of you would be interested in participating in such a project, and starting a fund to support the research costs?

Keep in mind I have absolutely no idea what Dead Link Removed charges for these services, but I’m guessing its fairly expensive because they have some of the top names in the industry as clients. Nevertheless, APUG has around 14,000 members I think, and if a substantial portion would find such a report helpful, it might be worth looking into.

Let me know your thoughts.

Regards,
Martin

Martin;

I spent 4 hours talking to Henry this spring and then took the ICIS short course on image stability after a tour through the RIT image stability labe.

There are so many different opinions it is hard to determine what is right and what is wrong. What should you use? 200FC or 500FC, SO2 + NOX + H2S at what temp and humidity and etc. This is a sticky problem especially when it comes to making the Arrhenius plots match real world (accelerated vs real time).

No one is agreed.

The ISO standards committee is still working on this sticky problem.

PE

PE,

So in your opinion do you think such a research study at this point would be, well, pointless? Any additional input would be helpful also.

Regards,
Martin

I think it would be cool, but it could do nothing more than establish a baseline for certain materials and procedures, i.e, I'm fairly certain will I use a different paper, exposure,stop, fixer, water, toner, washing procedure, dry, etc, than the next person, and so while a baseline would be interesting, it could only be an approximation, because of the exponential set of variables involved.

Nothing like ink- [Paper A with ink B- test]

Yes, I realize there is a much greater set of variables... But if we were able to publish those variables used, along with the permanence findings, I agree it would provide a good baseline.

Wilhelm gets paid a lot of money to do tests on inkjet by the manufacturers themselves. I have always viewed their results with a great deal of skepticism because of this. After all it would be bad business if a manufacturer spent a ton of money on a test then the results were not what they expected. Do you see where I am going with this?

Yes, I do see your point. The truth is everyone is getting paid in some capacity, and within academics, this is probably the least likely area to see some bias. Although, from what I read his work is fairly well respected, and I've heard to be conservative. Sometimes you have to expect people to provide a proper service, and be ethical.

Well, with one standard, one product stands out, but with another standard another product stands out. Who is right? IDK.

One thing that many people miss in testing digital prints is image smear. Digital images smear over time whereas no analog photo does. How will this affect your 'appreciation' of a digital image in 50 years.

One curator told a friend that he considered digital images archival if they lasted for 40 years. Since analog images last over 100 years, who is this guy kidding? Where did he come up with 40 years?

I can also add that RIT has a huge Image Permanance Lab here in Rochester (I hope I got that name right). I've been there and seen their facility with Henry this spring. It is quite impressive, but they too agree that results vary widely depending on test conditions. Products are all over the map for stability.

My experience says "keep with a standard test and use it to test everything you do". This method will yield a plot of your product over time and it will eventually show something up as you change the product, and as you keep the product under real home or office conditions. So, if you keep records for 100 years, then in 100 years you will begin to be able to see what the real product is like under real conditions.

Kodak has been running tests like this for about 50 years under accelerated conditions and only now can they see trends in the improvement and be able to match them to 50 year old products.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

One thing that many people miss in testing digital prints is image smear. Digital images smear over time whereas no analog photo does.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting observation. Can you cite any reference or empirical basis for it?

Oren Grad said:

That's an interesting observation. Can you cite any reference or empirical basis for it?

Click to expand...

Yes, the ICIS short course on image stability taught by Dr. Jon Kapecki, formerly of Eastman Kodak and one of my coworkers.

The textbook with this information is available from ICIS for a nominal fee.

(ICIS=International Congress of Imaging Scientists)

PE

Well thanks for the input from everyone. Perhaps its not so worthwhile to conduct such a test for current products, and I should follow along general methods that are accepted to extent print life, such as toning, and proper washing.

Its probably better if I leave these worries aside and get out to shoot some new photos!

Regards,
Martin

Image Smear and other factors

Things were simplier in the silver halide days.

Photo Engineer is correct that image smear can be a significant problem in some ink jet materials exposed to humid conditions, along with concurrent density changes and hue shift. It is this combination of effects and their complex psychophysical (or perceptual) interactions that make designing a valid test for humidity effects so difficult.

An excellent paper, and the one I think Photo Engineer may be referring to, is by Hill, Suitor and Artz (researchers at Eastman Kodak) and was presented at the Non-Impact Printing Conference 16 (NIP16) organized by the Society for Imaging Science and Technology.

It demostrates how important it is to make sure that you correlate measurements made with instruments with human factor studies. Alas, such studies done right are expensive and some testing laboratories skip that critical step.

In the Hill, et. al., study it was found that either hue shift or smearing can dominate or they can interact when correlating changes with observer evaluations of print quality.

This also emphasizes that in the digital world more than ever one must consider all four environmental factors: heat, light, gases (largely, but not exclusively, ozone) and humidity--and that these factors must be in balance. Set your presumed light level much higher than real values and your test may mask out the real changes caused by, say, ozone--which has happened in some published test results.

Be suspicious of published tests results that show only, say, light, and list ozone or humidity only as "in progress". Check back to see if these values are ever filled in. Could it be that the product does not do well under those factors and the person who paid for the test is reluctant to have them published? And what does that tell you about the folks actually doing the test?

Yep!

And, I would guess I know who PhotoSci is. ~grins~

PE