Why is it that despite hype about "film revival," fewer color films are available?

[DREW WILEY]

What do you mean by pigment prints? Hopefully not inkjet. Those inks are complex blends of pigments, lakes, and dyes. Most pigments per se simply wouldn't get through those tiny nozzles. But glad to hear your lab is successful. Niche labs seem to have much greater odds of success these days then the big "do everything" ones of the past with their high overhead.

 

[removed account4]

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.

IDK drew, this is what the folks at fuji say, not some entry level service gofer
as you suggest. maybe you should call them, and henry wilhelm at imaging research
Dead Link Removed

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.

from what i remember it was henry wilhelm / eastman kodak that told me ( through the pro division of EK ) back in like 1980s/90s
that rc paper if processed right was more archival than fiber base. ) OOPS (
make sure you tell him he was wrong on that too ?

 

[Richard Man]

Why does any damn thread have to degenerate "my digital is bigger than your..." or "my analog prints have more souls than your..."?

Oh right, perhaps it's easier than to work on the art ;-)

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... 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.
...

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.

...Film may last a few hundred years under perfect conditions, but digital can go on as long as humans exist.
...

...can go on as long as certain humans make the effort to copy a dozen USB sticks or a few thousand gigabytes from one server to another every so often to ensure those images reside somewhere, to ensure the .jpg or .nef or whatever raw image format will still be readable in the future. It depends on a chain of interested people over time having the will to do it. It's easy for that will to evaporate under the complacency of thinking "it's all backed up" when in fact it's not all backed up.

 

[RPC]

How long that will continue is unknown.

That's why it doesn't define archival.

 

[removed account4]

Why does any damn thread have to degenerate "my digital is bigger than your..." or "my analog prints have more souls than your..."?

it really doesn't, but part of the problem is a rabid disinformation campaign that people who love film say about digital and visa versa
i don't really care what the medium is, they both have their uses and they are both extremely difficult to do well
but when people jst start making stuff up, it gets annoying.
then put the whole thread on ignore because it ends up being a waste of effort/

Oh right, perhaps it's easier than to work on the art ;-)

maybe ..
but then again "what is art" ...

 

[RPC]

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!).

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.

High contrast and dye impurity problems results from the entire high contrast, un-masked slide-to-print process, not just just poor materials.

Publications preferred slides because they were positive images and no other reason.

 

[faberryman]

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.

Make prints from your digital images so that you will have something to lock away in a safety deposit box.

 

[RPC]

not so sure about some of this

Well, I stand behind what I said. And no one can really know whether digital files are archival. I never said they weren't, just asked a rhetorical question.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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.

Yes, I could have said that. But right now I am too busy ... vetting other people's trannies on the lighttable...

 

[BrianShaw]

You may think so, Drew, but your not the only knuckle-dragger left on the face of the Earth.

I’m thinking Photrio needs to expand to PhotQuarto... and have a separate forum for Kodachrome and DvA threads... and Color vs B&W!

 

[mmerig]

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.

There are difficulties with long-term preservation of digital images. See "The Digital Dilemma" from the Science and Technology Council of the American Academy of Motion Picture arts and Sciences" (there are two volumes).

Also, my own experience with old film has been quite good. I am printing negatives from the 1880's, and recently, I found a stash of my father's negatives (and mine) from the mid-1960's (color and B & W) in his attic that are printing just fine. The attic temperature range was likely 10 to 100 degrees F, with high humidity. Terrible conditions for storage. Also, 8-mm Kodachrome movies from the 1950's (my grandmother's) are still in good shape.

The negatives from the 1880's were in an attic in Philadelphia until the mid 1960's, then stored in a reasonably cool file cabinet in a drier climate in Wyoming, USA. They will be going to a formal archive with cold storage soon. They were taken by a famous western author, Owen Wister. His daughter found them, by chance.

I am also working with b & w prints made in 1911 and 1912. They look great. Ironically, the National Archives in the US destroyed the negatives in 2008 (they were nitrate). I am making copy negatives of the prints. I could go on with many other examples.

Authenticity is another advantage of film, especially negatives or transparencies.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I have worn more than one hat in my life, including one as a color consultant. So seemingly controversial discussions about adolescent media like inkjet permanence or RA4 papers are actually just reruns of the kinds of accelerated aging chamber tests that have gone on with industrial coating for decades, which seldom accurately predicted real-world results over time. It's like clocking someone running a 100-meter dash then extrapolating it into a marathon. And any gallery or whatever that goes around promising so many decades of archival whatever is doing misleading marketing. Even with true pigments prints like quad carbro, Fresson, carbon etc, bonding issues have come up within a few decades. Just torture testing individual pigments tells you nothing about long term failure of the layers themselves. And long-term substrate compatibility with inkjet coatings is a topic rarely even mentioned. The more obvious problem is that some of the dyes will go sooner than certain pigments, with inevitable color shifts. Whenever I wanted accurate answers, I talked to the chemists. Marketing mgrs, sales reps, and customer service types were routinely 90% BS.

 

[OzJohn]

.

Digital is an artificial facsimile that can never truly match the ascetic quality of film!

There's nothing artificial about digital or indeed any other technique that uses a lens to produce an image on a flat surface. Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder and the essential truth of what the OP says will come to pass ie digital will surpass film in terms of (image) quality - it is inevitable because digital is being continually enhanced - film is not but that does not mean everyone will necessarily like or want the product.

 

[mshchem]

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!

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

 

[DREW WILEY]

Technical "progress" in image making has a lot more to do with both user convenience and mfg profit motive than options for esthetic quality. I'd rather own one of Julia Cameron's platinum prints hand-coated in her chicken house than any digital image in existence. And all the paintball wars in the movies don't come close to the color control of complicated Technicolor. But any decent watercolorist can mix complex neutrals in minutes than no photographic media has ever been capable of. Old Ektachrome 64 would pick up sage hues that cleaner E6 films can't, due to a bit of red contamination. But newer Films, esp Fuji, brought out spring greens way better. Old pre-E6 Agfachrome would pick up fluorescent algal and lichen colors that no film hence can. So what is progress?

 

[mmerig]

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.

The current HABS/HAER/HALS requirements for USA Department of Interior is large format b & w film -- easy to check on line. My own state (Idaho) allows some digital images with special requirements, along with an archival print, and still accepts film and traditional b & w prints. in Wyoming, digital files are supplemental to photographic prints or high quality digital prints.

Archival typically means "pertaining to archives, an organized, retrievable storage system", with no strict time requirement. So the term is not very informative regarding stability or permanence, although most people assume, with common sense, that the material would last awhile in storage. For example, Wyoming requires 20 years at least -- not very long, while national standards are much longer.

 

[Pioneer]

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

Maybe its time for you to get a new printer.

I have two different inkjet printers that have never clogged once. The bigger one is three years old and the smaller one is 5 years old. And I certainly do not use either of them daily. I use them once or twice a month, though I do quite a bit of printing during those periods.

However, I do own a small Epson that is clogged every time I go to use it. I rarely use it any longer and I should really probably donate it to someone. Unfortunately it is a bit of a relic and nobody with any sense would probably want it. I do have several more ink cartridges for it and it does put out decent results once the jets are clean.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Pioneer]

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.

Heck Drew, for all we know there ARE still people crawling into caves and painting things.

However, in those cases the archival properties are more related to the storage conditions than to any inherent permanence in the materials used.

Once people discovered them and started going in and out of those caves regularly they began deteriorating fast. Kind of like mummies in that regard.

 

[alanrockwood]

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?

 

[BMbikerider]

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.

If you were compos mentis in 1910 then that would make you at least 107 years young. Have you ever though of contacting the Guinness book of records? I am afraid that would make you even older than my father would have been if he was still alive

 

[RattyMouse]

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?

None of the film companies publish sales volume.

 

[BMbikerider]

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

There is still a company in UK making exceptionally high quality greetings cards for all occasions who use 7x5 colour transparencies as their image source. They used to use 10x8 Ektachromes, but because of the cost and now the lack of availability they have had to 'downsize'. In the late 1980's saw a a 10x8 Ektachrome of the type of image they used, which were usually copies of oil paintings by well known Masters hanging in the worlds art galleries, but this one was was a reject due to colour balance - but even so at that size it was terrific. (I could not see where the imbalance was, such was their high standards)

To see their end products, google 'Medici Society'.