The Disaster of Color Photography

Wayne · Jan 2, 2017

I've always liked the look but I'd add one more con to the list. You have to work with a known carcinogen.

Photo Engineer · Jan 2, 2017

Wayne said:
I've always liked the look but I'd add one more con to the list. You have to work with a known carcinogen.

Which are you pointing to?

PE

Wayne · Jan 2, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Which are you pointing to?

PE

Tri-color gum (or any gum, AFAIK)

Bob Carnie · Jan 3, 2017

I suspect you mean ammonium dicromate???

each print uses up a equal amount to pigment, this dicromate washes off, we wear gloves. I would be very interested in PE 's recommendation on handling and disposal.

Photo Engineer · Jan 3, 2017

Well, I was asking which chemical, because there are several chemicals involved besides Dichromate. Chrome is a nasty heavy metal that does a lot of damage in the Dichromate form. Chrome Alum is less toxic. Reducing the "red" Dichromate to the "blue" Chromate might help a bit.

PE

Anon Ymous · Jan 3, 2017

PE, do you mean treatment with Sodium sulfite when you say reduction? I suppose hexavalent to trivalent, is that correct?

Photo Engineer · Jan 3, 2017

I've forgotten the oxidation states of Chromium OTOMH. The stuff is complex. All I remember is that the blue is less harmful. There is also a green form that is less harmful.

Look it up on Wikipedia.

PE

Wayne · Jan 3, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Well, I was asking which chemical, because there are several chemicals involved besides Dichromate. Chrome is a nasty heavy metal that does a lot of damage in the Dichromate form. Chrome Alum is less toxic. Reducing the "red" Dichromate to the "blue" Chromate might help a bit.

PE

Yes, sorry I meant the dichromate

Photo Engineer · Jan 3, 2017

Chromium ion is always toxic to some extent. Care must be taken.

PE

Wayne · Jan 4, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Chromium ion is always toxic to some extent. Care must be taken.

PE

Care can be taken by others. Accidents happen and I'm not willing to let the cost of accidents to be that high. Tis a shame, because there are a number of processes I'd try but for the dichromates. Tis OK though, there's plenty else I can do.

perkeleellinen · Jan 4, 2017

Really interesting discussion. It's tempting to comment on how professional pictures stored in museums have deteriorated beyond hope but amateur snaps stored in shoe boxes are holding up. But I suppose the exacting standards of the museum world mean that my parent's 1966 colour wedding photos which I think are fine would be a right off given a critical eye.

Chris Livsey · Jan 15, 2017

perkeleellinen said:
But I suppose the exacting standards of the museum world mean that my parent's 1966 colour wedding photos which I think are fine would be a right off given a critical eye.

I suspect if Martin Parr, to take one example, was curating you would be in the gallery and catalogue.
Some examples to Google:
"Archaeology in Reverse"
"A Series of Disappointments"
Both Stephen Gill, and I do have another of his books and it is actually worthwhile.
Perhaps one of Parr's lesser known works "Playas"

What is going wrong here is people are storing prints not getting books published, books will last longer, dispersed storage

AgX · Jan 15, 2017

But the artist/photographer photobook world is in trouble too. With edititions that will not yield production costs.

Chris Livsey · Jan 15, 2017

https://www.ft.com/content/be1fd978-bceb-11e4-a917-00144feab7de
Why photobooks are booming in a digital age

http://time.com/3903894/why-this-is-not-the-golden-age-for-photobooks/
Why This Is Not the Golden Age for Photobooks

Print on demand is used by a number of photographers I know personally and allows .pdf download for payment as well. The commercial market may be overproducing, and there are reasons for that, but self publishing has never been more affordable and in the context of this thread, for archival reasons, is a valid option IMHO.

Halford · Jan 15, 2017

AgX said:
But the artist/photographer photobook world is in trouble too. With edititions that will not yield production costs.

I'm not sure if this is a "photo book" issue so much as a self-publishing issue in general. The modern self-publishing market is only a few years old and suddenly lots of would-be publishing lone rangers in every genre are finding that perhaps publishers did do something to earn their keep after all (not always of course, but often). Books are expensive things to make whether you're doing POD photobooks or massive mass-market offset-web-printed paperbacks.

Lachlan Young · Jan 15, 2017

Chris Livsey said:
self publishing has never been more affordable and in the context of this thread, for archival reasons, is a valid option IMHO.

That all depends on the nature of the inks used - a great many offset inks are only guaranteed lightfast for 180 days - there are ones with good archival stability, but it requires communication between you and the printer. Not sure what the lifespan of Indigo & POD inks/ toners are - recall a claim of 50 years in indirect light, but cannot be sure.

There's also a whole pile of other problems - papers loaded with optical brightener, colour gamut issues, choosing the correct linescreen etc, etc.

Cropline · Jan 15, 2017

jnanian said:
i wouldn't be surprised if they were not only bad for photographs of all types, but bad for humans and domesticated animals as well !

I'm also thinking air freshening and disinfectant sprays. Think the majority is processing style and location/method of display

Gerald C Koch · Jan 15, 2017

Comparing apples and oranges here. A B&W image is formed from metal grains and therefore very stable. On the other hand a color image is formed from various dyes. Dyes interact with white light that is why they look colored to us. This same interaction also causes them to fade on exposure to light. Dye bleach prints like Cibachrome take advantage of preformed dyes such as those to dye cloth and are more stable to light. But if archival stability of an image is desired then one must resort to tri-color separation negatives along with periodic reprinting of the image. The link explains the dye transfer method of making prints.

http://airwreck.com/dnloads/E80.pdf

Bob Carnie · Jan 16, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
Comparing apples and oranges here. A B&W image is formed from metal grains and therefore very stable. On the other hand a color image is formed from various dyes. Dyes interact with white light that is why they look colored to us. This same interaction also causes them to fade on exposure to light. Dye bleach prints like Cibachrome take advantage of preformed dyes such as those to dye cloth and are more stable to light. But if archival stability of an image is desired then one must resort to tri-color separation negatives along with periodic reprinting of the image. The link explains the dye transfer method of making prints.

http://airwreck.com/dnloads/E80.pdf

In my post #103 I use separation negatives to make my prints... thanks Gerald for Posting the pdf .

The Disaster of Color Photography

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency