Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: MHMG on August 26, 2012, 08:50:02 pm
-
I have spent the last six years working nearly full time to build a light fastness testing database for modern digital print media with an emphasis on the needs of the digital fine art inkjet printmaking community. I opened the material testing up to end-users rather than manufacturers. I kept testing even when there were insufficient funds. I made the testing results available for free… And with fantastic help from contributing artists and a few volunteers on site at AaI&A, we have grown the number of tested systems (i.e, printer/ink/media/ and coatings) to over 250 unique samples.
There's relevant lightfastness information in the reports on OBA burnout, light bleaching of OBA-free papers, Piezography and other third party ink sets, OEM pigments and dyes and media, third party media, color versus B&W print modes, driver modes, etc., etc, However, the test results do not translate easily to simple soundbites because the light-induced fading of image colors and tones in a printed image often proceeds at complex non linear rates. One has to be prepared to read and study the AaI&A light fade test results rather than looking for quick comparative rankings. That said, my hope has been that the reward for those taking the time to study the results would be a new level of understanding about modern media print longevity.
Lately, I've found myself at a personal crossroads with this project. Do I push ahead, scale the effort back, or stop the program entirely? The serious lack of funding would seem to make the decision fairly easy, but the larger issue for me is that it's hard to keep at it day after day if the information is not reaching the intended audience (i.e. serious artists, printmakers, and collectors who care about print longevity).
My audience is currently less than 1000 people worldwide. When you think about all the digital printmaking studios, the installed base of wide-format printers, all the manufacturers and resellers, all the photography forums, and all the museum and archive specialists dealing with the care of print media collections, etc., it's hard for me to figure out exactly why so few people appear to be interested in this research. Maybe Google doesn't turn the information up very well in related search activity. Maybe the industry has fully satisfied most customers on the subject of print longevity with neat catch phrases like "pigmented inks", "acid-free" "100% cotton", "archival", "certified" and the like. Maybe people just want executive summaries or tidy single value "lifetime" ratings that the Aardenburg website doesn't currently provide. Or, perhaps people really don't care anymore about hard copy print permanence in an age of iPads and iPhones and with digital image archives that promise to be "reprintable" in perpetuity. I really don't know. I'd be interested in hearing what others on the LL forum have to say about it.
I'm not looking for "atta boys" or other words of encouragement. Rather, I am looking for some new insights about printmakers' attitudes towards print permanence in the digital age. I won't post any more comments to the ensuing discussion at all (this could be hard ;)), except for a "thanks to everyone" towards the end when the thread has run it's course. So, feel free to say whatever you like… good, bad, or ugly. You won't hurt my feelings. I will listen carefully and with gratitude to all who share their thoughts..
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Hi Mark,
It's really hard to say. There could be a number of things happening, not in any particular order of importance, because this is speculation. I have no evidence. (a) There's an 800-lb. gorilla in the business called Wilhelm-Research, which you know well. One goes to that jumbled website, somehow finds the printer/paper table of interest, reads the number of years for the conditions of interest and end of story. Many people wouldn't think to bother going any further into it. (b) Permanence was a huge issue when there wasn't any, became a bit less huge when Epson came out with the 2000P, then comfort started setting in with successor models from Epson, Canon and HP, and interest dwindled further once permanence became "taken for granted". (c) Time. It takes time to digest the content of your research and for many people these days, they just aren't able or willing to commit the time, perhaps because of (a) and (b), and because in general, anything that takes time in our instant-everything environment has strike one against it. So those are the key issues that come to mind when thinking about why the audience is limited.
The next issue, however, is a lot more subjective - the one concerning what you do about it. Those of us who have supported your work obviously think it's worthwhile regardless of all the above. That means we would miss something if it were discontinued. The question for you is what you need to get from it to be happy carrying on with it. Is money a critical driver going forward? If yes, the answer is clear: if the money comes in, the work carries on. Is your personal interest a critical driver? If yes, you do it because it interests you. Is the interest of others a critical driver? If yes, then you need to decide what level of demonstrated support constitutes a large enough critical mass to keep you happy doing the work. Finally, the perennial question that most of us are faced with - trade-offs: what's the opportunity-cost of time? There are only so many waking hours a year: how do we prioritize what we use them for, because it is a zero-sum game: time spent on one thing isn't available for another. I've come to appreciate over the years that of all the "resources" I use, time is the most precious of the lot. I can't answer these questions for you; the best I can do here is suggest ways of thinking through the dilemma. I hope your contribution finds a way of living on.
Cheers,
Mark
-
It's tough to remain passionate about your interest if you don't see any real encouragement or monetary profit. I think you need to do more in identifying those to whom such data is valuable. If you are relying on leads through internet searches you're in for a long discouraging wait. I'm not sure what you've done regarding a classical marketing plan but your inquiry tells me that you really don't know who your customer is. I can't speak for others on LULA but as a photographer I have no interest beyond what you've also suspected relative to "good enough" info that's already out there. I can't even remember the last time I was questioned by a customer regarding print permanence.
In all my business ventures I've learned that dollars vote. Consuming a free service is absolutely no indication of real need. Put a dollar value on what you are now giving away and you'll discover exactly what it's worth. Sorry I can't be of more help. Maybe some other kind folks here can help lead you in another direction. Good luck.
-
Any of us who began capturing images in the film age (and I suspect that's most of the readership here) and doing darkroom work realize the importance of proper materials and technique to achieve an image that is 'permanent.' There was another thread regarding Ilford Gold Fiber Silk and whether it is an RC paper and I mused back on my days when Kodak released the first RC darkroom papers and what a disaster they were. All of us have also had experience with a lot of 'chromes' and color prints that have dramatically faded in a relatively brief period of time. With the advent of digital tools these can be restored if they have value to the photographer, family, or even a customer with a favorite but faded image. From Mark's work (as well as Ernst Dinkla's data base of spectral plots), we know a lot more about the substrates that we are printing on than previously. Papers with high levels of OBAs can suffer burnout (though this is quite variable as we are learning) with resultant yellowing of the image. Some papers with similar coatings tend to fade faster but we don't really fully understand why. We also know that Epson's K3 yellow (and colors that use lots of it) fade quicker than the other inks. The question in my mind is whether this is enough knowledge. The presence of the sheer number of papers and smaller number of ink sets makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to test every single combination. We also see reformulations of papers (most recently Museo Silver Rag) for a variety of reasons. We also may begin to see papers disappearing from the marketplace for economic reasons perhaps forcing us to choose a new 'favorite.'
I suspect many of us are becoming a little jaded with respect to this new technology. In the old darkroom days, printing and not the preparation of the negative was the most labor intensive aspect (leaving aside large format negatives and use of Zone system developing which was done on an individual negative basis). Today it is the reverse. We spend considerable time using raw processing and pixel manipulation tools to get an idealized image and with the exception of the needed soft proofing depending on what the paper choice is, printing is essentially one mouse click. Think about how easy it is to print a single image at different sizes. It may be that we don't care about fading of images (within reason) because it's just so easy to reprint it. This being so, how many of you who sell images for a living provide a guarantee to your customers that the image will be reprinted at no or little cost?
Printing and permanence has always been an interesting issue for me (probably because I'm a chemist by training). I can remember back in college reading a lot of the original Kodak and Agfa studies on B/W chemistry and why certain developers, fixers, and clearing agents were developed. It was fun as an aspiring photographer to purchase and formulate some of these old combinations to see what the results would be (remember the efforts one had to go through to tone images?). I have supported Mark's efforts both by funding and printing several targets for longevity testing and believe it to be a valuable service. I've made some conscious decisions to stop printing on a couple of papers because I was disappointed in the testing results even thought there 'might' not be a practical impact from a display perspective. I don't sell a lot of prints but I do provide recommendations to customers (and friends to whom I give prints) on the proper way to have them mounted, framed and the optimal conditions for display (don't put it on a wall where the sun beats down on it).
In summary (and of course this is a personal perspective), I think Mark provides a valuable service to the community. The testing regime is well thought out and explained. The results are informative and I will continue to support the endeavor.
-
Mark, your work is very important, and for those of us users, who do "consume" the data you are gathering and preparing, it is invaluable. There is quite a difference when someone does something out of passion, and not only out of a need to make a living.
I have a small remark about the number of people that knows/utilises your research; I'm certain there are more than you stated. I, in my work, talk about your work with museums and collectors. I am not sure if they in turn go to the website and continue their own research/usage directly. but, in certainty, there are more people that know about your work than you think.
-
I have been a member/donner for a few years. I haven't got around to responding to your current email member renewal drive, but I will shortly. I truly respect and utilize your efforts.
I firmly believe that the problem is that YOU are the elephant in the living room. Wilhelm's grossly generous estimates are what people want to hear-not your more realistic/pessimistic results.
I hope you can keep going. I want the truth.
-
Hi Mark,
First off, Thank you for your hard work and the valuable information you provide to our community.
At least in part, the low reach figure might be due to SEO issues with the site. I’ve tried goggling several terms related to image permanence and it never appeared on the first page of search results.
The less-than-a-thousand number is for current paying memberships only, not traffic, correct? Quite a bit of useful information on your site is available to non-member so I’m sure the total traffic number is much higher. In addition, if you factor in the echo chambers of all the forums your work has influenced, you have a much higher impact on the art world than the memberships figure alone suggests.
Small consolation, I know, as this obviously doesn’t help pay the bills but you are invaluable.
-
I suppose what it boils down to is for consumers to understand the answer to "so what" when presented with such data. And, it's important to understand that your best answer might still be completely irrelevant to them.
Most consumers, I believe, fall into two categories:
1. "snap shot" consumers. They have no care about print permanance. They'll reprint if required, or use digital, etc. The prints are not art works.
2. "fine art" consumers. They care about print permanance, but they simply don't (by and large) know or care about the details - they simply expect that any purchase will last.
Of course there are other consumers, but ultimately they mostly fall into these categories.
Category 1 is a zero-sum game. They don't care and never will care - they have no need.
Category 2 is your target market (ultimtely - more directly, your market is the print makers, but they won't care until their customers start caring).
Unfortunately, even the most experienced print maker and technician can get lost in the data about print permanance. If you're not very familiar (or at least significantly familiar) with the concepts, if not the physics and chemistry, then it's easy to glaze over when confronted with detailed analysis.
People like me; technical, involved in the industry, a love of science, a nerd at heart - we love that stuff. We're a very small minority :-)
The hard data is important. At its core, scientific study requires solid data and peer-review. Its promotion, however, needs easily digestible, tangible and significant points that are quickly and usefully absorbed by consumers who, prior to consumption, didn't even know that they needed to know. That's tough - particularly when even some of the worst results are "good enough" over a period of 10 or 20 years (meaning that even if a consumer goes looking for problems having digested some of the information, they probably won't see them).
I don't know how you fix this issue, but I do believe that's the issue to be fixed.
-
I haven't got around to responding to your current email member renewal drive,...
This is the first I have heard of this.
-
Wow.. what an honest and heart felt request.. how could I pass up!
So my background is that I am selling prints and canvases to the local stores. I have a Canon iPF6100 and print mostly on Epson papers (they are easy to get). I coat my canvases with BC Timeless and stretch.
So now to answer your question, I just think I'm doing what nees to be done. I'm not a framer so am not too worried about matts or other contaminants getting in. Bascially I have a newer model printer with pigments inks and I use papers from a major manafactuerer that should hold up well. Plus, I think that if something does fade, it will take years and years for this to happen, unlike with the dye inks when photo printing because popular, so the time to create a stir about this might be decades away. So if in 20 years it becomes obvious that some of these materials aren't holding up to the 70 years or so as quoted by only going half way to 30 or 35, well, we still got a long way to go and chances are I won't be around to guarantee the work anymore anyway.
Its like the economy for the president. Nobody cares to fix it. Who wants to cut back on spending so that in 10 years everything is good when you only have 4 years in office? You gotta do what will make a difference in 4 years to be re-elected. So with printing, I think we are at the point where most people don't care cause pigment of any sort is just good enough for what most people need.
-
This is the first I have heard of this.
+1. I have not received a renewal notice, and I don't keep track of my renewal timings to anything, because the usual situation is that those who wish me to renew remind me it's time; then I check. In this case, if it is my renewal time, I wouldn't hesitate to do so, as I believe Mark's work is a valuable contribution to the imaging community. I don't know where else there is a collection of publicly available BASIC DATA of this kind, and I agree with Phil's comment about the importance of good data to scientific method - for those who care. Mark's work started as an alternative approach to that of Henry Wilhelm, and one that has a well argued supporting rationale. I think it is healthy and necessary to approach questions using a variety of co-existing robust methodologies that show promise of yielding valid answers.
-
Wow.. what an honest and heart felt request.. how could I pass up!
...................I think we are at the point where most people don't care cause pigment of any sort is just good enough for what most people need.
This hits the nail on the head. "People don't care" (perhaps one could say "not enough people care"). But then there's the reason you give: "cause pigment of any sort is just good enough for what most people need". I think it worthwhile unpacking that statement into its two components: "pigment of any sort is just good enough". Two questions here: good enough for what, and once that's answered, how do we know without the evidence of research like Marks? Second component: "for what most people need". What do most people "need", do "most people" even know what they "need", or do they only find out when they revisit their photos in ten years and discover them to be a faded memory of their glorious past?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing you for making these statements - in fact I think they are very revealing of the dilemma Mark is in, and I just wanted to bring out how so. Print permanence can be pretty arcane stuff, and it may be difficult for many people to relate its intricacies to their interests - perhaps it is necessary to complement the research with communications efforts that bolster the public perception of its importance by improving accessibility and digestibility.
-
Just donated $50.00. Keep it going!
-
This hits the nail on the head. "People don't care" (perhaps one could say "not enough people care"). But then there's the reason you give: "cause pigment of any sort is just good enough for what most people need". I think it worthwhile unpacking that statement into its two components: "pigment of any sort is just good enough". Two questions here: good enough for what, and once that's answered, how do we know without the evidence of research like Marks? Second component: "for what most people need". What do most people "need", do "most people" even know what they "need", or do they only find out when they revisit their photos in ten years and discover them to be a faded memory of their glorious past?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing you for making these statements - in fact I think they are very revealing of the dilemma Mark is in, and I just wanted to bring out how so. Print permanence can be pretty arcane stuff, and it may be difficult for many people to relate its intricacies to their interests - perhaps it is necessary to complement the research with communications efforts that bolster the public perception of its importance by improving accessibility and digestibility.
Thanks for pointing out my brilliant points! ;) To answer your two questions, good enough for hobbyists and even professionals who sell art and portraiture for example. What most people need is a picture that will last their lifetime. So to me this is no more than 60 or 70 years really. When your'e 80 you wont care to look at pics of yourself from when you're 10 cause you won't even know that it was you in the pic! LOL I remember scanning many of these print test charts and most combos of pigment ink and paper were past the 50 year mark. I was surprised that HP was so high, and Epson I believe was roughly the lowest, but they all did quite well for 95% of people's needs. Its like with photography now, you don't have to know what shutter and aperature are to use a DSLR... but before it was all automatic and you can to turn the dials and the ring on the lens then you would need to know. So now, as long as you're using pigment inks on paper from a major supplier, I'd say you're good to assume long lasting prints.
-
Hello Mark,
We have discussed this more often. Like others I observe too little interest in the industry itself but can understand that lack of interest in the day to day practice of printing. There are many aspects to the job and with the simple numbers as provided by Wilhelm and the ink and paper distributors the easy answer is a reference to those numbers and then continue with all the other steps needed for the job. The usual warranty is the reference to the manufacturer's documents and some idle expectations that one of parties involved will compensate whatever goes wrong in time. There is a responsibility for all involved in our industry but I think there should be a guild to join that is linked to your independent research work, before things will change. Enough guilds already but none using that kind of control on media used, other criteria prevail.
However I am much more disappointed by the course museums, galleries, collectors, restoration shops have taken. In a sense they only look back and have no interest in what they are buying, selling, collecting right now. The problems are left for the future. I can understand that restoration departments and shops have some interest in the status quo but is it the same for the people that pay their wages? A lot of the research done on art media is on existing works that show conservation issues now.
There are institutions here and in the rest of Europe funded by musea, government, that should cover part of what you do but they do not, or touch the subject in one study and then it is done for the next ten years. Probably at costs that are way over your year's budget. But at the same time they are formally connected to their money suppliers, have the network, use the academic paths, and work in this country. Given the austerity measures taken here right now I see them fighting for their money. While it would be much more sensible to donate a reasonable sum to your ongoing testing at a much better price/performance level, I would expect them digging their trenches already. If a photo or art curator with some knowledge on art and photo restoration methods could be convinced that the fee they pay today to Aardenburg would substantially diminish their costs in the future, it might help.
A typical example is a new Dutch NWO project to do research on preservation/restoration of mixed media, say (chromogene) color prints with painting on them. http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOP_8ASETA. Bottom page. http://www.nwo.nl/projecten.nsf/pages/2300169034 No lack of EU and US participants and ample financial resources: 600.000 Euro. Established institutes with the right connections involved. The job probably will be done on good scientific level, though one might ask whether an art historian with such a wide field of interest is the best choice to guide that project. I expect the works by Ger van Elk to be the main subject of that research. Most likely the media will be described, extensive tests done, today's measures discussed and guidelines for future preservation and restoration formulated. I think I can predict the practical value of that research project right now, partly based on a case of destructed artwork some years ago. The analogue processes needed for a resurrection will no longer exist within twenty years, the old work can not be retouched, new work will be made and assembled with the old work for some odd criteria of artwork value. Has been done before. In practice I would expect inkjet printing to be used as the replacement of the chromogene color photography part. Will this research project refer to work done by Aardenburg-Imaging, Wilhelm-Research, RIT, Image-Engineering on inkjet print aspects? I doubt it. Edit: RIT is mentioned as a participating instiute, so on that I am not correct.
They probably will ignore the issue of disappearing technology and even if they look forward for replacing technologies, it will be based on their own limited research or knowledge of that technology. "Not invented here" exists in research too. References to scientific work done outside universities is usually not done either, does not deliver a better ranking for their publications.
The quantity of this kind of mixed media art work is quite limited and little of it did end in musea. Far less than the total of inkjet prints that are already produced today and will in the near future and so be bought by musea etc. Twenty years from now research will be done on how to preserve inkjet prints. If a similar sum of money used for the above project was now used to keep Aardenburg-Imaging continuing its important work, there would be obvious advantages:
* media standards could be described for art work purchases and by that diminish preservation costs in the future.
* it would educate everyone in that market on the importance of the use of good inkjet media
* initial fading could be limited right away
* with independent testing and derived standards the media manufacturing industry should be inspired to compete on quality
* a wide database of inkjet media produced and used over the years becomes available to musea etc which can help with additional preservation later on
* art historical work would benefit of a database like that
* the possibility to separate fakes from originals with data like that (my spectral plots could help there too)
* a public awareness of the issues creates a base for improvements in the wider consumer print market
What are the reasons this did not happen yet? The project mentioned above has at least an international approach but often we see research done per country while similar initiatives in other countries are ignored, no cooperation is sought. That is a pity, limited resources should be used better. Then there is the academic world and institutes like musea being financed from the same source, an institute like NWO most likely can not support an independent US initiative like Aardenburg-Imaging even if it was a small fee transferred. Not based on sound scientific grounds but just because it is not the right kind of institute that they can subsidize. Why does it not happen with a US equivalent of NWO? Probably for the same reason. The other issue is support from musea directly. As I understand it the museum sponsoring in the US binds the hands of the musea on supporting private initiatives that have a commercial structure and not a non-profit base. Not to mention the chance that industries in our sector are the sponsor of said musea which dangers any continuity of support for either the museum or the testing institute if the testing results are in conflict with the sponsor's interests. That is a Catch-22 situation.
People like Scorsese, Spielburg, that were aware of the necessity of cultural heritage preservation in the movie industry can be found in our industry too. Do we know famous photographers, artists, collectors that could raise the attention? Or famous people that are amateur photographers and get their prints made on the media we discuss here? We should not let this opportunity go, you have done too much good work already in creating the test method, the tests done, the expertise gathered, to let this slip into oblivion.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
340+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
update july 2012: Moab changes, paper sorting by name
-
A step by step suggestion:
1. Simplify the test results into a rating system.
2. Gain some sort of standards recognition from ISO, ASTM or whatever,
3. Get ink and media manufacturers to pay an acceptable fee for printing the ratings on their product and accompanying marketing literature.
(Often in cases like this, getting one manufacturer to take part provides an impetus for others to join in.)
Not the only way to move forward, but the path I'd choose.
-
Ernst raised an important set of considerations about financial support from institutions. There are a growing number of photography collections in North America (Canada and the USA) and most likely in Europe too, for example, dedicated photography museums and university-based photography collections. These are the institutions that should be most interested in the potential longevity of what they are collecting, and the individual contributions from a bunch of them would be a tiny fraction of their operating budgets, yet sufficient to keep Aardenburg adequately funded. Perhaps a concerted effort is needed to knock on their doors and convince them of the value in their own long term interest. If these institutions have no interest in scientific methods to understand the details of print longevity over the long-term future (after all, part of their mandate is to collect art of value to posterity), who will?
-
As many others, I think the work is worthwhile but still somewhat limited in audience.
We think there are high numbers of collectors, galleries, museums and so forth out there but there really aren't. The audience for this type of work is, in the grander scheme, quite small. As people become more and more comfortable with the 'lightfastness' of pigment inks and the 'permanence' of high quality papers they begin to take for granted the potential of newer inks and newer papers. It's just assumed these will be as good or better than what came before. People also get comfortable with a few, core papers and when that happens, they don't necessarily need to go looking at ratings for other media. Again, limiting the audience. It can sort of be likened to the market for film scanners. That was always a limited market. Once the photographers who'd migrated to digital had scanned their film libraries the scanner market was, effectively, done.
I've used some of your reports but haven't registered for your website. From a purely personal standpoint I register for as few websites as possible because I don't want the emails. I'm not saying you send out a lot of messages, Mark but I'm at a point where I'm suffering from message fatigue and winnowing out many subscriptions/registrations I have now. Again, this is purely a personal viewpoint and I know it may not be shared by others.
I think others have hit on a big part of the issue with these types of tests - both yours and Wilhelm - and that is that people want something simple. It's difficult to distill the information down into a number or grade but that's what a lot of people want, I believe. They aren't prepared to spend more than about 2 minutes trying to find out of a particular paper/inkset combination has a longevity rating they find acceptable. The Wilhelm site itself is a joke. Might well be one of the worst designed and laid out sites on the entire internet. But he's supported by the manufacturers - at least it seems he is - so his work gets more play from them.
You spoke about Google page rank results. I searched two strings 'inkjet print permanence tests' and 'inkjet print permanence ratings'. Your site doesn't show up in the first three pages on Google. Wilhelm is all over those first three pages. Not just as a direct link but also being linked to by many others. Spreading the word and getting support for your testing and methods from others and having them provide links back to your site is a key component of page rank. I forget the exact numbers but it's something like 80% of people never go past the first page when searching for something and 60% never go past the fold (the fold is the results that appear without having to scroll). I don't know how your site is designed from an SEO standpoint but that appears to be an area - based on my cursory examination - where some work could be done.
To add to what some others have said about funding from institutions like universities, Ryerson University in Toronto has a very highly regarded photography program. They also offer one of, perhaps the only, conservation degree in North America at the post-graduate level. The program used to be conducted in conjunction with Eastman House but I'm not sure that affiliation is still in place. Ryerson was gifted the Black Star collection several years ago and their new Ryerson Imaging Centre, which opens officially in September, is going to be an international centre for the study of photography and photographic methods.
-
Thank you to all who've contributed to this discussion. Your replies have been reasoned and thoughtful, and I appreciate that it takes significant time to prepare comments of this quality.
My original vision for the AaI&A digital print research program was that the program would take advantage of crowd-sourcing to gather a wide diversity of print samples and that pooled subscriptions, donations, and sponsorship contributions would cover the costs of the testing. The crowd-sourced sample submissions worked well, primarily due to a handful of dedicated printmakers around the world who really stepped up to provide the samples. The funding model and general interest in the work by the printmaking and museums and archives community at large has not worked, and sponsors are also few and far between. I regret that it is what it is.
We have tested important examples of our digital printmaking craft that would never be tested by other labs. Manufacturers understandably will not test printer/ink/media systems that combine materials from multiple brands. Take a look ID#225 in the AaI&A database where an HP Z3200 owner has submitted a sample made on that printer with HP inks but printed on Epson Premium Luster Photo paper. It's a great combination, one that is is likely to prove superior in lightfastness to the HP branded comparable paper, HP Pro Satin, due to Pro Satin's serious OBA burnout problem. Or consider ID#264 which tests a combination of Epson 3800, Inkjetfly IMA24/36 V3 ink printed in Epson ABW driver mode, plus Harman by Hahnemuhle Matte Cotton Smooth 300gsm. If Harman were to commission an independent test, it would most surely use an OEM ink. If Epson were to commission the work, it wouldn't use Inkjetfly ink or Harman paper. If Inkjetfly commissioned the work, it would likely use a much more popular paper such as Epson Premium Luster, or Hahnemuhle Photo Rag. Hence, the only way the printmaking community will see unique combinations like these tested is at Aardenburg Imaging, and only if Aardenburg can find the means to perform the work. Both of those samples noted above are in the latest test batch L1 which recently entered testing. 28 of those samples in batch L1 use pigmented inks, so most printmakers and gallery owners today might assume they are "archival pigment prints" and thus perform "good enough" in test. Yet ID#264 noted above has already triggered the lower limit of the AaI&A conservation display rating at 19 megalux hours in test (less than 10 "Wilhelm years on display"). That particular combination doesn't deserve any archival bragging rights despite its "acid-free", "100 percent cotton", "pigment ink on paper" heritage. It's mainly the paper OBAs combined with the ABW b&W printing mode, not the inkjetfly ink, to which this outcome can be attributed. There are much superior ABW mode and fine art matte paper combinations out there, but the only way to discover these optimal combinations and weed out the problematic combinations is to do this type of specific laboratory testing. This value to the testing is why I'm reluctant to give up on the AaI&A digital print project. I know it's important to anyone who cares about truth over market hype.
I funded Batch L1 out of my own pocket. Fair market value of those 30 standardized light fade tests at other independent labs would run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Mark D. Segal wisely mentioned lost-opportunity costs (what would I rather be doing or getting paid to do). In pure dollars and cents and without donations to cover my standard engineering consulting rates for the dozens of hours each sample takes to measure over a 200 megalux hour light fade test, there are indeed plenty of lost opportunity costs. But that's just the dollars and cents. I have indeed been rewarded with much personal satisfaction that no other lab in the world is doing this kind of advanced light fade testing on modern media, and I've learned much practical information on wise material choices useful in my own personal printmaking.
I decided to keep the program running along quietly but scale it back considerably, relying on samples I mainly prepare myself, and testing for others whenever I can. I need to reclaim some of those engineering hours for other work.
best,
Mark
-
Mark,
This looks like a good compromise between abandoning this highly useful work altogether, and carrying on in what appeared to be an unsustainable manner. Two suggestions: (a) please do keep us abreast of when our subscriptions expire so we can renew in a timely manner, and (b) why not set up a separate fee scheme for people who want to have particular combinations tested that would go at least a good part of the way to reflect the value of the time you put into doing the needful? This way it may still be possible to expand the data base, albeit perhaps at a slower rate, while not going completely underwater in the process. May be worth trying it out on a trial basis and see whether there are bites. You know, sometimes people only value and seriously consider things they need to pay for.
-
I second Mark Segal's points here. As one who worked with you an a big submission of Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smoot samples, it would be good to have a little better estimate of the cost per unit paper in the testing process. It may be that some users are in a better financial position to help out in this regard (don't take this as a promise :D). I know that I have made some conscious decisions about what paper to print on based on the published data.
Alan
-
... it would be good to have a little better estimate of the cost per unit paper in the testing process.
Alan
Assume that I continue to contribute my time supervising the testing program for free, but I hire one employee to carry out the day-to-day testing responsibilities. That staff member could comfortably (but busily) handle about 100 new samples per year while maintaining 300-400 others ongoing in test as they run out to as much as 200 megalux hour exposure levels. At a modest skill level wage in Massachusetts, that employee is probably $40K per year. Then equipment depreciation, calibration, maintenance, and operating costs probably run another $10K per year. So, a bare-bones, no-frills light fade testing program is at the very least a $50K per year line item for a small company like AaI&A. $50K per 100 new tests per year works out to be $500 per sample. It's easy to see why other testing labs charge well over $1000 per sample for this type of expertise. Further engineering steps could be taken to raise the number of test samples manageable by one person. However, in the infinite scheme of things a $50K per year budget to provide this kind of comprehensive light fastness information to printmakers everywhere seemed like it was achievable just by "word-of-mouth" advertising. I was wrong about that.
best,
Mark
-
And then you need to be sure that volume would be sustained, or that the employee is paid on the basis of piece work rather than a salary, otherwise the break-even unit cost could be higher.
-
And then you need to be sure that volume would be sustained, or that the employee is paid on the basis of piece work rather than a salary, otherwise the break-even unit cost could be higher.
Yup, no matter how the sample volume is scaled up or down, print permanence testing is labor intensive which means cost per sample will always be a significant factor unless it remains strictly a volunteer effort. I did my best to tackle the information vacuum in the imaging industry re: lightfastness of modern media. With other printmakers' help we did at least make a dent in that wall.
thank you all,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
It's not surprising that "word of mouth" hasn't gotten you very far. Fundraisers know that you have to "do 'the ask'." This is hard for many people. You need to identify specifically who you want to give you money, and personally (in person, or by phone) tell them exactly how much you want them to give, and then actually ask for it. As an example, after specifying how much you are looking for from them, you say something like, "Could I count on you for that?" Then, as in negotiating, you STOP TALKING. You enter the pregnant pause in which they must respond. I understand Getty Images has just changed ownership. How about asking them? Although, if you haven't been taking this approach, I would suggest practicing on some smaller fry first.
Your posts have sounded dejected, and you may be feeling actually depressed over all this, which is not very conducive to taking the initiatives and outreach that will be necessary to fund your efforts. As to initiatives, I thought the suggestion by Enduser to adopt some kind of rating system had merit. And doing "the ask" takes a lot of initiative, but is needed for the results you want. Good luck. --Barbara
-
...And doing "the ask" takes a lot of initiative, but is needed for the results you want. Good luck. --Barbara
Good advice, thank you Barbara,
best,
Mark
P.S. AaI&A does provide a lightfastness rating. When a sample reaches its allowable light exposure limits for "little or no noticeable fading" then the rating is posted in the column called "Conservation Display Rating" in the AaI&A light fade testing results database. That said, the AaI&A conservation display rating (CDR) is not a "years of life" rating because rating products for "years of life" is just marketing hype, IMHO.
-
Mark, thanks for your addendum to your note. I am interested in print longevity. In fact, if anything lasts, I am convinced it will be prints, rather than the digital "files" ensconced on our personal electronic devices (iPads, computers, iPhones, etc.). In this connection, about two weeks ago one of my sons told me he'd just completed a half-century ride on his bicycle, causing me to remember and pull out a photo of his great-grandfather, with his own bicycle, taken in a studio. This great-grandfather, whom I never knew, did century or half-century rides between Washington, DC and Baltimore. The photo was taken in 1896. Who is going to be keeping our digital files intact for the next 116 years and more? I also have a print of my grandmother, taken when she was 18 years old, with a note on the back in her handwriting that that was the day she met my grandfather, having his picture taken (with his bike and his biking group) the same day!
I noticed in your bio information on your website that you spent a good part of your professional life in Washington, DC with the Smithsonian. I spent my whole life in the DC area (DC, Arlington, and Chevy Chase) until moving out here to the Pacific Northwest.
So I do want to wish you the very best with your efforts. I know in your first post you weren't looking for encouragement, but I think we all need some of it, especially when things aren't going easily. So all the best, Barbara
-
Good advice, thank you Barbara,
best,
Mark
P.S. AaI&A does provide a lightfastness rating. When a sample reaches its allowable light exposure limits for "little or no noticeable fading" then the rating is posted in the column called "Conservation Display Rating" in the AaI&A light fade testing results database. That said, the AaI&A conservation display rating (CDR) is not a "years of life" rating because rating products for "years of life" is just marketing hype, IMHO.
I suppose it may be "marketing hype", but understandable by average Joe photographer, something which is difficult to do looking at the data you currently provide. If they are not your intended audience fine, if they are you might want to consider something far simpler and easy to use for comparisons.
-
Barbara,
Your observations are wells stated and interesting, both on the fundraising part and the concept of what might survive longer, prints or files.
Prints have been around a long time now, and sadly very few survive. We get concerned about "UV" and paper longevity, but the real cause of most images not lasting is disinterest. Truth be told most prints aren't valued enough to receive special treatment and without it they will be discarded, or ruined by storage in a place where they will get flooded, burned,
Some get wrapped up in the longevity of our work and worry about whether a paper/ink combo will last 200 years instead of 150 ... forgetting that the work will only last as long as there is someone around to see value in it. Of course one can't generalize too much because there are different levels of importance ... an image of a person such as you describe may be treasured for many generations. Works of highly known and respected photographers may be regarded for some time in historical perspective as much as anything. But only those images have a chance of surviving ... and even those are not exempt from disaster or future disinterest.
Whether digital version of those will survive longer ... who knows. It hasn't been around long enough. But I do know that I don't have a single snapshot of myself growing up (I assume somewhere there might still be some) but my kids all of digital versions of scanned photographs of themselves - every one my wife and I ever took (thousands). And all three kids have them. And they don't take up any space. They watch them on their TV's and one of them has made little composites to give to their own kids. But that means there are several copies of the digital files scattered around, all good enough to reproduce the original in various locations. Whether technology might make the obsolete I don't know, but it seems as long as there is any value at all someone will take the time to convert them. Add cloud computing to the equation.
does that mean the are more survivable? I don't know ... perhaps. But again unless their children and their children's children actually value them, probably not, so in reality they probably are no more or no less likely to make the cut of time.
As far as what I do now and what this website is named after, landscape work, the importance of the longevity of my work is something I sort of came to grips with a while ago. Some of my early work may be valued for some time ... I was a portrait and wedding photographer. However, my landscape work may only be valued for a decade or two as it's placed on the wall for it's current beauty. No disrespect to myself, just a realist. That's why I don't get too wrapped up in all of the longevity tests ... I can't see any print not making it several decades, I'll be long gone and most likely the image will have served it's purpose and will also be long gone.
I suppose if a museum ever contacted me about a piece I would feel differently and then plunge into all the data to try and figure out exactly what I should do to insure an "archival" print. But as was described earlier in this thread, most of us just feel like most current inks and papers are really quite good and will last a long time .... certainly things are much different than they were back when I started in all this (early 70's).
-
Wayne, I enjoyed reading your post, and cannot help but agree with the points you made. I also have contemplated the likely limited interest in my landscape photography when I am gone (may that be a while from now!). My husband kindly suggests that the three kids may be interested in having some of it, but I'm not going to delude myself, and it doesn't matter anyway, as I'm doing it for myself. I smiled when I saw your reference to cloud computing. You may have noticed that my comment about digital files was with respect to personal devices. My oldest son is quite involved with Amazon's cloud storage, certainly far more used by business than individuals, but quite impressive with the resources that can be brought to bear on issues of data security/integrity. And congratulations to you on getting your family photo archives divvied up in multiple locations for the security that can mean. I need to do the same. --Barbara
-
Given the history of digital storage media over the past several decades, the longest lasting accessible media is still likely to be a print on paper, and the longer you think it should remain free of fading or discoloration, the more important the "data" on print "permanence". On a more subjective note, perhaps I am not alone in thinking that a "real photograph" is still a print on paper - even though digital files are no less "real"; I am well into putting my stuff on my website, appreciating good photographs on my calibrated and profiled display and sharing the family photos over the internet. What my kids do with our collection of prints after we're gone is their business. I don't even consider it useful to think much of that. They may find some of it worth having, they may think it disposable clutter, but that will be their call. I'm reasonably assured they will have the option, because I am being careful about my choices of paper and ink.
-
Just joined and donated.
Now to try and understand the documentation
-
Just joined and donated.
Now to try and understand the documentation
Walt, thank you for joining the AaI&A digital print research program and for the very kind donation. I suggest getting started by downloading one of the test reports for Fuji Crystal Archive II paper (e.g., ID#75 in the database). Now cycle through the pages in Adobe reader and visually watch the "fading" taking place as the exposure dose increases. I believe that this test result sets the bar for any other printer/ink/media you may choose to compare to "traditional" silver gelatin color prints which are still available today, mainly from commercial color labs.
I suppose it may be "marketing hype", but understandable by average Joe photographer, something which is difficult to do looking at the data you currently provide. If they are not your intended audience fine, if they are you might want to consider something far simpler and easy to use for comparisons.
Wayne, I appreciate this criticism, and I have heard it more than once, mainly on the dPreview printers and printing forum. I could quickly dumb the AaI&A conservation display rating down, and so can anyone else. Just take the Lower CDR limit (this data can be found in a column in the AaI&A database) and divide by 2. You now have a "prediction" based approximately on "Wilhelm Display years", in other words how long the print can tolerate being displayed if the light level is assumed to be 450 lux for 12 hours per day. For example, the AaI&A prediction for Fuji Crystal Archive II paper is then about 9 years, much lower than the 40+ years predicted by Wilhelm Imaging Research. The main difference between AaI&A and WIR is the testing criteria used to judge the "endpoint in test". Wilhelm Imaging allows up to 35% fading for some of the multiple criteria it uses to make the prediction. WIR's liberal criteria set which was derived during the consumer photo finishing era allows for "easily noticeable fading" at the predicted 40 year endpoint. AaI&A uses a more advanced colorimetric approach thats constrains the measurable fading to "little or no noticeable" fading which largely accounts for the more conservative 9 year prediction for Fuji Crystal Archive II. AaI&A's "Little or no noticeable fading" criterion assures that pretty much everyone will be happy with the visual appearance of the print at the 9 year mark if they display at and average 450 lux/12 hours per day. They very likely won't be able to perceive fading even though instrumentation can measure it. WIR's 35% densitometric fade level failure criterion means everyone would notice the fading. Thus, some people may accept the print quality at 40 years, but others would be unhappy about any amount of "noticeable" print fade occurring possibly well before the predicted forty year mark.
Why do I challenge the industry's conventional wisdom about lightfastness ratings expressed as "years on display"? Because the light intensity variability about the 450 lux assumption used to make the conversion from megalux hours exposure in testing to years on display has a three order of magnitude range in real world display conditions. Thus, for example, those Fuji crystal Archive prints could fade noticeably in just a year or two on display (like on display in a bright hotel lobby) while other prints will be placed in display conditions (as in an interior hallway lit only with low intensity incandescent lighting) that pretty much guarantee light fading is not going to cause the demise of the print. Other things will but not light exposure in that environment. A "years on display" rating is always subject to this kind of real world error, but a megalux hour rating holds true no matter what light level the print is displayed at in the real world. The biggest error in a megalux hour rating occurs from the differences in the spectral distribution of the the chosen light source(s) used to illuminate the print in test versus on display. If we include or exclude UV in the light fade testing condition, the rating could be off as much as a factor of 2-3, but that's a whole lot more precise than the 1000-fold error occurring when the industry assumes the real world lux level conditions on our behalf.
All that said, AaI&A does make things a little less intuitive by providing both a lower and upper exposure limit in its conservation display rating. Members will need to read some background documents on my site to understand why this makes sense. Nevertheless, I see obvious parallels with EPA fuel efficiency ratings. EPA fuel efficiency ratings are also expressed as a two-value city/highway range because a more simplified single score leads to less informative and potentially misleading results when two cars get the same upper, lower, or averaged score. Similarly, the sun screen manufacturers use an SPF (sun protection factor) score to rate the effectiveness of sun screen lotions. They wisely avoided the trap that the photographic manufacturers fell into by trying to go one step further and give customers a "how long will it last" rating. It's a similar problem.
Neither the AaI&A rating nor the WIR rating comes close to marking the ultimate "end of life" of the print because even prints faded to a ghost-like faint image may still have some functional image information content value left. As such, if those who ask "how long will my print last" don't care to inquire a little more about the environmental and endpoint criteria assumptions being made by the expert answering the question, then I can confidently dumb this print permanence subject down even further. I can declare with good authority that any modern media, even highly fade prone litho inks printed on acid and lignin-filled newspaper stock, can last well over a century on display. All it takes is appropriate temperature, humidity, light, and air purity levels to assure this outcome which is exactly what museum specialists typically provide when exhibiting very delicate works of art.
I realize I'm beating this light fastness rating issue into the ground here, but I am surprised to hear opinions that so many photographers would have a problem learning to interpret megalux hour light fastness ratings. Any serious amateur or pro photographer needs to know about the reciprocity law (i.e., f stop and shutter speed relationships), some color theory (e.g., how to achieve gray balance and make other RGB color channel color corrections,etc), and so on. Hence, our craft requires some minimum amount of technical aptitude that I don't personally believe is exceeded by the term megalux hours of light fade resistance. It is after all just an extension of the reciprocity law which states that exposure = intensity x time.
I had promised to make only one final post after the thread had run its course. This may be that time. I also said it would be hard for me not to interject before that point, and it was :).
best,
Mark
-
The data you present will always appeal to only a very small audience in the form in which you present it.
Like it or not, most photographers are not technically inclined and are not going to go to the trouble required.
They want a simple A,B,C,D,E rating system and don't want to take the time to understand the technology required to delve further.
You know this kind of rating is meaningless, and I know it is meaningless, but think Consumer Reports! At the very least, you need to draw people in. The oversimplified rating approach will do that. Then follow the simple rating with a more detailed description that gets closer to the truth; not facts and charts but an actual description... "This paper/ink combination will do well under X lighting circumstances, lasting YYY to ZZZ years, but will crumble and blow away in two weeks if exposed to W for even a few minutes." Then, finally, offer the data you already offer.
Also, you need to think of what you are doing, as selling a product. It must be marketed. People must be "sold" on using your 'product'.
If they don't know they need something, they won't take an interest. And when they do take an interest, they don't want to be bored, overwhelmed or embarrassed. This brings us right back to A,B,C,D,E.
Also consider that you are in "competition" with Wilhelm. He provides a simplified rating of sorts, though a more disjointed web page I have never seen (sorry Henry). He is also widely respected. After all, he brought down the big yellow box Goliath, a tough act to follow. You cannot gain any ground by pointing out the defects in his method and touting your own because of his reputation. Therefore you have to present a plausible case why your simplified rating is more informative than his, and more readily digested. (This is where the written description mentioned above comes in.) Only then can you point out that you also offer more in-depth information. In short, creating an appealing and entertaining read.
But there is a bigger aspect I don't believe anyone has yet touched on.
The photography world has changed drastically since the advent of digital photography. It is as if everything learned and taught for 150+ years was simply discarded or lost. There was once a tradition that could almost be described as apprenticeship. New photographers learned from older photographers, studied the history of photography and did not make the same mistakes over and over again. Now it is as if new photographers intentionally refuse to learn anything from the past, rushing ahead in total ignorance. They are trying to make their photographs look like paintings (Stieglitz is rolling over in his grave), printing on canvas, dry mounting again, hell, they're even mounting photographs on planks of wood(!), they are printing so-called fine art on RC paper, ignoring image quality, using their phones for capture, and more to the point, acting as though they never even heard the word "archival". They are completely ignorant of the history and traditions of photography and even proud of it, so not only is your data impenetrable to them, it is UNDESIRABLE!
To put it simply, you are up against a massive wall of willful ignorance.
Add to this the fact that the big longevity problem of the past was always color, not B&W. Now, for the color photographer, inkjet prints have dramatically improved print longevity over silver-based color papers, and therefore photographers tend to ask the question "what problem?" (The voices of those of us who work in B&W have been drowned out by the cheers over color.)
To the current generation of photographers, photography never existed before them. There is no wisdom to be gained and no tradition to follow.
So the problem is first, causing them to feel they lack something, and then making them desire it. And now, we're right back to marketing!
-
The data you present will always appeal to only a very small audience in the form in which you present it.
I think this is very true. As a non-scientific type, but a lifetime photographer, I know for myself it took me along time to figure out the numbers. Even now if I don't visitt the site for 6 months, it takes me awhile to get back up to speed and figure out the system again.........I would love to have the results presented in a more easily consumable manner.
-
As a photographer I'm interested to a point in things like this but I have no technical expertise in the area, and have far too much on my plate to invest a lot of time trying to understand it. Thus I would hope anyone providing this data would understand that and provide the informaiton in a concise and easy to relate manner ... as it stands now I really don't have the time to try and absorb the information, or spend my time "dumbing" it down since I have no real clue how to dumb it down. I have to trust the source for that ...
I dont' need the data to have any correlation to other testing facilities ... but it should provide direct comparisons against itself and offer a simple explanation as to why it might contradict those other tests. Then the challenge would be to validate in an extremely simple way what is wrong with those other methods. This seems to fall back to some industry standard that for various reasons has eluded this effort for a very long time.
So tell my that paper A can expect a 50% longer life than paper B before significant image fading and I can wrap my head around that. But then let me know whether that's 100 years vs 200 or if its 9 vs. 18 based on some "typical" scenario. Even tests based on home "incandescent" lighting maybe coming sort of irrelevant, as CFL's are getting more common place and now LED's. I have no clue how much UV is in those light sources vs incandescent (and I should learn since I need to recommend to customers ways to protect the piece when they display it, probably LED lights are far better than CFLs, but maybe not as good as halogen)
I have hundreds of images printed over 30 years ago on Kodak paper that still look just fine ... some of them have been hanging on my wall for at least 20 years. Now perhaps side by side with the original there might be obvious differences, but that really doesn't matter ... they still look good. So perhaps some testing for this allow more degradation than you are comfortable with but perhaps in reality there can be more change over the course of a very long period of time that is allowable than you personally feel.
I realize the challenge is there are a myriad of image printing parameters as well as presentation situations - but what I would find useful is to let me know that if a museum calls then x paper with my printer will yield the most archival print I can probably make, where as if I'm selling a print to hang in a lawyers office which I doubt will hang there more than 10-15 years then perhaps another paper that offers a more compelling image but may not last as long as the museum choice would be a great paper.
Just rambling thoughts ...
-
But there is a bigger aspect I don't believe anyone has yet touched on.
The photography world has changed drastically since the advent of digital photography. It is as if everything learned and taught for 150+ years was simply discarded or lost. There was once a tradition that could almost be described as apprenticeship. New photographers learned from older photographers, studied the history of photography and did not make the same mistakes over and over again. Now it is as if new photographers intentionally refuse to learn anything from the past, rushing ahead in total ignorance. They are trying to make their photographs look like paintings (Stieglitz is rolling over in his grave), printing on canvas, dry mounting again, hell, they're even mounting photographs on planks of wood(!), they are printing so-called fine art on RC paper, ignoring image quality, using their phones for capture, and more to the point, acting as though they never even heard the word "archival". They are completely ignorant of the history and traditions of photography and even proud of it, so not only is your data impenetrable to them, it is UNDESIRABLE!
To put it simply, you are up against a massive wall of willful ignorance.
Add to this the fact that the big longevity problem of the past was always color, not B&W. Now, for the color photographer, inkjet prints have dramatically improved print longevity over silver-based color papers, and therefore photographers tend to ask the question "what problem?" (The voices of those of us who work in B&W have been drowned out by the cheers over color.)
To the current generation of photographers, photography never existed before them. There is no wisdom to be gained and no tradition to follow.
So the problem is first, causing them to feel they lack something, and then making them desire it. And now, we're right back to marketing!
Considering the development of analogue photo print papers, B&W and Color, I do not see that much positive influence on the "Archival" aspect in photographer's tradition over the last century. OBA use in papers including fiber qualities was accepted 50-60 years ago and used in praised papers like Brovira. I can not recall an analogue photo paper base specified as having rag or alpha cellulose, though I am sure the last was used in the better papers. Mediocre fade resistance properties in both color film and color paper were accepted. At a time that we did not have any other means like digital archives to store our images. Cibachrome was seen as the best possible and we know now that it was not that much better. The big companies actually dictated what was good and their product quality fluctuated in time for various reasons. Some alternative B&W "Archival" photographer's niches were concentrating their efforts on reducing bad development practices and improving an in itself already stable silver process with more exotic metals. In a few cases using papers from the graphic arts world that was much more concerned with the "Archivability" of their products. I think the attitude changed when Henry Wilhelm got involved after Kodak and Agfa made their worst products ever. That Fuji learned more from that episode than Kodak or Agfa shows that newcomers can do wonders to what is seen as a traditional industry. What followed was the digital revolution in photography and photo printing and Henry Wilhelm already there to guide the industry from their limited (traditional) dye chemistry to pigment inks. Mark followed that up with a better testing method and we still have to get other aspects of "Archival" tested like the bond of inkjet coatings, the quality of buffering etc. This development was not seriously undertaken by any party in the heyday of analogue photography; not by magazines, not by guilds, hardly by companies and not even by the people using alternative processes though their intentions were good. I think that next to what Henry Wilhelm and others did for the fast improvements of fade resistance in inkjet media and so for photography, there is in this industry an amalgamate of users, photographers and people from the graphic arts and commercial printing industry with their tradition and knowledge of inks and paper that helped to improve inkjet's fade properties as they set some goals like what was possible in lithography and silkscreen printing. Art reproduction happened there before the digital era. Not to mention what the textile industry contributed to the knowledge on dyes and pigments in inkjet inks.
So where I see "Archival" becoming a familiar term in photography now, it is due to much more influences than traditions in photography.
Newcomers come and go and they can contribute or have to be educated. New and old technology will be mixed and we have to sort out what is usable. Clinging to traditional esthetics is a choice and should not be confused with good or bad properties of media. Odd paper textures, templates, photo edges, paper colors, image colors were seen over two centuries of photography, they come and go, like fashion. So with style. We can look back in nostalgia and recall the wonderful properties of papers like Portriga but that paper more or less disappeared from the market long before digital photography and inkjet printing became available. Happened with more papers like that. True there were environmental issues but my impression is also that the cry for better papers was not so widespread then that it caused a turnaround in the industry. The ease of paper processors, fast rinsing and drying and short periods in the darkroom was more widespread than we like to think. I am going to read again the map with 30 articles on photo papers and their development that I clipped from Popular Photography and other magazines in the 70's. Richness of a paper was in the first place a high black density and I see in a short check little reference to paper white reflectance or optical brighteners. An article on Barbara Morgan's print processing belonged to the few concerned about archival properties. I recall that I build my own print washer based on that article then. I was not really educated in photography and in my twenties then, switched to silkscreen printing soon after.
I live by Simone Signoret's "Nostalgia is not what it used to be" and can admire both Pulp Fiction and Le Quai des brumes. Time will sort out quality in all its aspects but it is good if we get a hint on what to expect of the carriers of that quality, that is what makes Mark's efforts important. New and old print makers will show an interest or not but it is not divided on their age or the times we live in.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
340+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
update july 2012: Moab changes, paper sorting by name
-
Perhaps if I suggest how we would like to use the ratings it might help and might show a way to monetise the work of Mark.
I would like to market my images with a card which might say, "THIS WORK IS RATED HIGHEST IN COLOR PERMANENCY BY AARDENBERG IMAGING, USA"
The ratings could be LOW, AVERAGE, HIGH, HIGHEST, or something like that, in other words a four or five scale, not because you and I need a dumbed down system, but because the customer does.
I would pay AaI&A for the right to use that text, and it might include a suitable AaI&A logo.
Those of us who sell to the actual public are often looking for ways to legitimize our work, have it taken seriously or give it a pedigree or something similar
-
>>I would pay AaI&A for the right to use that text, and it might include a suitable AaI&A logo.
I would too.
-
Ernst,
You missed my point. The "tradition" of the materials doesn't matter. I don't care about tradition for tradition's sake either.
My point was, photographers cared about print life. They cared about understanding how to get the best performance and the best longevity out of their materials. They cared about not trying to mimic painters. There is a great deal there that was very good that newer photographers ignore, not the least of which is what distinguishes the photograph as art from other media. Newer photographers don't have the slightest clue or they wouldn't be dry-mounting giant canvas prints on plywood.
Somewhere along the line the switch from analog to digital caused this disconnect. I'm not at all sure how.
-
Somewhere along the line the switch from analog to digital caused this disconnect. I'm not at all sure how.
Pretty simple. Ask yourself how many of these photographers have/had darkroom experience. Anyone laboring over a print in the darkroom and trying to get the final print right knows how much time and effort just making a single print takes. Digital developing is a piece of cake in comparison. It's just so easy to reprint a digital file relative to a negative that might have a bunch of dodging and burning required. In addition, a lot of us outsourced color printing and only did B/W.
-
That has not been my experience at all. I started the switch to digital 4+ years ago. I find that it takes just as long, if not longer, to get what I want out of a digital print. OTOH, I can produce a better print digitally than I could in the darkroom and the second digital print is...
Heaven on Earth!!
-
If concerned photographers can't take the limited amount of time necessary to read Mark's clear easily understandable description of his testing method and, then look at these charts, then they don't deserve to benefit from his work. Maybe they need to go back to elementary school to learn basic 4th grade math.
The entire problem with this whole topic is that "joe photographer" is lazy and really doesn't give a shit in the first place or he would take the trouble to read the text.
Now, the success of Wilhelm, if you want to call what he does success. is -it dumbs down and generalizes the real facts of this area of science. If people want anything close to accuracy and precision in regard to the not so simple arena of image permanence then Aardenburg gives it to them. It is VERY SIMPLE - light + time = change. If you can't see those professionally graphed changes in the color charts fading and shifting in hue then God help you. Just use your eyes if you can't read the simple numbers. He's done everything any one could possibly hope to do in this area of inquiry. The problem is people don't have any money due to this economic downturn. And, as we all know, corporations that could support this don't care. Corporations are not people.
-
Well, maybe Joe Photographer is busy ...
I'm a retired professional photographer who from the age of 27 was involved only in photography and printing for a livelihood, and I probably averaged 70 hours a week over a 30 year career. While having a family and 3 kids. I have many photographers who are now customers of mine, many with a great eye and doing some really nice work, and most with full time careers and families that place huge demands on their time. some are full time photographers and they usually work awful hours between shooting and post processing, others have other careers and they've picked a hobby which is extremely time consuming. They want to shoot ... everything else is a distraction and they want to do as little of it as they can. They care, but if I tell them one ink/paper combination might last 30% longer than another ink/paper combination, but then I tell them that's the difference between 80 years and 120 years ... your right .. they don't care. It's fine for those that do, and it's fine that those that don't. I know it's hard to believe, but those that frequent this forum really aren't very representative of the photography industry as a whole.
Trying to push one's passion onto others or call them lazy because they won't take the time to wade through all of the information of the site ... well great that you have time, but I have other things I'd rather do. Bottom line there are two sources of information, and one of those has a considerable amount of expertise and experience and is well known and respected, and while perhaps another feels there are better ways to do things and is extremely knowledgeable and experienced, that doesn't mean the other guys an idiot. The real problem is there is no standard .. so the real difference is in what they might measure as important and at what points they feel the "line" has been crossed. Until someone comes up with a standard, it's two opinions, both based on science and they are only valid when compared against their own data. If one contradicts the "established" position, then it's time to convince the world what's wrong with that position ... but perhaps unfortunately you have to do it within some similar context, otherwise you leave a lay audience to try and compare apples to oranges. If you are the new guy challenging the status quo, it would be beneficial to at least make it extremely clear in layman's terms in an extremely concise manner why you think you're information is more "valid" than the other. And to be relevant you have to convince the industry that you are right and get those that make the stuff to value your opinion. There will never be enough end users to influence those who actually make the stuff. Even if I decided Mark was right and EEF was a problem paper and quit buying it, and even if I quit selling it in my store ... sorry, won't make a blip in the radar. And I don't think you'll get enough places to go along to make that blip. So unless you get the manufacturers to value the opinion and data it remains a labor of love/passion/interest.
And I don't think this is "dumbing" down that data. I think it's about presenting the data in a simple and comprehensible manner. What's wrong with saying you have x number of standard points to measure and those points somewhat correlate to "x" years under certain types of conditions? We're all smart enough to know those conditions vary wildly ...the important piece of information which is difficult to extract is how well does paper a compare to paper b and paper c. That's what everyone wants to know. It's tough to get info from Wilhelms site, but once you find the right document you can easily see how one paper stacks up against another with a particular inkset and how various factors such as glass etc. affect the longevity. You call it dumbing down, I call it logical.
-
Well, maybe Joe Photographer is busy ...
....They care, but if I tell them one ink/paper combination might last 30% longer than another ink/paper combination, but then I tell them that's the difference between 80 years and 120 years ... your right .. they don't care.
And I don't think this is "dumbing" down that data. I think it's about presenting the data in a simple and comprehensible manner. What's wrong with saying you have x number of standard points to measure and those points somewhat correlate to "x" years under certain types of conditions? We're all smart enough to know those conditions vary wildly ...the important piece of information which is difficult to extract is how well does paper a compare to paper b and paper c. That's what everyone wants to know.
Wayne, please reread these two excerpts from what you wrote, again. This is precisely why AaI&A is now challenging the industry not to translate megalux hours to "years" on our behalf, and why I fault the industry for having done so. Both "light exposure dose" (i.e, megalux hours) and "years" ratings give anyone the opportunity to quickly assess if product A is 30% more lightfast than product B to use your example. In fact, if I simply split the difference between Kodak's recommended light level assumption of 120 lux per 12 hours per day and Wilhelm's recommended assumption of 450 lux hours per day, I could easily justify using 228 lux for 12 hours per day. And when the testing laboratory now arbitrarily assumes this illumination level on your behalf, then guess what? Megalux hour ratings now translate exactly into "years on display". ;) For example, an AaI&A lower CDR rating (the lower CDR rates the weakest part of the system) equal to 10 then means the print buyer will observe little or no noticeable light-induced fading for 10 years or more if your light level stays at or below 228 lux for 12 hours or less per day. It's that final caveat for assumed light level which is the problematic assumption because, again, as you noted " those conditions vary wildly" in the real world.
To summarize this point, WIR "years" ratings and AaI&A conservation display ratings reported in megalux hours both give you what you say you want... an easy way to compare the relative lightfastness of one product versus another, e.g., that "one ink/paper combination might last 30% longer than another ink/paper combination" as you suggested. The only other big difference between WIR ratings and AaI&A ratings is the assumptions that the two labs make about "allowable fade". As I've said many times in various forum threads, WIR uses a consumer-oriented criterion for "easily noticeable fade" (nothing wrong with this consumer-oriented approach at all, IMHO) and AaI&A uses a museum/fine art criterion for "little or no noticeable fade" (which is more appropriate for prints having artistic and/or historic value), so our ratings will be systematically different based on the differences in our visual criteria for allowable/acceptable fade. Pick which criterion better suits your needs. The WIR and AaI&A testing assumptions about "how much fade are we talking about" are both valid choices for the stated reasons, but people do need to realize that any testing lab's chosen test criteria have important ramifications regarding their relevance to the end-user applications.
So, why do I strongly believe the industry made a fundamental mistake to translate test results into "years" on your behalf. It comes down to this basic issue: when you use a relative "years of life" rating rather than an absolute "exposure dose" rating to imply to your customer that he doesn't have to worry about print fading for x number of years, then that standardized prediction begins to mislead the public into believing an absolute number of years for their safe display time of all prints made with that particular product regardless of how the prints get displayed. The reality that, again to use your words, "We're all smart enough to know those conditions vary wildly" quickly gets overlooked, and thus the "years of life" score becomes grossly misleading whereas a numerical score based solely on exposure and avoiding light intensity assumptions remains valid no matter how high the light level is in the display area.
Once again, I am very grateful to all who have been participating in this thread. You've given me more ideas to consider. More than one of you has asked for a simple categorical ranking system. It wouldn't be too difficult to derive one from the AaI&A test results. It's not hard to envision a digital print light fastness merit rating or award somethlng like the Olympic medals "gold", "silver", "bronze", and maybe one or two more categories like "fugitive", "not recommended", etc. for some easy-to-digest guidance on the printer/ink/media combinations that have been tested. Of course, to do this fairly and with future proofing for tomorrow's new technologies, the highest award has to be reserved for the extremely lightfast prints, and thus in today's market, many "archival pigmented prints" won't get much past a bronze medal. So, an AaI&A category ranking scheme may become a case of "careful what you wish for". Also, I generally don't like categorical rating systems like A, B, C, or five stars, fours stars, etc., because of the problem of "binning", i.e. sorting all the products into just three or four bins or barrels. Simply put, the "expert" creating the categories must make further assumptions about what truly constitutes good, better, best, and there must also inevitably be rigid pass/fail boundaries between the categories. Hence, two products that are almost nearly identical in performance can by luck of the draw land just above and just below one of the category boundaries. Then, for example, the "A" rated product looks much better than the "B" rated product when in reality those two products aren't that much different in performance. Think of a school exam where one student get a 69 out of 100 on an exam and another student gets a 70 out of 100 score. The numerical 0-100 point scale tells a more revealing story, but when that numerical scale is reduced/simplified to just a few categories, then one student gets the C (satisfactory) while the other gets the D(poor), and the D rated student then has more explaining to do to his parents. So, to summarize, categorical rating schemes do offer basic guidance and are meant to be a quick-look summary of the issue, but they can introduce their own set of biases as well. Such is life. I do realize we humans benefit from these types of categorical rating systems when there isn't time to delve further into the subject matter.
best,
Mark
-
Mark,
The other useful discussion point is the relative strengths/weaknesses of various inksets. You and I have corresponded about Epson's Yellow in the K3 set which is the weakest link. With certain paper combinations, one sees rather quick fading of some critical colors as well (skin highlights with Museo Portfolio Rag). Thus, it is a little more complicated than just using a standard number; one needs to know which colors fade and what the relative rate of fading is. A particular paper might be good for B/W printing but not so good for color printing.
Alan
-
The entire problem with this whole topic is that "joe photographer" is lazy and really doesn't give a shit in the first place or he would take the trouble to read the text.
That is precisely the wrong attitude to take, and is the one guaranteed to lead to failure. You don't attract more people by being exclusive and dismissive.
If Joe Photographer doesn't give a shit, it is because those of us who do, failed in our responsibility to interest and educate Joe.
This also leads to a downside for those of us who care. Why are there so few choices for B&W-only ink sets? Because too few people seem to be interested. If we educate Joe, more Joes will become interested in print quality and longevity and ink sets will improve and proliferate. The nicer and more helpful you are to Joe Photographer, the more you benefit.
Don't think so? Much of the driving force in film and paper manufacturing was the result of amateur photographers being influenced by fine art photographers and wanting to mimic them.
-
Mark,
The other useful discussion point is the relative strengths/weaknesses of various inksets. You and I have corresponded about Epson's Yellow in the K3 set which is the weakest link. With certain paper combinations, one sees rather quick fading of some critical colors as well (skin highlights with Museo Portfolio Rag). Thus, it is a little more complicated than just using a standard number; one needs to know which colors fade and what the relative rate of fading is. A particular paper might be good for B/W printing but not so good for color printing.
Alan
Yes, the reality is that today's digital printers generally use more than one colorant and often considerably more than just one concentration for cyan, magenta, and yellow. If one colorant and/or colorant concentration amount is far more stable than another, then one's ability to notice fade in the print will be highly image content dependent. This is the underlying reason for the AaI&A conservation display rating using both a lower (worst case) and upper (average response) limit rather than just reporting one worst case limiting factor. You can quickly deduce the colorant blending effect in both the WIR test results and AaI&A test results that compare the same printer/ink/media combination only one test target is printed in full color while another is printed using in the printer driver's "B&W mode". The B&W modes create a print using predominantly the photo gray and black inks with just enough magenta, cyan, and/or yellow to complete the desired monochrome tint. For the major OEM inkjet pigmented ink sets, the photo gray inks are often several times more stable than the yellow or magenta ink, so an image printed without much yellow or magenta, for example, will logically be much more lightfast than an image containing important color information content which must be printed using major amounts of the weakest colorant(s).
AaI&A takes the impact of "color blending" further by publishing the light fading response of the printed reproduction of all 24 macbeth color chart color patches plus media white, max system black, and four additional skin tone lightness values. This "extended Macbeth" color set has proven to be an extremely important bellwether for total system performance and where the strengths and weaknesses of the system actually lie especially the media white and four additional skin tone colors.
Alan correctly identified in the AaI&A test reports that Epson's weakest pigment is the Ultrachrome yellow. In fact, if you study the Epson HDR test results in the AaI&A database carefully, you will see modestly superior test results (about 10%) overall for HDR ink over the K3 or K3VM ink sets when using the Epson OEM printer driver. The effect is due to the HDR orange and green ink substitution over yellow. Epson makes no improved light fastness claims about the HDR set probably because it's not a huge effect, and because the test method Epson employs reports only the limiting factor which is the yellow ink common to all three Ultrachrome Ink sets, but the AaI&A light fading test method does pick it up. To elaborate a bit more on the HDR ink set, there is a methodical study in the AaI&A database of printer/ink/media and driver performance done on both Epson Hot Press and Cold Press papers. Two sets of test targets were made on both an HDR printer and a K3vM printer using same ink and paper batches, one set using The Epson OEM driver and the other set using Imageprint RIP. The test was designed to see if choice of driver can influence light fastness to any significant degree based on screening pattern and/or the way the blended colors are achieved. As it turns out, the answer is yes. Compared to the OEM driver, the Imageprint RIP substitutes a more liberal amount of orange ink for colors that would otherwise need more yellow and magenta ink, and a more liberal amount of green ink for colors that would otherwise need more yellow and cyan ink. By displacing the weak yellow with orange or green, the Imageprint RIP improved the overall fade resistance in these tests by 20-30% for the printer using HDR ink. No difference between drivers was noted for the K3VM ink set because there can be little difference in yellow amounts needed to form the correct color, and the screening pattern differences apparently aren't enough to budge the test result with regard to light fastness.
Other systems can have weak magenta, sometimes black believe it or not in the OEM dye-based systems, but a weak black generally doesn't become too much of a problem unless feathered via GCR into lighter tones. The dmax areas of the image are indeed fading but they contain excess ink. and this excess masks the faded black dye molecules. HP cleverly weakens it's magenta and cyan inks while choosing a more stable but somewhat less vibrant yellow pigment than the Ultrachrome yellow. This fade matching exercise leads to the perhaps counter-intuitive advantage of "balanced" fading, ie. how can more total fading be better? Well, it turns out that people notice weird color balance faster than changes in overall lightness and image contrast because we encounter so much brightness and contrast variations naturally, but our visual system always tries to maintain some rational orientation to color temperature of the scene. If you compare test results for HP Vivera pigment versus Canon or Epson, you will see I* color scores dropping disproportionately faster than I* tone scores (color imbalanced fading) for both Epson and Canon pigmented ink sets whereas the HP results will generally show I* color and I* tone dropping at more even rates (lightness and contrast changing while color accuracy (hue and/or chroma accuracy) remain higher longer in test.
I certainly understand that this in-depth research is way too much information (TMI) for many photographers and printmakers, but I started the digital print research program because I didn't see enough available information provided by the vendors to choose printer/ink/media/driver/coating combinations wisely for my own work, and I believed it would help other serious printmakers, collectors, curators, etc., make more informed purchasing and safe environmental display decisions as well. That said, there's no harm in trying to create better "executive summaries" of the research findings, perhaps by sending out a newsletter discussing "Mark's picks and highlights for the day" or by adding a simplified category rating scheme to the AaI&A website or both. Anyway, all it takes is time and money. The data is already there to accomplish.
best,
Mark
-
Mark,
Good luck with whatever direction you decide to take http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/ . Know that there are way more than 1000 people who have been affected by the results of your efforts. It has been, and hopefully will continue to be, a huge contribution to our field.
I'm not sure I can add more than has already been said, but I'll add just a few comments. I suppose I would consider a non-profit format (501(c)(3)) and try to get institutional support. (The non-profit format does not necessitate reliance on volunteers.) I would think that universities and museums would be possible sources of funding.
I'm not sure what your practices are, but I think that testing for a fee, where the results would not be made public unless and until the purchaser of the services wanted them public, would induce more vendors to test materials where they did not know what the results would be. Maybe you already do this in your consulting mode.
The thoroughness and resulting complexity of your reports are both the reason they are so valuable to a person like me, but also rather useless to a company that may want to use the results in advertising. The Wilhelm display ratings are much more *apparently* useful to naive purchasers than a Conservation Display Rating.
In terms of cutting costs (and mostly your labor) is there a logical place to stop testing for at least most samples? That is, while we know there can be non-linear results relative to the initial changes, is there a point where one can extrapolate results with some accuracy? Do results for different types of inks become rather more linear after a while? I, for one, would rather see more combinations tested to 100 Megalux hours of exposure than fewer tested to 200 Mlux-hrs.
I suspect you've thought about all of the options for many hours.
It's sad that most people would rather spend $50 on a bottle of wine than contribute that amount to an effort that will have a lasting impact on our medium.
Best Regards,
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
---
It's sad that most people would rather spend $50 on a bottle of wine ----
Best Regards,
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
$50 on a Bottle of Wine ?!?... surely, you meant on A BARREL of wine. Gulp. ;D
marfa.
where wine comes with pop-tops and goes well in a workshed.
-
I would pay AaI&A for the right to use that text, and it might include a suitable AaI&A logo.
Those of us who sell to the actual public are often looking for ways to legitimize our work, have it taken seriously or give it a pedigree or something similar
+1, however may I suggest you drop the "AaI&A" nomenclature? It hurts my eyes to read that and my fingers to type it. Keep it simple = "Aardenburg Imaging". Simplicity does not mean less value. I learned that a long time ago as it applies to the software business. It can be as complex on the insides as it needs to be, but it must be simple and approachable when you are talking about the "interface" between user (humans) and tool.
-
Hey Marfa,
I'm in Alpine.
Small world!
-
Mark, I've read with interest your explanations (careful, detailed, and no doubt valid) for the approaches you have taken to your testing and publication of the results. However, I am reminded of the maxim which goes something like, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got." I think you in fact want to "get" something different by way of broader interest in and support for your work. That will necessitate doing something different. I don't know what that should be, but hope that you will figure it out. --Best wishes again, Barbara
-
Mark, Sorry I am only just now seeing this thread. As you already know I belive in your work and I am proud to sponsor your project with my company (by the way contact me offline about that).
Unfortunetly if you want higher volume, you have to get simple. In todays day and age, people do not want to read or think very much. If the average person cant get some useful info from your site in less than a minute they willl click off. A very good book on ecommerce is entited "Dont Make Me Think" and one of the main things it says is get rid of half the text on your pages. Then it says to get rid of half of the remaining text. People need to be able to figure out a page in just seconds.
In a previous life I use to be a computer engineer. I was intimately familier with computer hardware and software. Now I am less concerned about the hardware, the OS or software...I am running a business and I care about my application. I am not alone, that is why sales of PCs are down. Apple created the iPhone and iPad that help make it easier for you to focus on your task with an application and forget about the hardware OS and software behind it all.
Most people will not care about the science behind the testing. All they will care about is which will last longer, paper x or paper y. Ink x or ink y. Unfortunetly, it depends on the type of light, temp, and humidity but if you could come up with a "typical" expsure where you pick some average numbers and perhaps a mix of a little sunlight, tungstun and flourecent and then just show a graph it would be a lot easier. I say graph because I know you have the other issue of the decay rates not being linear, however it is easy to show that on a decay vs time graph and easy to show a comparison by having lines in other colors for other products. Anyway, if you can get your site turned mostly into pictures, with links to text with the indepth data and science for those who want more, you might have a better chance.
I can provide some info to you about SEO if you give me a call, but bottom line is SEO is labor intensive. Now, if you are able to create some simple useful pages that help the avearage person it will automatically help SEO because then people will be posting links to those pages in blogs and forums and google will take note. However, it has to be obvious to a person what the conent of the page is about, and it has to be obvious to a google bot what the content is about so that google knows when to offer your page in the results.
Cheers,
Mark
-
My mate makes picture frames and picture mounts (http://www.cadremont.co.uk/shop/picture-mounts/) the mountboard they use acid free conservation mountboard which gives a guarantee of over 300 years. Next I see him I'll ask him how in the UK they workout that it will last 300 years - rather than 50 or even 550 years etc. I'm presuming they have a way of artificially aging the mountboard.
-
Interesting article posted the other day on the What's New (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_weakest_link.shtml) section that highlights Aardenburg testing of ImagePrint RIP for B/W printing on certain Epson printers that use the HDR color set.
Alan