The Disaster of Color Photography

[cliveh]

Regard less of the image being colour or black & white, stable or unstable, it is only worth what an individual is prepared to pay for it.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

If anyone is interested you can check out http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com for extensive testing done on a wide variety of B&W and color materials, pigments and papers.

This is their extended fade test for Fuji Crystal Archive, and it provides a great representation as to the condition of the prints in the collection as well as the ones I had displayed at the vet's office. Aardenburg places their Upper Exposure Limit for this material at only 28 megalux hours before noticeable fading.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well there you have it. Do not display color prints under Megalux-hour lamps. Although A4 and A5 seem to be unaffected by the strong light.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is reciprocity in fade. Therefore, beware that high intensity tests differ substantially from low intensity tests.

PE

 

[Kilgallb]

There is reciprocity in fade. Therefore, beware that high intensity tests differ substantially from low intensity tests.

PE

Interesting, Kodak and Epson have been exchanging blows on this. Epson tests pigments with a broader spectrum and high intensity light while Kodak tests at lower intensity and narrower spectrum. Epson does better at high light levels but Kodak pigments work better (last longer) than Epson pigments at low intensity. I read this to mean the Kodak pigments will last longer in the drawer or in subdued light but Epson will last longer in high intensity light such as outdoors.

Pick your application.

 

[RPC]

The tests appear to be done on a machine that likely uses a washless process. That itself could be a part of the problem.

 

[AgX]

Wilhelm tested the Fuji Chrystal Archive with the result that is has substantial better longevity than Ilfochrome.

I take all these tests with a grain of salt.
Though the concept of ink printing yields more freedom in choice of colour-formers and thus is intriguing.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Fuji runs tests using high intensity, while Kodak uses low intensity. The products differ substantially if you test them under the other product's conditions. This is due to a form of reciprocity, partly due to oxygen diffusion. Both companies use simulated daylight which includes a broad spectrum including UV radiation.

I have run many of these tests as well as dark keeping with heat and humidity. Don't be fooled by one result. Bad processing is often at the heart of bad results.

PE

 

[removed account4]

spoke with a printer who recently told me that if processed right
fuji crystal archive paper paper will last hundreds ( 700 ) of years

 

[Rudeofus]

In a recent issue of the German language photo magazine "Photoklassik" there is an article about a gallery, in which this whole topic "longevity of photographic images" is discussed from a completely different angle: a photographic print is considered something highly perishable. Art collectors buying into this art form do not buy prints, but licenses to a photograph, which allow them to create reproductions of an image as needed as the original print fades away.

 

[Bob Carnie]

spoke with a printer who recently told me that if processed right
fuji crystal archive paper paper will last hundreds ( 700 ) of years

Did he also offer you a good price on a bridge?

 

[Bob Carnie]

In a recent issue of the German language photo magazine "Photoklassik" there is an article about a gallery, in which this whole topic "longevity of photographic images" is discussed from a completely different angle: a photographic print is considered something highly perishable. Art collectors buying into this art form do not buy prints, but licenses to a photograph, which allow them to create reproductions of an image as needed as the original print fades away.

That is quite common, with many photographers, its is the escape clause, as long as the reproduction digital file does not get corrupt and is viable in future years.
There are many contemporary photographers that are making new prints for clients pissed that their prints are fading.

 

[bvy]

spoke with a printer who recently told me that if processed right
fuji crystal archive paper paper will last hundreds ( 700 ) of years

Even Fuji doesn't claim that.

 

[Photo Engineer]

spoke with a printer who recently told me that if processed right
fuji crystal archive paper paper will last hundreds ( 700 ) of years

+1 Fuji only claims about 100 - 200 years which is about the same as Kodak.

PE

 

[removed account4]

Did he also offer you a good price on a bridge?

not yet, but i'll ask

Even Fuji doesn't claim that.

not sure where the # came from but it was from lit / conversations with the rep....

+1 Fuji only claims about 100 - 200 years which is about the same as Kodak.

PE

oh well, a few hundred years ( 5 or 6 ) off ...
not bad i suppose ..
but i wonder if kodak and fuji claim 1-200 years .. under what conditions this might be true ..
no one lives in a lab ( like how iso's are determined )

That is quite common, with many photographers, its is the escape clause, as long as the reproduction digital file does not get corrupt and is viable in future years.
There are many contemporary photographers that are making new prints for clients pissed that their prints are fading.

i figured it was common ... it gets labs and photographers off the hook

 

[AgX]

spoke with a printer who recently told me that if processed right
fuji crystal archive paper paper will last hundreds ( 700 ) of years

Wilhelm gave it 40 years.

(And Ilfochrome 29 years.)

 

[foc]

The tests appear to be done on a machine that likely uses a washless process. That itself could be a part of the problem.

The Fuji Frontier 390 mentioned in the test DOES use a water wash. If my memory serves me right , it is a four tank counter flow wash (the water runs the opposite direction to the paper). Any minilab I have operated, C41, EP2 and RA4 all had water wash. Like any piece of equipment, if used correctly, they would produce correct results.

I have prints from a Fuji EP2 printer processor, mid 1980's, and I don't detect any fading in the images.

 

[removed account4]

Wilhelm gave it 40 years.

(And Ilfochrome 29 years.)

good to know !
i've seen archival pigment prints printed a handful of years ago
on whatever it was suggested they be made on and the tones shifted too
i think frank petronio commented a steamer trunk of years ago about the funny tone
his archival prints had turned and was asking if others had prints that were suffereing the same fate.

sadly i don't think anyone knows how reliable or what sort of lifespan things have, unless they are done
the "old fashioned" way that bob carnie does them. pigment on a base print that is archival to begin with ...
i think that at this point the only modern archival color medium is a digital file, and if its been uploaded
to the internets, seeing everyting is in the interweb forever, so all a purchaser of the image wouuld need to do
is figure out a way to project/broadcast/download/hologramize &c the file and as long as the robot that is being used
to display the images is alive, and as long as there hasn't been a giant electromagnetic blast or solar flare that deletes everything
they can look at the image ... but it won't be tangible, unless someone like bob makes it.

 

[RPC]

The Fuji Frontier 390 mentioned in the test DOES use a water wash. If my memory serves me right , it is a four tank counter flow wash (the water runs the opposite direction to the paper). Any minilab I have operated, C41, EP2 and RA4 all had water wash. Like any piece of equipment, if used correctly, they would produce correct results.

I have prints from a Fuji EP2 printer processor, mid 1980's, and I don't detect any fading in the images.

The specs of the 390 indicate a dry-to-dry time of 4 minutes. Subtracting development, bleach-fixing and dry time that doesn't leave much for a good wash. It may meet someone's criteria but may not be enough for long lasting display prints.

The lab I work at has used Agfa, Noritsu and Kodak (which I think were made by agfa) RA-4 printers which use a stabilizer of some type in place of a water wash.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Nothing is better than a good wash.

PE

 

[Arklatexian]

A holiday story for all of you lovers of the C-Print.

I spent the entire month of December (so far) photographing a corporate art collection here in Atlanta.

Among the photographers represented were some very significant names in color photography: Meyerowitz, Shore, Misrach, Jim Dine, Andrew Moore plus several regional artists who work in color. All of these images were collected in the 1980s, all were C-Prints, and all had deteriorated to such a state that to call them photographs any more would be joking. The prints were in almost any sense completely worthless, unless one likes looking at faded, horribly color shifted images.

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.

Also in the collection were many B&W photographers, including Bruce Barnbaum, Michael Spano and others. Every single one of these silver prints looked like they just came out of the darkroom, not a flaw anywhere.

To be fair, there were some Cibachromes by Sandy Skoglund and a few others that have held up quite well. A bit of shifting, but not significant enough to render them worthless.

I can't imagine wasting my time and money and my life working in the C-Print medium, only to watch it turn into junk. (If you really want to make long-lasting color prints, there is a way to do that which cannot be mentioned here.)

By the way, Kodak Endura is crap, too. Trust me.

My apologies to all you lovers of C-Prints. Sorry to poop on your holidays.

My question: is there anyone still using Type C any longer? Back in the days when most professional studios sold type C portraits, etc., some local studios guaranteed their type C work by keeping the negatives on file and when the customer's print started fading, the studio would have a new print made and deliver it to the customer. My point: it was known back then that type C was not archival or even close. Cibachromes and before those, dye-transfer prints, were different and much more expensive stories. Now you see why us old ----s are so fond of B&W......Regards!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Wilhelm gave it 40 years.

(And Ilfochrome 29 years.)

Did he now. My first Cibachromes (the forerunner to the much later Ilfochrome Classic) prints were produced in November of 1984 and as good as they can be for that time (the framing was lousy, even the print storage was lousy). Modern day Ilfochromes began in 1994 I think. I would have to go through many, many books to find out how many are out there (clients would have my full details if they needed to contact me about anything), but I can say those I have on display in my gallery span 1984 to 2010. That's a bit longer than 29, even with halogen spot illumination...

My printer once said that Ilfochrome Classic prints, correctly framed and exhibited (there are published guidelines for these) should last "several hundred years". Epson's commercial inks are the very best out there at the moment, and when matched to modern print media customers can expect very, very long exhibition life. Like everything else, prints should be framed rather than tossed into a drawer or cupboard at the mercy of atmospheric pollutants (even diesel fumes!). But sadly very few photographers actually go the whole hog with print production unless working to a market.

 

[Arklatexian]

I have my Dad's Kodachrome slides 60 years old still good as new. He always kept them dark, dry and at room temp. The Kodachrome prints that he had made and displayed in normal room light, no UV just normal room light, these are almost invisible. Just very faint image, the small prints kept in a drawer look good. This is no big surprise.Black and white color seperation negatives on polyester base if you plan on keeping for 500 years. C prints properly processed and stored will last a lifetime. But if you hang them where theres light, heat and fumes they won't last.
Mike

But what about the people who bought 16 x 20 Type C color prints of members of their family? They bought these pictures to show to friends and family. They were not at all interested in keeping the prints in perfect storage facilities so they would last longer. They wanted to be able to "live" with their pictures. Sometimes those of us in photography seem to forget about things like this...........Regards!

 

[Kilgallb]

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

View attachment 169732

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

This print is so interesting, I could look at it all day.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Child and Father -Image courtesy Laura Paterson
Dragon- Image courtesy Monica Glitz


I add these two images to this discussion , as a possible discussion starting point on how colour photography can be permanent.

These are Tri Colour Gum Prints , one of the dragon is tri colour gum over palladium.

Pros-
Lots of fun to make.
Takes a lot of work to produce
Simple Darkroom Setup
Materials readily available
Historically considered quite permanent
Visual look like very other print processes
One of a kind unique prints

Cons
Lots of experimentation to get to a happy place
Require some PS knowledge
Takes a lot of work to produce- much more printer interactive than any process I have ever taken on.
A good quality inkjet has more vibrance and colour accuracy than these prints.
Multiple layer techniques needed
Plate Burner needed

I have been making pigment in gum arabic prints now for a few years and I am convinced this it a valuable process for colour photography.
As more people take the time, financial plunge, and persistence to make these prints I believe we will be seeing these types of prints replacing
C - Type prints in the collectable market.
The failings of Dye Coupler Prints and Inkjet Prints have been the single dominant reason I make these prints. I find it amusing when I show them
to people and their reactions, Most are positive but in some cases I have a very hard time convincing photographers to use this method.

Now after doing a few years of experimentation , I realize I do not care what the general public (photographers) think and if negative reaction well its life,
and I look for those that like the prints.