Maybe some entry-level customer service gofer at Fuji marketing said something nutty like that. But he had to get something on his work resume before applying to a job at McDonalds. Their own official tech sheets predict visible yellowing of CA products within 50 yrs. I doubt Wilhelm stated anything remotely that irresponsible. But there were lots of flaws inherent to his accelerated aging methodology which others have addressed.
Wilhelm was a founding member of the Photographic Materials Group of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, is a member of the Electronic Materials Group of AIC, and was a founding member of American National Standards Institute/ISO subcommittee IT9-3 (now called ISO WG-5 Task Group 3), which is responsible for developing standardized accelerated test methods for the stability of color photographs and digital print materials. He has served as Secretary of that group since 1984, and is an active member of the ANSI/ISO subcommittees responsible for storage standards for black-and-white films and prints.
... Sure the file formats may change, but when they do, someone comes out with a conversion program to keep those old file formats useful. It may not be convenient, but neither is cleaning and printing a 100 year old negative.
...
...Film may last a few hundred years under perfect conditions, but digital can go on as long as humans exist.
...
How long that will continue is unknown.
Why does any damn thread have to degenerate "my digital is bigger than your..." or "my analog prints have more souls than your..."?
maybe ..Oh right, perhaps it's easier than to work on the art ;-)
The problem with printing from transparancies is that In order to get the quality you get from negatives, you have to do lots of manipulation such as masking or other controls, whether printing on Cibachrome or in publications, because they are designed for projection! And that is why negative film is superior for printing.How do you explain that magazines and millions of publications around the world strongly preferred receiving transparencies for their pagework, not negatives? For many decades transparencies were the print reproduction standard in publications (newspapers stuck with B&W for its speed in D&P, but colour work for inserts/spreads and magazines were largely colour). Negatives would often be rejected simply because editors wanted the immediacy of assessing an image on the lightbox in its real form, without having to fiddle a negative on a scanner. National Geographic is a very good, long-standing example of the application of slides to print. That we are still printing from slides today is not much different, but certainly much more efficient, straightforward and fuss-free than Ilfochrome -- which is why so many of us don't want to see it come back!
Also, printing from this medium slides) points to effective and proven multiple use that has been going on for at least 60 years, not that many amateurs were/are aware of it or its extent (as outlined above!).
Make prints from your digital images so that you will have something to lock away in a safety deposit box.I have 100+ years-old prints in a safety deposit box and in albums (with negatives as well). All that's needed to ascertain what they are is to open the box or album and look. I don't need a special application running under a certain OS to view those images.
not so sure about some of this
Transparencies were designed for convenient backlit viewing - both slide shows and rapid visual evaluation of larger chromes on a light box by magazine editors etc.
Sure it does. If a digital image file can be opened without corruption then it is archival. How long that will continue is unknown. But there is no inherent reason that I am aware of that an image file cannot be kept in good condition for a very, very long time.
This supposed archival advantage touted for film is a bit of a joke based on my personal experience, as well as that of others I suspect. I think both digital and film can be maintained for long periods of time given adequate attention and time. Unfortunately it is the adequate attention that quite often fails unless your name is HC Bresson or something similar. I would be willing to bet that the digital files of some of our current famous photographers will be well maintained just like the analog files of previous famous photographers. For the rest of us it is a bit more of a gamble.
.
Digital is an artificial facsimile that can never truly match the ascetic quality of film!
Very true. Large format Ektachrome saw a lot of use in magazine layouts. Back lit color separation negs. etc. Supposedly Playboy in the old days used 8x10 Ektachrome. As a kid I remember foldouts. Pre-naughty parts. God I was mesmerized. The 60's!Transparencies were designed for convenient backlit viewing - both slide shows and rapid visual evaluation of larger chromes on a light box by magazine editors etc. Sadly, chrome films which were better for printing like Astia sold poorly against films like Velvia which look snazzy backlit but are much less cooperative for printing purposes. But at least chromes can be intuitively evaluated, whereas color neg film has to be printed or scanned just to get to first base. But I seriously doubt anything remotely resembling the heyday of chrome films will be revived. Slide shows have turned into internet images, and inkjet is a much more democratic medium than darkroom color prints. But as far as I'm concerned, the age of dinosaurs isn't over until I'm extinct too!
not so sure about some of this
regarding digital prints being archival ... according to state historic preservation offices throughout the USA and the LOC + image permeance institute they are archival.
there are very few SHPO that want film and prints for the state HABS jobs, they want digital files ( color or b/w ) and ink jet prints ( ilfachrome inks and specfic papers )
so according to repositories and archives + people who determine things, they are archival.
Maybe its time for you to get a new printer.Very true. Large format Ektachrome saw a lot of use in magazine layouts. Back lit color separation negs. etc. Supposedly Playboy in the old days used 8x10 Ektachrome. As a kid I remember foldouts. Pre-naughty parts. God I was mesmerized. The 60's!
I can't justify a high end inkjet machine, just like a minilab for analog, if you don't use daily, inkjet nozzles clog etc. I still print RA4, from Portra when I want color prints. For how I use and display color prints, an optical print from a nice medium format negative, just right . Also scanning negatives is way harder than balancing a filter pack .
Best Regards Mike
Heck Drew, for all we know there ARE still people crawling into caves and painting things.Too bad the cave painters aren't still around. Their work has lasted 40,000 years or so. Doubt some of these newer media will last 40.
You think this only because you're too young. Back in the day, around 1910, I remember gigantic internet flame wars between the cubists, pointilists, fauvists, and impressionists. I thought it would never end.
None of the film companies publish sales volume.Where can I go to find actual and reliable year-over-year film sales figures? Isn't a lot of this discussion just speculation, one way or other?
Very true. Large format Ektachrome saw a lot of use in magazine layouts. Back lit color separation negs. etc. Supposedly Playboy in the old days used 8x10 Ektachrome. As a kid I remember foldouts. Pre-naughty parts. God I was mesmerized. The 60's!
I can't justify a high end inkjet machine, just like a minilab for analog, if you don't use daily, inkjet nozzles clog etc. I still print RA4, from Portra when I want color prints. For how I use and display color prints, an optical print from a nice medium format negative, just right . Also scanning negatives is way harder than balancing a filter pack .
Best Regards Mike
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?