Print display life expectancy of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome vs RA-4

[DREW WILEY]

Well Sal, I'd have to classify your opinion in the category of religion, since every other serious printer I know recognized the superior display
permanence of Ciba when it was introduced to either C prints or typical Kodak dye transfer prints (though hypothetically more permanent DT dyes
existed, and were sometimes substituted). Dark permanence is far better, though Cibas are fragile to handle; and all this is obviously subject to
sensible display or storage norms of temp, humidity, etc. How much chromogenic prints have improved is hard to say. I've got a big installation under
mixed non-ideal artificial light and natural sky light that I check up on from time to time. But it might outlive me. Of course, I have nothing against
controlled, quantified laboratory accelerated aging tests and so forth; they're a valuable and necessary phase of R&D. But they can't begin to cover
all the relevant variables that only real time, under a variety of circumstances, can.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Then others disagreed with me. As always, I persisted in pointing out that Cibachrome/Ilfochrome doesn't live up to its hype about long life on display in typical consumer conditions. Ron asked that the discussion be moved to a separate thread and I complied. So here we are. That's "why the debate."

I never initiate these Cibachrome/Ilfochrome exchanges. They only occur in response to claims (or parroting of such claims) by those who probably have a financial interest in the sale/re-sale of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints. In my opinion and experience, RA-4 prints not only look much better than Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints, they also last longer on display under typical consumer conditions.




Hi Sal

I believed the hype, in 1997/8 I bought one of the dedicated Cibachrome processors, I think about 30-40 were made world wide, this processor was designed for one purpose , make Cibachromes.

You are completely correct IMO that people who have a vested interest in any product will bark the product and due to financial pressures make silly statements, and in some cases not really be able to back it up.
About the time I purchased the dedicated machine for this process Ilford promised a 200 year clause, which now looking back, and even at the time was total horse shit. But all manufacturers have the same
game, Remember when Kodak came out with C prints and the hype about lasting memories, lots of high class wedding companies out of business due to fading prints.

One thing about Ciba prints, love it or hate it , there was a special look to the high gloss material that has IMO never been equalled, some say the Fuji and Kodak high gloss stocks come close
but not in my opinion.
On the fading side I have to agree that many , many Cibas I made have faded, now I may have been a lousy technician , using third rate methods, but I want to be kinder on myself, as this unit
I bought was made for the product, and at that time I used short burst runs with fresh chemistry plan to not have a long replenishment system but a very dedicated run and shut down, It worked for
me for years.

At my shop I had RA4 and I had Ciba , so to do a test a I was convinced that Ciba would last longer, I made a series of prints form the same files, on Fuji , Kodak and Cibachrome, I then put a lamination
on them to protect them from the elements and put them outside my shop on a North Light facing wall.

To my horror, within one year All the Prints faded. That was the day I stopped harping on about Cibachrome permanence. A few years later due to Switzerland's complete lack of marketing and
ability to deliver components for the process I threw the processor out, with probably 10 more good years on it. I have not looked back.

Today I feel the inkjet materials are better than any C print, and I am experimenting with pigment in gum prints for my thirst for permanent prints.

I think this debate will go on, and on and on. It does not surprise me whatsoever that young photographers do not offer print sales any more like they did in the past, but rather
pass off files to the customers... think about it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I thought a file was something that got slipped into a magazine, so that an inmate can get his bars cut through. Imagine if the digital age had only
been sooner - Michelangelo would charge a royalty to anyone with a 3D printer, so they could make their own plastic statues. Disgusting. ... Well,
I sure miss Ciba. It could be an extraordinarily beautiful medium if you learned how to beat it into submission. I find the look of inkjet in general to
be comparatively disappointing, though for less precise small-format work they seem appropriate. I'm VERY skeptical about the claims of color inkjet
longevity, simply because so many ingredients are involved and there just hasn't been much real time yet to know the truth about the endless potential variables. I suspect that some of them will prove more permanent than Ciba or ordinary chromogenic prints. And inkjets are not actual pigment prints; they contain a lot of garden-variety dyes too, so color shifts are inevitable. Nothing is truly permanent, not even the pyramids of
Egypt - just note how much they've been mauled and looted over time.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Well Sal, I'd have to classify your opinion in the category of religion, since every other serious printer I know recognized the superior display permanence of Ciba when it was introduced to either C prints...

Not religion, and not relevant to the display life of C-prints way back when Cibachrome was introduced. I displayed Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints next to Fuji Crystal Archive prints in the fluorescent-illuminated office environment decribed earlier in this thread. Fact, not fantasy.

...I have nothing against controlled, quantified laboratory accelerated aging tests and so forth; they're a valuable and necessary phase of R&D. But they can't begin to cover all the relevant variables that only real time, under a variety of circumstances, can.

I wasn't interested in "a variety of circumstances." Only the circumstances in which I was going to display prints. Those modern RA-4 prints faded much less than silver-dye-bleach prints. And the RA-4 prints weren't obnoxiously glossy like the loser prints were, an added bonus.

...On the fading side I have to agree that many , many Cibas I made have faded, now I may have been a lousy technician , using third rate methods, but I want to be kinder on myself, as this unit I bought was made for the product, and at that time I used short burst runs with fresh chemistry plan to not have a long replenishment system but a very dedicated run and shut down, It worked for me for years.

At my shop I had RA4 and I had Ciba , so to do a test a I was convinced that Ciba would last longer, I made a series of prints form the same files, on Fuji , Kodak and Cibachrome, I then put a lamination
on them to protect them from the elements and put them outside my shop on a North Light facing wall.

To my horror, within one year All the Prints faded. That was the day I stopped harping on about Cibachrome permanence...

Gee, Bob, you're probably an even bigger hack in the darkroom than I am. I wonder whether your fading Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints will be blamed on your processing, like mine were, by those who talk up the product in this thread.

 

[DREW WILEY]

But Bob... what on earth kind of intergalactic death ray beam did you invent that would fade a Ciba in a year? The worst projector halogens in a
gallery in this area were so damn hot they melted acrylic pigments on paintings - and it took over two years for them to take their toll on Cibas.
I've had big Cibas on continuous display for over thirty years, including some more realistic halogen torture in public venues, and they still look damn good, even if not 100% pristine (I can tell the difference, the public probably can't yet). What on earth did you mount them with, hydrofluoric acid?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michael - enjoy your print. It will eventually fade. But moderate incandescent will have minimal effect, so it will likely look nice for a very long time.
The UV-blocking glass itself will probably have only a minor effect. Condensation behind glass in a clammy environment and resultant mildew are
a bigger risk to Ciba. Certain prototype dye-destruction prints from the 1930's are still in excellent condition, albeit in storage. Of all the hundreds of
Cibas I made, only the ones hung many years in DIRECT sunlight failed, and that was after more than twenty years. There are some experimental
conditions where I used certain wrong mounting adhesives side by side with more sensible options, even of the same image, and have seen a dramatic difference in longevity. For example, spray adhesives are utter voodoo; but they kill picture framers relatively soon too!

 

[Bob Carnie]

So can you guys tell me if I'm screwed or not. I have a Christopher Burkett ciba print. It is framed under UV-blocking glass but is only really exposed to incandescent room lighting (it is exposed to little if any daylight). I like it, so I don't feel like keeping it in a dark drawer (whether or not that would extend its life). Am I doomed? Will this beautiful print look like crap in a few years?

Hi Michael

All I can say is enjoy your print, I doubt anyone here can state honestly whether it will fade or not, this is a complicated issue that I think Sal has addressed about financial chest beating , vs wishful thinking and promises by the manufacturer. I personally think it will age well with you and as you get older you
will always see the same image and like it. As an investment to sell in 20 years, don't count your money yet.
For example I was at dinner the other night at a client of mine who had displayed a 30 x 50 inch cibachrome print I did over 16 years ago, it has been on his dining room wall for the whole time. It looked great , much like what a great print should look like, if it had faded I would have immediately noticed.

 

[Bob Carnie]

But Bob... what on earth kind of intergalactic death ray beam did you invent that would fade a Ciba in a year? The worst projector halogens in a
gallery in this area were so damn hot they melted acrylic pigments on paintings - and it took over two years for them to take their toll on Cibas.
I've had big Cibas on continuous display for over thirty years, including some more realistic halogen torture in public venues, and they still look damn good, even if not 100% pristine (I can tell the difference, the public probably can't yet). What on earth did you mount them with, hydrofluoric acid?

Just north light I kid you not. Kind of gave me a shock as well.
but remember I am a lousy technician.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In Bob's case, perhaps the lamination material was the problem. Often, these clear laminates cause the release of chemicals inimical to dyes. IDK. Just a thought.

OTOH, I can say that from day 1, Kodak engineers worked constantly to improve color image stability in both film and paper. In addition, the images made by dye transfer were not bad for stability by any means. They used both azo and anthroquinone dyes.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh... fluorescents, Sal. Hmmm. Just noticed that. In many cases, high high UV. Now I'm starting to put two and two together, and it ain't the fault of Ciba, my dear Watson. Fluorescents fade everything. Got all kinds of em here, including some expensive full spectrum ones, since my eyes are sensitive. Even the wall paint has differentially faded based on how high up the wall it is. Product labels on high shelves fade in a matter of weeks.
Sorry to debunk your religion.

 

[Bob Carnie]

In Bob's case, perhaps the lamination material was the problem. Often, these clear laminates cause the release of chemicals inimical to dyes. IDK. Just a thought.

OTOH, I can say that from day 1, Kodak engineers worked constantly to improve color image stability in both film and paper. In addition, the images made by dye transfer were not bad for stability by any means. They used both azo and anthroquinone dyes.

PE

Yes as soon as I posted I know it was a problem but all three papers got the same lamination but you are certainly right.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bob, now you know why me and Bigfoot do so much research in advance. And with over a 200-year lifespan, his species can tell you even about the
tricky points of salt prints.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Thanks for the feedback. I intend to enjoy the print for as long as it lasts - hopefully it fades after I do but I guess all I can do is take care of it and enjoy looking at it.

Pretty much the secret of photography is to enjoy it , I have salon walls at home with work I like. My wife is not as happy but I certainly love the images.

I have a John and Yoko image that Gerry Daiter took at the Montreal hotel when they recorded Give Peace A Chance. I was saying to Laura the other night on how much I love the images and how many
people in the world would have these great portraits to look at, not many. Photography is for enjoying on walls IMHO not to be secluded away in boxes.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I agree. I am lucky enough to own a few black and white prints an art investor would say should be kept in a drawer but to me art is for looking at and enjoying. Of course I try to do the best I reasonably can in taking care of them, but keeping them locked away in a temperature controlled vault somewhere doesn't appeal to me. Nothing lasts forever, so in the long run, beyond a certain point, whether or not something remains in its original state for an extra n years is probably trivial anyway.

Agreed - I am still pinning away to own a original Drew Wiley but he has been cagey with me and not willing to sell one.

 

[Bob Carnie]

If you ever get your hands on one I'll make the trip to Toronto to see it.

No way I am sending it to the AGO for evaluation then will sell it to some Billionaires I know for the best price.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Patience, Bob, patience.... all in due time. I'll just never let on that it was actually Bigfoot who printed them. I'll drop out of sight for awhile near the
the end of the year, then seriously start up the photo nonsense again once my tile work is done. Trying to get the outdoor repairs done now before
the weather turns, but am still obviously juggling a day job - two more months to go!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Fluorescents fade everything...Sorry to debunk your religion.

It ain't religion and you ain't debunked nuttin'.

Try reading post #7. While dark-stored control prints and reflection densitometer comparisons with displayed counterparts might have revealed some differences, the modern RA-4 images I had on the wall in my fluorescent-lit office were not visibly changed after a decade. Cibachrome/Ilfochrome samples next to them were obviously faded.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm not challenging your microcosm experience, Sal. But it isn't representative of typical outcome. Different kinds of dyes can do different things,
sometimes strangely. For example, certain dyes which were engineered for very high lux but momentary film projection aren't very good at all for
low-lux long term display prints. But "dumbell" diazo dyes inherently require more energy to split apart than chromogenic dyes. And there aren't any residual color couplers to yellow things later. Cibas are far more tolerant of heat and chemical vapors, for example. UV is their weak point, along with fragility of that shiny surface to dents and fingerprints. That's why I display them under good ole tungsten bulbs (which are certainly getting harder to find, now that we're expected to prematurely go blind using discontinuous-spectrum "energy saving bulbs"). This can be a complex subject with many twists and turns; and HOW they're mounted and stored is equally important. And there is general consensus that chromogenic prints have improved in recent years. But going back twenty years or so, and reviewing stacks of properly stored prints, the Cibas are hands-down the conspicuously winners. I'm glad for that; but going forward, have no choice but to print chromogenic. It's taken me quite a bit of time and money to truly switch.
Yeah, commercial-quality C-prints are a piece of cake to print, always have been. Getting up to the level of my personal Ciba work is another story.
Just getting there now. And just maybe I'll find some time to make one or two decent dye transfer prints before I fade into obscurity myself.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have an autographed B&W photo of the launch of John Glenn. Interestingly, it looks just like the day it was made over 50 years ago, but the autograph has faded almost completely. This is essentially dark stored.

OTOH, I have 2 color prints, mounted the same and stored the same and autographed and framed, and show no evident fade. The autographs in this case are on the mat mount instead of the photograph.

There are so many variables in fading of ANYTHING (including us fading away ) that we know little. All we can say is that things tested the same are gradually getting better.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bob - guess you don't have much experience dealing with billionaires. Anybody can outbid them, cause it's those guys who either haggle you down
to nothing or else never do pay for what they take.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It ain't religion and you ain't debunked nuttin'.

Try reading post #7. While dark-stored control prints and reflection densitometer comparisons with displayed counterparts might have revealed some differences, the modern RA-4 images I had on the wall in my fluorescent-lit office were not visibly changed after a decade. Cibachrome/Ilfochrome samples next to them were obviously faded.

Fluorescent?
So?
I have Ilfochrome Classic prints on display here in my studio and in galleries (common spot-spread illumination) that have been displayed in all manner of lighting for three times the duration of yours. So you have probably not had your prints processed correctly for them to fade in 10 years. Was it a commercial lab, or home processing? If home processing, the findings have scant validity and little bearing.

If RA4 prints of 30+ years ago had the display beauty and bold depth of replicating a transparency, the method would have been widely used and taken up. The sad fact is RA4 of that time was a failure, with not a single gallery I know of taking up RA4 prints in acquisitions. Not just about the media, but how the subject was portrayed in its beauty on that media (in effect, as much about the skill of the photographers bringing their subject to life as much as printing it to media that did that subject and its beauty justice). It was always Ilfochromes (and the Cibas before them). I have RA4 prints produced in 1987, a year before I switched to Ilfochrome (they are in mint condition). Pearl finish with black borders, they are so disappointing to look at (and interestingly, watermarked AFGA GAEVERT) that they are consigned to the folder of quaint relicts of a bygone era.

As I've mentioned in much earlier posts, today's RA4 prints are a tour de force, with media giving a poke in the side to Ilfochromes and providing much better, faster and easier repeatability and rock-solid quality (material faults with Ilfochrome Classic have become almost folklore, but sad and brutal fact, in the years leading up to '010).

But there is a bigger problem here I want to mention. The vehemence with which you state your case may ultimately convincing, but only to some. Please state where your testing and research was conducted, detailed methodology, at what time (year/s span), which journal published your findings, the challenges raised and citations following acceptance/proof, and issues that follow. I prefer cold, hard, peer-reviewed science, not populist opinion or one person's isolated findings. You know people don't earn a PhD without having their research challenged and proven, reviewed, published and cited!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I have Ilfochrome Classic prints on display here in my studio and in galleries (common spot-spread illumination) that have been displayed in all manner of lighting for three times the duration of yours...

So? Typical consumers regularly display prints in environments such as the fluorescent-illuminated office where mine were.

...you have probably not had your prints processed correctly for them to fade in 10 years. Was it a commercial lab, or home processing? If home processing, the findings have scant validity and little bearing...

Leigh tried that line of "attack the messenger" in posts #10 and #12; you took it up in post #13. I responded to you both in post #15. Repetition of an attempted deflection only bores readers.

...If RA4 prints of 30+ years ago had the display beauty and bold depth of replicating a transparency, the method would have been widely used and taken up. The sad fact is RA4 of that time was a failure, with not a single gallery I know of taking up RA4 prints in acquisitions...

Red herring. I've made no comment about RA-4 prints of 30+ years ago. My comparison was Cibachrome/Ilfochrome to modern Fuji Crystal Archive RA-4. In my aesthetic opinion, the latter have much more beauty and depth than the obnoxious gloss of the former. As previously stated, I was happy to see my display fade results (which correlated with Wilhelm's), since they eliminated any reason to deal with a ridiculously shiny print surface.

...The vehemence with which you state your case...

Ad hominem attacks demean only the attacker. There's nothing 'vehement' about what I've written. Never initiated by me, I merely respond to counteract occasional 'marketing-speak' posts from those who promote sale and/or resale of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints.

Please state where your testing and research was conducted, detailed methodology, at what time (year/s span), which journal published your findings, the challenges raised and citations following acceptance/proof, and issues that follow. I prefer cold, hard, peer-reviewed science, not populist opinion or one person's isolated findings. You know people don't earn a PhD without having their research challenged and proven, reviewed, published and cited!...

As previously stated in post #9, my trial was neither controlled, scientific nor peer-reviewed. This ain't a PhD thesis; it's something I did to see first-hand which of two print materials would hold up better on display in the environment of interest to me. Disparage all you want; it won't change the facts or results, which align with those published by Wilhelm.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

As previously stated in post #9, my trial was neither controlled, scientific nor peer-reviewed.

I was waiting for that. So your attacks on those who used and know of the background of Ilfochrome Classic are largely indefensible. Sorry. They are. You made it clear in the last few words. It's just a hobbyist making a finding and putting those findings on a pedestal compared to Wilhelm. Drrrrft. Read what Drew said. You're having a hard time countering some facts, yes?

So? Typical consumers regularly display prints in environments such as the fluorescent-illuminated office where mine were.

"Typical consumers"? Oh my. The big twisters of all sociologists. Define them.
Fluorescent-illuminated gallery spaces are very, very common too. Not all galleries are rolling in gold ducats!

What else was in your office that could effect prints? One of my Ilfochrome Classic prints is in The renal unit of the Royal Children's Hospital. This is fluorescent illuminated and next to a meerkat enclosure (the hospital has a small zoo for the kids). That print was given to the hospital in 1989 (a gift to an outgoing Nephrologist) and moved from the old hospital (1952 to 2010) to the new one. So, about this fading under fluorescent illumination...

If your hobby is to attack photographers who produced their work to Ilfochrome Classic, you have a problem underlying that type of thinking. So we can see, evidently, you sneer at Ilfochrome Classic and sneer at photographers producing their work to it ('cause you don't like it), but your slight is based on your own odd, rudimentary experimentation with no solid review. You have shot yourself in the foot with that single line in reply. No credibility. None. Zero. Zilch.

I must ask you, what did you expect photographers to use when that (IC) material worked so well for the intended purpose — of showing off the best of a photographer's work? And what's this about "promoting sale or resale of Ilfochrome prints?" When did we promote the sale or resale" of it? Evidence please. We photographed. We produced. We printed. We sold. Just like brush artists do with their work. And it was not just IC: a variety of giclée was produced too when it first came out. The market being catered for required variety, but first and foremost the market desired quality imaging and printing — something you have no concept of. I would think it terribly crass to bang on about Ilfochrome Classic as being a pot of gold ducats for me? My job was, when commissioned or producing my own work, to first and foremost, make the image. The print was secondary, but it had to be bloody good for the cost of all of my work (the IC printing was a small part of the overall fee structure).

I am commissioned from 4th November for a project. It will be printed to giclée and RA4. No love lost for the old maven that has passed into history, but it was a great run over the decades, and it endures. For a huge number of people. But not you! The client has seen these RA4 prints, and also been given a history of the Ilfochrome prints on display in my studio, referrals to view others in corporate collections, and the differences between the two processes (e.g. RA4 is today is widely hybridised).

Had you have provided detailed reviews of your testing, I would have held my interest. As things are now, having shot yourself in the foot, I've lost all interest in your fervent gospel test. It's dead in the water.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Just a comment. Are you sure that RA4 existed 30 years ago?

I do know that dye stability has improved exponentially over the last 50 years or so.

PE

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Just a comment. Are you sure that RA4 existed 30 years ago?

I do know that dye stability has improved exponentially over the last 50 years or so.

PE

Yes. I had a photo done last night of these early prints to show, but now I find I cannot upload this...something's akimbo....hmmmm.. FYI, they were produced by a Finn (Asko Rihannen), whose speciality was B&W printing — Asko was very well regarded amongst photographers of that time if they didn't have their own darkroom (he printed 4 editions of my Ilford fibre triptych, "The Moorings"). There was no giclée printing at that time in commercial labs locally.

As a further note, the Kodak RA4 machine at my present lab came into service in 1989. As you can doubtless confirm, the machine cost a king's fortune back then (I think the owner said it was about $5,000 now!!), but is now a filthy, grubby, smelly, finger-smudged but nevertheless excellent printer for what it does, lol! Gotta love old Kodak stalwarts...