Is Epson Premium Luster Archival?

[EdRosch]

..........and what the heck is 'archival' anyhow?

In order to best learn digital printing I decided to standardize on a single paper and learn to get the best from it, then branch off into the wonderful wacky world of 'Fine Art Archival Papers' once I was satisfied.  For a variety of reasons, including cost, I picked Epson Premium Luster.  That was about a year and a half ago, and my skills have improved somewhat.  I find myself really liking this paper a lot, though as I get to the point where selling prints is an option, feeling guilty that it's not 'archival' or so I thought.

I just went to the Wilhelm site and looked at their document on the Epson 3800 ( my printer) and wonder of wonders, the Premium Luster seems to last as long as many of the so called fine art papers and even outlasts Velvet Fine Art by a notable amount.  In fact, Wilhelm rates it at 165 years framed with UV glass and over 200 years in album dark storage (which seems pretty danged 'archival' to me!).  In terms of the higher priced papers, it's better than some worse than others, but generally in the same ball park with any of them.  Now, I don't know (and it's not clear) how Wilhelm years compare to actual display years.  Is 165 years more like 50 on real walls, more like 400, or pretty close to what normal people will get?  I do see that he assumes that display will be illuminated with florescents, which are high in UV, where as most people I know use halogens or just room light, so he has a very much worse case and I suspect that his rating are very conservative.

So,  what are the issues here?  Could I go ahead and frame up my prints (on 'archival' boards ya da ya da) and claim with a straight face that they are 'archivally' printed?   I might mention that I'm aware that Premium Luster is a 'plastic' coated paper and not fiber based.   If, the only lab doing serious permanence testing is finding that it lasts as long as fiber then I say so what?  I would point out that in terms of trash, landfills, stuff floating in the ocean the problem with plastic as compared with 'fiber based' is not that it deteriorates too quickly but rather that it tends to stick around just about forever!  Bad for junk floating in the sea but, I'd suspect good for prints!

Thanks,

Ed

[John Hollenberg]

Joseph Holmes, a master landscape photographer, prints on Epson Premium Luster.  Read his description about print permanence here, with particular note of the reciprocity factor of about 2 (which means that in real life the prints will only last about half of the Wilhelm years rating):

http://www.josephholmes.com/processes.html

--John

[JDClements]

If it is rated at 165 years on the wall, under proper glass, then you could simply quote that instead of using the term "archival". If you suspect it may only last half that (as suggested), you could mention that, realistically, it's good for at least 85 years. That will be beyond the life span of pretty much anybody buying your work, unless you are selling to young children.

If you are selling to somebody who wants to store it for future generations to study, then point out it may only last 100 years, but up to 200 years.

[Guigui]

..........and what the heck is 'archival' anyhow?

As far as I know, "archival" means that the paper is acid-free (neutral Ph), which supposedly garantees a longer conservation of the print.
According to Wikipedia, there is an international ISO standard for archival papers, and they are mostly made of cotton.

You can read Wikipedia's article here, and the section about archival papers here.

To answer your question, my guess would be no. Technically speaking, Premium Luster is not an archival paper (not acid-free).

[Geoff Wittig]

..........and what the heck is 'archival' anyhow?
Ed

1) "Archival" has become basically a marketing term, with no solid meaningful definition. For what it's worth, when I sell a print I include a 'certificate of authenticity' printed on card stock that describes the paper & inkset and cites Henry Wilhelm's longevity data, as this is the closest thing there is to a gold standard.

2) Feel no need to apologize for using Epson premium luster paper. Image quality is extremely high, and Wilhelm longevity numbers are competitive. The paper is used by Joseph Holmes, Pete Turner, Barry Haynes and many others. The only downsides that I can see are the plastic 'hand feel' and a surface stipple than can cause unpleasant reflections. But if the print is framed behind glass, hand feel is irrelevant; and reflections are not an issue if the print is lit properly.

[EdRosch]

Hi,

Thanks for the replies.  Given that this site is pretty much devoted to fine art photography, especially landscape, with the final output oriented to fine art prints, I think that this is a topic that deserves to be discussed.  I believe that most of the current practice was taken directly from the film/darkroom era and applied directly to digital inkjet prints without considering some very essential differences.  What I'm hoping to do here is open a dialog in which we can look at the current evidence and have some productive discussion as to whether we need to be rethinking the concept of archival printing in terms of the rather dramatic technical developments of the last few years.  In particular, the claim of 'archival printing' seems to be the gold standard for serious gallery display.  Given that for my style of photography, I much prefer the higher d-max that I get with the photoblack ink and the PL paper,  I'd really like to know if that claim can be applied to that paper, hence this thread.

Joseph Holmes, a master landscape photographer, prints on Epson Premium Luster.  Read his description about print permanence here, with particular note of the reciprocity factor of about 2 (which means that in real life the prints will only last about half of the Wilhelm years rating):

http://www.josephholmes.com/processes.html

--John

Thanks John.  A very interesting site and Joseph has certainly put a lot of effort into his style of creating images.  Love his language too!  However,  he was referring to reciprocity in the context of traditional photographic processes.  I went to Wilhelm's site and spent some time looking over his results, and as near as I can interpret,  reciprocity affect traditional color prints and dye based inkjet prints, but in their reports Wilhelm explicitly ignores reciprocity when testing pigment based prints.  It would seem that the current state of the art indicates that in pigment based printers such as my 3800 and the Epson 4xxx, 7xxx, etc series the effect is negligible.  I'd be very interested in any pointers to research indicating otherwise.

As far as I know, "archival" means that the paper is acid-free (neutral Ph), which supposedly garantees a longer conservation of the print.
According to Wikipedia, there is an international ISO standard for archival papers, and they are mostly made of cotton.

You can read Wikipedia's article here, and the section about archival papers here.

To answer your question, my guess would be no. Technically speaking, Premium Luster is not an archival paper (not acid-free).

Thanks, interesting articles.  It's clear that the acid issues came about in the context of printed documents such as newspapers, books, government documents and so forth.  The issue is that the acid attacks the fibers of the paper deteriorating the substrate.  In the case of Premium Luster, the substrate is Polyethylene Encapsulated Paper.  Epson does not indicate whether the paper base is buffered, but polyethylene can be used for archival storage.  While the older RC papers dating to the 1970's are not considered archival, the technology has improved.  Wilhelm does not seem to be specifically looking into the acid base issue although one might think that the variety of accelerated tests that they use would also accelerate any deterioration due to that issue.

The only clear guidelines that I found that seemed authoritative was from the National Register of Historic Places  website.  They mandate a minimum of 75 year permanence rating for submissions to be considered archival and have a rather short list of acceptable digital ink/paper combinations that they will accept.  The Epson Ultrachrome ink / Premium Luster is on the list which would argue for being able to claim archival printing to galleries with reference to NRHP archive standards for any who have a question.

Ed

[John Hollenberg]

Thanks John.  A very interesting site and Joseph has certainly put a lot of effort into his style of creating images.  Love his language too!  However,  he was referring to reciprocity in the context of traditional photographic processes.  I went to Wilhelm's site and spent some time looking over his results, and as near as I can interpret,  reciprocity affect traditional color prints and dye based inkjet prints, but in their reports Wilhelm explicitly ignores reciprocity when testing pigment based prints.  It would seem that the current state of the art indicates that in pigment based printers such as my 3800 and the Epson 4xxx, 7xxx, etc series the effect is negligible.

My only point of reference is a personal communication from Joseph Holmes on this subject about a year ago.  In this communication, he stated that Wilhelm ignores the reciprocity factor--not because he doesn't care about it, but because there is no really good way to measure it.  Based on his (Joseph) readings, a factor of 2 was the best guess, and it applied to inkjet prints as well.

--John

[EdRosch]

My only point of reference is a personal communication from Joseph Holmes on this subject about a year ago.  In this communication, he stated that Wilhelm ignores the reciprocity factor--not because he doesn't care about it, but because there is no really good way to measure it.  Based on his (Joseph) readings, a factor of 2 was the best guess, and it applied to inkjet prints as well.

--John

Thanks,  it does seem that when talking about 'inkjet' prints we must be careful to differentiate between the dye and pigment processes as they are completely different.  As near as I can tell, not being a chemist, the pigments used in the inkjet inks are somewhat similar to acrylic paints used by fine art painters and what we're really dealing with is actually more akin to a painting from a permanence point of view than to a traditional photographic print.  My understanding is that the dyes used in those inkjet processes are more akin to the dyes that go into creating the colors in the traditional color print processes and thus are subject to similar ills in terms of permanence.

My point in starting this thread is, hopefully, to induce those who know far more than I to chime in, so please correct me if those impressions are mistaken.  I did find this article by a professor who specializes in coatings regarding the longevity of acrylic paints for fine arts.  His conclusion is that acrylic paints can be very long lived, but of course, it's not clear if those conclusions transfer to the pigment formulation used in inkjet printers.

Certainly and given that the latest technology of pigment inks is less than five year old, it is difficult to study reciprocity.  I was wondering if there is any research, maybe based on the basic chemistry or behavior of similar materials that have been around longer, that would indicate that pigment inkjets might be subject to this phenomenon?   All the literature I could find on Wilhelm's site related to dye based inkjets and traditional photographic processes.  
 
Ed

[John Hollenberg]

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.  Joseph Holmes stated that the reciprocity factor applied to pigment inkjet prints as well.

[jasonrandolph]

Thanks for bringing up this topic Ed.  For those of us marketing "archival" prints, we should be fully educated and knowledgeable on the subject, lest we someday wind up in a lawsuit over it!  I never would've thought of the National Register of Historic Places as a source for information, so thanks again.

Another aspect of this would need to address preservative sprays and their effect on longevity/archivability.  I currently do not use them, but I've been thinking about using Hahnemuhle's spray on their papers, which I use extensively.  

I am certainly no expert on this subject, so I will definitely be more of an observer of this discussion than a participant, but I hope the experts among us will share their wealth of knowledge.

[framah]

You could think about archivalness and law suits like this:

If you are printing with pigment inks, you should not have to worry about a lawsuit because you would be long dead by the time any loss of image was noticeable enough for someone to consider a lawsuit about false advertising.

That is assuming they hung the print in a place where the sun shone on it every day for years and years and years.

It's all related to how old you are as to how archival you need it to be!!

George Burns once said that his idea of a long term investment was to buy green bananas!



Now... print with dye inks and you could have fading in just a few years.

[Light Seeker]

My understanding is that Wilhelm use a fade of 30% or 35% as the "bar" for his testing. That seems like a lot to me. With the black and white inkset I use (Cone) a fade of 5% is considered as the point where changes to the print will be noticeable. Of course the eye is more discerning of colour shifts in monochrome inks, but 30 to 35% for a colour print still seems very high. Also, consider that within that time interval "weaker" pigments such as yellow will fade at a different rate than other colour pigments.

Terry.

[EdRosch]

Thanks for bringing up this topic Ed.  For those of us marketing "archival" prints, we should be fully educated and knowledgeable on the subject, lest we someday wind up in a lawsuit over it!  I never would've thought of the National Register of Historic Places as a source for information, so thanks again.

Another aspect of this would need to address preservative sprays and their effect on longevity/archivability.  I currently do not use them, but I've been thinking about using Hahnemuhle's spray on their papers, which I use extensively.  

I am certainly no expert on this subject, so I will definitely be more of an observer of this discussion than a participant, but I hope the experts among us will share their wealth of knowledge.

Thanks,  I wasn't even thinking about lawsuits, but the fact that 'archival' seems to be the magic word for serious galleries and collectors. While the word gets bandied about freely, the new digital output realities seems to have passed the current understanding of exactly what it means right by.  If nothing else, as I mentioned the idea that only 100% cotton acid free is 'archival' might be valid for newspapers, books, and government documents, but it's not clear that thinking transfers perfectly to the world of pigment based inkjets.  For just one example,  100% rag museum board cost four times as much as buffered mat board, but in the frame looks no different.  If one is matting a plastic encapsulated paper, like Luster, does it really make any difference?  Inquiring minds want to know.

So, show of hands, if I mat up a Premium Luster print and in the little tag claim 'printed on archival media'......who's sneering   ?  And, do we accept 75 years as a reasonable life expectancy to claim 'archival'?

I'm curious about sprays also.  My initial reaction is to cringe at the thought of spraying one of my prints.   You are, afterall laying one complex chemistry over another and while Wilhelm has tested them, we can't know for sure that the accelerated tests accelerate all possible detrimental interactions.  I would point out that Leonardo DaVinci was always experimenting with preservative coating for his painting which is why they're so badly deteriorated compared with other works of his era  

Ed

[MHMG]

My point in starting this thread is, hopefully, to induce those who know far more than I to chime in, so please correct me if those impressions are mistaken.

With specific regard to Epson Premium Luster, this paper is a classic RC paper meaning the paper core has been coated both sides with resin coating (hence the name "RC" and the resin is mostly polyethylene) in order to make it highly water resistant. Because this base paper has been manufactured in very high quantities for the photofinishing market, and when coated with a microporous or swellable polymer ink receptor layer enables inkjet printers to mimic the traditional look of RC photos, it has found widespread use in inket paper technology as well. Its inherent vice with respect to paper longevity stems from the fact that the whitening agent in the polyethene layer is Titanium Dioxide which upon exposure to light generates free radical chemistry that attacks and embrittles the polyethelene layer as well as tarnishes silver particles in RC B&W silver gelatin prints . To combat the problem, manufactures now add antioxidants which scavenge the free-radicals. This light-induced yet temperature and humidity influenced failure mechanism is very  difficult to replicate in accelerated aging tests, so most accelerated light fade tests rarely if ever trigger the problem and you often find 100 year plus lightfastness scores for pigmented inkjet prints on RC paper. However, a more conservative estimate of the benefits of the antioxidant additives (based on real world experience with early RC prints that had much weaker anti-oxidant protection and showed field failures in about ten years on display) puts the crack-free performance of the RC paper itself in the 70-100 year category, again dependent on real-world light, heat, and humidity cycling effects.

As for the term "archival", it has been so abused in the conservation literature as to be nearly meaningless as others have noted. Whenever I see this term applied to specific print processes or "archivally safe" storage materials, I mentally substitute the definition "made with the good intention to be long lasting and not to cause harm to other artwork stored in close proximity to it ". The operative word is "good intention". AFAIK, there is no specific definition of material "life expectancy" that qualifies a product as archival, although the ISO has proposed "LE ratings" of short, medium, and long life at 10, 100, and 500 years respectively, but I doubt anyone seriously uses those guidelines.  Without product specific test information, one can only use common sense and general knowledge of historical print process for making educated guesses about the durability of the materials one chooses.  Knowing certain facts about material composition helps, ie. does my print have acid-free and lignin free paper construction, what are the filler compounds, colorants, and coating layer polymers used, etc., etc.

Compounding the issue of adding perceived market value in the art world for modern photography is the fact that inkjet and "digital" prints started out with very poor lightfastness and quickly got a reputation as a "cheap and unstable" print media which still hasn't completely disappeared. Like the phrase "made in Japan" which had a poor connotation 50 years ago but now can be stated with pride, the term " inkjet print", especially "pigmented inkjet print", I believe, will become much more accepted in the art world as time goes by.  What I see most often in museums and galleries today is the term "archival pigment print" or "Giclee" print (not so much with photographs as with art reproductions). Whatever you choose to call your prints, my advice for photographers and printmakers is to provide the buyer with exact process description, for example, "Epson 7900 pigmented inkjet print on Hahnenmuhle Fine Art Pearl paper using Epson HDR ink and Hahnemuhle Protective Spray overcoat".  Describing your process means you made informed choices in producing your print, and should your prints take on historic value in the future, will provide museum specialists with a much better handle on how they should take care of the work.

Ed, I'm glad to see you started this thread, and your encouragement for "experts" (a highly overated term) to join in.  I have a few more points I'd like to share, but this message is getting long, so perhaps later.

Best regards,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[dgberg]

"Archival and lawsuits" You have got to be kidding. Archival is the most mis-used and abused term used on the net today. This subject really strikes a nerve with me as I do really want my work to last as long as possible.  But who ever heard of a lifetime warranty for $100.00 or even $500.00 photographs. 25 years is good and 50 is great and 100 would be a huge bonus but it IS eventually a disposable purchase. (At least at the price we are talking about.)
For valuable artwork reproduction photographs I will agree it is extremly important. Having to justify my photography or canvas prints lasting for anything over 100 years is not only not necessary its just something I refuse to worry about. I am sure those that are fretting over this issue will not agree.YMMV
Dan Berg
Bergs Canvas Gallery

[MHMG]

My understanding is that Wilhelm use a fade of 30% or 35% as the "bar" for his testing. That seems like a lot to me. With the black and white inkset I use (Cone) a fade of 5% is considered as the point where changes to the print will be noticeable. Of course the eye is more discerning of colour shifts in monochrome inks, but 30 to 35% for a colour print still seems very high. Also, consider that within that time interval "weaker" pigments such as yellow will fade at a different rate than other colour pigments.

Terry.

35% density loss is WIR's endpoint for pure yellow fade from 0.6 and 1.0 initial density values. In other words, a blue channel density value of 1.0 in a pure yellow color patch is allowed to fade to 0.65.  Cyan, and magenta thresholds are set differently, and all in all, there are over a dozen different criteria used to decide the end point in test from which the display life rating is extrapolated. Changes in two neutral patches (again, at 0.6 and 1.0 starting levels), for example,  are used to assess overall color shift, and these criteria cannot be expressed as percentages but must be expressed as density differences between R, G, and B density channels.  Bottom line is that different print systems are given ratings based on single color patch failures at different threshold criteria for allowable change and thus exhibit differing visual appearances as they fade. The reported years on display ratings therefore provide no guidance on how different systems will fade, only that fading will be "easily noticeable" at the predicted display life rating.   Because all of these individual criteria were derived from CMY chromogenic print technology that has no multi-colorant mixtures blended to produce the colors nor gray component replacement methods (GCR) or even more pronounced  photo gray colorant substitution for CMY mixtures, the relevance of the existing test method to modern inkjet technology has become pretty much scientifically indefensible.  It may arguably be "better than nothing" but misranking of product performance is occurring, and this whole situation now calls for a total overhaul in the testing procedures.

Many manufacturers are looking to the ISO committee to produce a new test method and specification. I concluded that if and when the ISO committee does produce a light fastness standard, it will still be aimed at the more tolerant expectations of the consumer photo market and not at the higher expectations that should be upheld for the fine art print market. Therefore, I have recently implemented a new test methodology based on the I* metric which was published in 2004. I also report delta E colorimetric changes as well, plus I reproduce the actual color fading in the test reports (using the actual measured colorimetric data to show the fading rather than scanning or copying the test print which would be less accurate). This visually oriented approach enables end-users to judge for themselves visually how much change is too much change for their purposes.  Additionally, I have replaced the consumer photo rating expectations that allows "easily noticeable" fade" with a Conservation Display Rating system that sets a higher standard for fine art prints. The conservation display rating criteria do not use merely a single "weak link" value to judge print performance, rather,  a range is computed that covers the weakest colors in the system as well as the overall average performance of all colors. The ratings thus signify the allowable exposure dose a given printer/ink/paper/coating combination can withstand and still remain in excellent condition, ie. little or no noticeable fading or discoloration. The exposure ratings can be translated to WIR years or Kodak years if you like. Simply multiply megalux-hour exposure values by 2 to predict Kodak years on display. Divide by two to predict WIR years on display. I prefer not to make the extrapolation because light levels in the real world vary by orders of magnitude. Better to let the print owner to make a more accurate judgement of how much light he or she expects to encounter on a daily basis.

This was a rather intense answer to your basic questioning about the applicability of the current industry sponsored display life ratings to the needs and expectations of the fine art print buyer. As you can gather from my response, I agree with you, and I created my testing methods and CD ratings to accommodate what I believe to be rightfully more demanding expectations of discriminating fine art printmakers, museum curators, and collectors. That said, all of this begs the question, how many people really care?

Best regards,

Mark

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[EdRosch]

............<<<<<lots of good stuff snipped>>>>>>>>>>...........

Ed, I'm glad to see you started this thread, and your encouragement for "experts" (a highly overated term) to join in.  I have a few more points I'd like to share, but this message is getting long, so perhaps later.

Best regards,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Mark, thanks for your informative replies.  You're exactly the kind of guy I was hoping would respond,  In particular, your description of the process by which RC papers break down with age and the limitations of accelerated testing in surfacing those issues was spot on what I need to know to approach my printing choices more intelligently.

Thanks again!

Ed