The Disaster of Color Photography

Mainecoonmaniac · Dec 27, 2016

Maybe some art is made to be ephemeral? Anyway, Jackson Pollock used house paint on his works that cost hundreds of millions. Some of his paintings required restoration. Some art is really temporary. Tibetan Buddhist monks make intricate sand paintings just to be destroyed later. This art form shows how everything is temporary. I'm not discounting the value or archival materials and processes.

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 27, 2016

MattKing said:
The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won the Cup since 1967.
And the Vancouver Canucks have never won the Cup.
Now that is a disaster!
There are a lot of artistic endeavours and materials that have finite lives. And some of those lives are relatively short. If there is any "disaster" it is that some expect colour C prints to have the same durability as black and white materials. They don't.

And what's even more disastrous is that the Leafs will probably win another cup before the Canucks ever do!

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 27, 2016

pentaxuser said:
Can I ask: Does the first sentence above indicate that you have never tried RA4 printing yet and you are basing your conclusions on this one exhibition?
Can you give us your evidence on Kodak Endura and does this sentiment that it is crap extend to Fuji paper or is it simply Kodak Endura?

I have boxes of color prints that I made back in the late 90s that have never been displayed, just kept dark in portfolios. The base color has yellowed significantly and the color has shifted. I have not seen a complete and total print failure on these prints.

About four years ago, I did a display of my dog portraits for a local veterinarian's office. These were large prints on Kodak Endura paper. The office faces a parking lot and gets some pretty strong light bouncing in, though not direct sunlight. All prints were framed with UV glass. Today, they are completely ruined. I'd say they were probably ready for the trashcan at least a year ago but I don't stop by there every day.

I have some other prints at another office that I made on Fuji Crystal Archive. I need to stop in and check them out. Much lower light conditions there, for sure.

Kilgallb · Dec 27, 2016

There's a possibility some credulous collector of "vintage prints" might be duped into wasting money on one of these prints, but in my opinion they were only worthy of the trash can. I have seen Shore prints in similar condition at a local gallery and wondered if anyone would be stupid enough to buy them.

What is a Shore Print?

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 27, 2016

Les Sarile said:
You see some color prints by professionals from the 80's deteriorated and you conclude that this applies to all?

I have many from the 60's on up - all I am sure where drug store prints and not kept in the best way, and they are not bad at all.

It always amazes me that someone can make one observation sample and make a sweeping conclusion.

I think we all have color prints in shoe boxes that look fairly decent. It's obviously not a medium worthy of continuous display and exposure to light.

Theo Sulphate · Dec 27, 2016

Kilgallb said:
...
What is a Shore Print?

Print from photographer Stephen Shore, e.g. Uncommon Places (one of my favorites):

(for me there are so many delightful elements in this photo that I'm absolutely giddy whenever I view it)

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 27, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Where do I start? Where the prints properly fixed and washed when made? Where the prints mounted with not acidic archival materials? How were they stored? Humidity? Temperature? Exposure to sun light? Exposure to fluorescent light? Pollution? People smoking in the area?

These were all purchased from one of Atlanta's top art galleries and were part of a significant corporate art collection. Everything was framed and matted using archival materials. The prints were displayed on interior walls, in a climate controlled office environment. No smokers. Plenty of fluorescent light. Variable day light from windows, but no direct sun light.

Most of them have been in a dark storage room for an extended period of time, as the company was without an art manager for many, many years.

removed account4 · Dec 27, 2016

color photography, except for only a handful of non "modern" ways of making images
( and who knows about them since they are not as old as "vintage processes' )
it is kind of a given that they aren't made to last forever if not processed " just so".
im not sure why a photographer ( or gallery ) who sold a photograph would have problems printing another, i remember when
kodak / fuji came out with new papers in the early 2000s and 1990s that were supposed to have
a massive lifespan, but had troubles ... every portrait photographer and their brother was getting
"reprints" from their friendly pro-lab. seems that "arcane processes" like dye transfer and gum-overs
and labs that had good process-methods last. there are plenty of b/w photographers labs that have pumped out
prints that haven't lasted ( from the 1840s on up ). if processed "correctly" color is currently supposed to last 800 years
and bw rc the same ......

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 27, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Yes, but it is easier to post defaming thread than to mount the prints archivally, display them out of the sun and away from fluorescent lights, in rooms that are not smoke filled, OR use the negative to make a new print. It is just so emotionally pleasing to condemn a century of others hard work.

This is a major corporate art collection with Picasso, Rodin, Matisse, Lichtenstein, Rauschenberg, Stella, and more. NONE of those artist's work has disintegrated, despite being many decades older than these color prints. They spent major cash to acquire, frame, preserve, archive and display their art collection. I doubt any expense was spared.

Not trying to get my jollies, just pointing out a painfully obvious truth. The sad thing is that these artists worked so hard and their work has faded to nothing. I am sure that these artists have recently taken advantage of digital scanning and printing tech but how does that compensate someone who bought an inferior print technology?

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 27, 2016

Theo Sulphate said:
Print from photographer Stephen Shore, e.g. Uncommon Places (one of my favorites):
(for me there are so many delightful elements in this photo that I'm absolutely giddy whenever I view it)

Oddly enough, I was able to pull a collection of Jim Dow's "Stadium Photographs" off of my bookshelf and compare them with the now faded originals. I would much rather own the book!

Photo Engineer · Dec 27, 2016

Prints from the '90s are not Endura and would not be CA3, the latest. Revisions have been made several times. There was Supra 1, 2, and 3. Then Endura and Supra Endura. Before the '90s was Plus and Ektacolor 70 and 73. So, which version is it. BTW, bad washing can show serious yellowing just like B&W. You retain silver and hypo.

PE

Les Sarile · Dec 28, 2016

ParkerSmithPhoto said:
I think we all have color prints in shoe boxes that look fairly decent. It's obviously not a medium worthy of continuous display and exposure to light.

My mom also has shoeboxes full of unmounted prints too but I am talking about pictures of me and my siblings that are mounted and displayed. Myself, I have mounted color prints of pics I took in the early 80's that are not remotely anywhere in the deteriorated state you describe either.

Regardless, the point I am making is one should never make sweeping conclusions from one observation. You have exactly that, an observation.

Halford · Dec 28, 2016

Hmm, there are really two parts to the OP's post:

C-Prints deteriorate rapidly
Therefore making C-prints is a waste of time

On part 1, it looks like experience is sharply divided, and that there are enough variables that it's hard to make generalizations. But based on the OP's and other observations, yes, C-prints can deteriorate faster than one would like. But it's not necessarily true, and with good processing and storage, they can last a lot longer than the 30-odd years that collection lasted.

But even so, it's an arguable point -- you're not guaranteed a 100-year point.

My real problem is with the suggestion that if it's not archival, it's not worth doing. The week before Christmas, I went to a performance of Handel's Messiah -- it's an oratorio I love for its musical and lyrical richness. But you know, within milliseconds of the end of the final 'Amen', the echoes had died away and were completely irretrievable! Clearly nobody should waste their time singing or playing instruments!

Alright, you can reasonably say that people have different expectations from a collected photograph than from a musical performance, but archivability is not the be-all and end-all of whether a piece of art is worth making, sharing and enjoying. Everything comes to an end. Everything. Maybe c-prints fade in a few decades (and maybe not, depending), and silver prints in a century, books in a couple of centuries (if well printed and well bound), and marble sculptures a couple of millennia. But they too will be dust. So how long is 'long enough'?

I make c-prints because I enjoy making them, seeing them, hanging them, sharing them. 'Posterity' will have to make its own arrangements.

Rudeofus · Dec 28, 2016

ParkerSmithPhoto said:
This is a major corporate art collection with Picasso, Rodin, Matisse, Lichtenstein, Rauschenberg, Stella, and more. NONE of those artist's work has disintegrated, despite being many decades older than these color prints.

The gallery/art collection was lucky, since even old paintings are not always archivally stable. As famous as Van Gogh's bright yellow sun flowers are, as infamous they are with preservationists. Albrecht Dürer's hare is rarely shown to the general public, because prolonged exposure to light would quickly destroy it. Even the cave paintings of Altamira are now kept under special atmospheric conditions in order to preserve them for future generations.

The whole topic of art preservation is neither new, nor specific to color photography, and an art gallery losing a whole body of work due to this does not leave an impression of diligence or competence, even if their collection is currently valued more than my whole home town, including lock, stock and barrel.

Bob Carnie · Dec 28, 2016

As a working photographer the OP is pointing out an obvious problem with C type prints no matter what era , what region, it is a fact that there has been tremendous problems with this material , and in some cases where a photographer was dealing with clientele who can afford good counsel , the said photographer has stopped producing prints. Lawsuits can ruin someone who is working as a photographer.
People wonder why wedding photographers these days pass off disks/sticks to unsuspecting brides and grooms and the days of the printed wedding package is gone. Why take such a risk if you plan to work for 40-60 years like some of us.

I stopped my CPrint line two years ago, I doubt I will ever start it again, but when it was operational , I made sure all my clients new my views on the longevity of the product much like the OP has clearly stated. For some this problem has been the dirty little secret of colour photography, I would not call out the OP to abuse or ridicule , as he is stating the obvious, some here do not like the message for various professional reasons.

My business - photography printing has given me a big under standing of the quality of negatives, positives black and white and colour from the 50's till now , and as some state the materials can last and others go bad . I have worked at over 6 world class printing facility's and I can assure you all have the same issues with C type prints. This is one of the big reasons InkJet is taking over the colour market, there now is a grace period that these prints look good on the wall, I think we will see a similar problem with fading ... The general public is so naive that they will swallow the marketing message of pure archival , injet prints lasting for 200 plus years.

Mainecoonmaniac · Dec 28, 2016

I made some EP-2 prints back in the late 80's with the old Oriental color paper and they still look very fresh. Is it the paper and not the chemistry that determines longevity of the C print?

Les Sarile · Dec 28, 2016

[QUOTE="Bob Carnie, post: 1866667, member: 1767"I stopped my CPrint line two years ago, I doubt I will ever start it again, but when it was operational , I made sure all my clients new my views on the longevity of the product much like the OP has clearly stated. For some this problem has been the dirty little secret of colour photography, I would not call out the OP to abuse or ridicule , as he is stating the obvious, some here do not like the message for various professional reasons.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe anyone contests the degradation over time but the level of it. Given the responses, the degradation stated is abnormal. Are you agreeing with the level of deterioration represented - and that it applies to all, or not?

Bob Carnie · Dec 28, 2016

I am agreeing with Parker Smith yes, C prints in the photographic world I participate have been a disaster for long term collectable prints.

I also agree that others may not see this issue.

RPC · Dec 28, 2016

Kodak itself has put disclaimers on their products warning that dyes may change or fade in time, so it should be of no surprise to anyone that this happens.

However, many of us have seen that color prints, even on display, can last decades. On the other hand they can fade very rapidly. I believe the biggest factor is the processing, not the medium. Consider a print made by a diligent processor who bleach-fixed and washed properly, as I'm sure Kodak would have. At the other extreme consider one that exercised poor quality control, or in the case of the typical traditional mini-lab, used a washless process.

We can imagine then which one has the best chance of lasting decades on display and which one will fade rapidly, and explains the diversity of peoples' experiences.

The real disasters in color photography always seem to be related to poor processing/printing, which itself is often caused by ignorance, apathy, or profit, and not by the medium itself.

Les Sarile · Dec 28, 2016

Bob Carnie said:
Lawsuits can ruin someone . . .

I suppose like the "Do not eat" disclaimer on silica dessicant bags, some declaration that a print will only last for so long will have to be made.

Bob Carnie · Dec 28, 2016

Les Sarile said:
I suppose like the "Do not eat" disclaimer on silica dessicant bags, some declaration that a print will only last for so long will have to be made.

That would be the honourable thing to do, sadly this is not happening.

Maris · Dec 28, 2016

Years ago I was talking to the curator of photography at a big Australian art museum. She was trying to convince the board of directors to disburse almost a million dollars to acquire a major holding in American colour photography. The items were all large size C prints. I mentioned that the material would fade disasterously in a few decades. Her reply when something like this:

"I don't care. It's not my problem. It's not a problem for the Photography Department. It may become a problem for the Conservation Department. If you're worried talk to them. Their offices are down the hall."

The art jungle and the conservation workshop are two different places.

Theo Sulphate · Dec 28, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
If one s interested in archival color images there is nothing preventing the creation of tri-color separation negatives. There is the stability of B&W and the color images can be reconstructed at any time.

That seems like the best course to follow.

Photo Engineer · Dec 28, 2016

Both the paper and the process influence stability.

PE

Mainecoonmaniac · Dec 28, 2016

Maris said:
"I don't care. It's not my problem. It's not a problem for the Photography Department. It may become a problem for the Conservation Department. If you're worried talk to them. Their offices are down the hall."

The art jungle and the conservation workshop are two different places.

I used to work for a Museum in Northern California. With this one museum, there are patrons that donate money for acquisitions. If the museum doesn't spend the money, they have to write a report why they didn't spend the money. Also, It's the curator's job to acquire works of art that's culturally relevant. If curators are constantly worried about how archival the art they buy is, they'll never expand their collection.

The Disaster of Color Photography

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency