Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: pearlstreet on April 12, 2017, 02:28:05 pm
-
I ran across this article on Photo Silk Baryta, claiming it is not really archival. Is this true?
http://blog.brettlerickson.com/2016/06/09/the-devils-in-the-details-comparing-hahnemuhles-big-three-baryta-papers/
(Please say no, ;))
-
Any one who talks about "archival" needs to be explicit about the Standard that is being applied and exactly in what respects the paper is either compliant or non-compliant with each line-item in the Standard specification. Otherwise it's loose talk.
If the concern is the low-dose OBA it contains, this could be meaningful or meaningless in terms of long-term keeping properties depending on how long the term, what the OBA material is and where within the layers of the paper it is lodged. Unless either Aardenburg or Wilhelm have tested it and published results, we don't know what effect it may have over what period of time. But would I worry about it? Not a bit.
-
Thank you Mark!
-
If the concern is the low-dose OBA it contains, this could be meaningful or meaningless in terms of long-term keeping properties depending on how long the term, what the OBA material is and where within the layers of the paper it is lodged. Unless either Aardenburg or Wilhelm have tested it and published results, we don't know what effect it may have over what period of time. But would I worry about it? Not a bit.
The OBA content issue is something that any artist/printmaker concerned with creating long lasting prints should indeed be concerned with. And with all due respect to Wilhelm Imaging Research, the current WIR test method uses too liberal a densitometry-based whitepoint yellowing criterion to be able to quantify the real visual differences accruing over time between zero, low, moderate, and high OBA content papers as the OBAs fade. The WIR whitepoint yellowing criterion was decided upon back in the wet-process RC photo color photofinishing era during the 1970-1990s and thus allowed greater "display life" tolerance for severe yellowing/staining of the residual color coupler agents pervasive in the photofinishing technology of that era. As such, the current WIR test protocol is pretty much "color blind" to the OBA burnout consequences in today's modern media.
On another note, the article cited by the OP has many misconceptions and partial truths (i.e. conclusions that aren't necessarily entirely wrong, yet offer a very confused and misleading assessment of the true media properties). I don't know where to begin to set that record straight.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
The OBA content issue is something that any artist/printmaker concerned with creating long lasting prints should indeed be concerned with. And with all due respect to Wilhelm Imaging Research, the current WIR test method uses too liberal a densitometry-based whitepoint yellowing criterion to be able to quantify the real visual differences accruing over time between zero, low, moderate, and high OBA content papers as the OBAs fade. The WIR whitepoint yellowing criterion was decided upon back in the wet-process RC photo color photofinishing era during the 1970-1990s and thus allowed greater "display life" tolerance for severe yellowing/staining of the residual color coupler agents pervasive in the photofinishing technology of that era. As such, the current WIR test protocol is pretty much "color blind" to the OBA burnout consequences in today's modern media.
On another note, the article cited by the OP has many misconceptions and partial truths (i.e. conclusions that aren't necessarily entirely wrong, yet offer a very confused and misleading assessment of the true media properties). I don't know where to begin to set that record straight.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Yes Mark, and that is why I brought your name into the discussion. At the same time, I still think it's a complex subject because it depends on a number of key variables that aren't mentioned either on the paper box or in the spec sheet, such that one can't assume this or that about longevity unless it's been tested - i.e. what you do. And we can make too much of a fetish about it. So much depends on the chemistry and composition of the paper, as you know, and what standard of longevity is acceptable to us the users.
I agree with your comment about the referenced article.
-
I use and enjoy Photo Silk Baryta but this statement from the OPs link says it all for me....
"while Photo Silk is a beautiful paper capable of subtle details and wide dynamic range, it isn’t designed for museums."
There is NO backup to this statement so I ignore it as unsubstantiated. I'm not showing in galleries or museums so it means little to me. YMMV.
-
I use and enjoy Photo Silk Baryta but this statement from the OPs link says it all for me....
"while Photo Silk is a beautiful paper capable of subtle details and wide dynamic range, it isn’t designed for museums."
There is NO backup to this statement so I ignore it as unsubstantiated. I'm not showing in galleries or museums so it means little to me. YMMV.
Hi Ron,
Sure; practical perspective that makes sense; but I should add there are many papers capable of subtle detail and wide dynamic range depending on the images and the printers. So what else is new? Much about paper these days boils down to personal preference.
-
I ran across this article on Photo Silk Baryta, claiming it is not really archival. Is this true?
http://blog.brettlerickson.com/2016/06/09/the-devils-in-the-details-comparing-hahnemuhles-big-three-baryta-papers/
(Please say no, ;))
It really depends on how fussy (or paranoid) you are about "archival." If all you're concerned about are the added OBAs then just framing it behind UV glass (or plastic) will eliminate that problem. If you're also worried about the a-cellulose breaking down over time then sealing it against the elements will go a long way towards eliminating that problem as well.
But I personally don't like the feel or stiffness of a-cellulose (tends to kink easier, too) so I'd tend to go with the 100% cotton anyway. But FYI, almost all Barytas use an a-cellulose paper and contain OBAs for some reason (cost savings?) making none of them, except perhaps the new Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, "archival."
-
So much depends on the chemistry and composition of the paper, as you know, and what standard of longevity is acceptable to us the users.
Standards for acceptable longevity will always be subjective and even contentious in given market segments. However, this reality shouldn't stop the industry and various standards organizations like ISO and ASTM from developing meaningful testing methods and specifications along with rational enduser application guidelines. The standards organizations have gotten pretty much nowhere over the last quarter of a century due in large part not to the science challenges of print permanence testing rather to the political challenges of print permanence testing.
Manufacturers' questionable and/or unsubtantiated marketing claims plus the volume of misinformation and disinformation on the subject of print longevity has done a superb job over the last decade convincing the public that print longevity problems have all been addressed adequately ... so much so that producing a long lasting print is widely perceived to be just a matter of buying a printer with pigmented ink set, or not even that. I routinely see prints for sale in galleries succinctly labeled "archival pigment print", the operative buzzword being "pigment" to justify the "archival" qualifier term with no other provenance as to what printer, inks, and media were used to produce the piece. Think about that sweeping claim simply in the context of OBA content. An artist printing with pigment inks on a paper with OBAs has in reality produced a "dye-pigment hybrid print" with potentially much shorter display life before noticeable visual change occurs than the pigmented ink colorants would otherwise offer, but neither the seller or buyer apparently understands this simple paradox. Moreover, even the most durable prints have a wide-ranging response to their environment over time, not in control of the manufacturer or the printmaker, but strongly within the control of the print owner. Neither the manufacturers, the printmakers, nor the galleries representing the work appear to be able to offer meaningful guidance at this time on the vast differences in "archival properties" that both the wide choice of materials and the wide choice of display environments impose on the ultimate print longevity outcome. There's a lot of work still to be done :)
I am merely one voice in this long-continuing print longevity discussion. There are many other knowledgeable folks besides me out there, but compared to the huge volume of disinformation and misinformation available online today, our signal is regrettably weak compared to all the noise.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
It really depends on how fussy (or paranoid) you are about "archival." If all you're concerned about are the added OBAs then just framing it behind UV glass (or plastic) will eliminate that problem. If you're also worried about the a-cellulose breaking down over time then sealing it against the elements will go a long way towards eliminating that problem as well.
However, if the artist chose the paper for its bright-white appearance, then framing under UV blocking glazing offers no better solution to the OBA fade issue, perhaps even worse because it alters the viewing experience, than recommending the print not be kept on continuous display, rather it be routinely kept in dark storage and offered for public viewing on a more guarded schedule. As for the a-cellulose versus 100% cotton debate, it has the most merit when only considering papers that are sized but not coated. Since just about all the inkjet media we routinely use today have image receptor coatings at the very least, the base sheet longevity differences between a-cellulose and 100% cotton are typically not the limiting factor in the "life" of the print.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks for the discussion. I always use UV protected glass. I also dry mount all my photos that I sell. So museum standards aren't my concern as they might object to the mounting - I want a print that will maintain the image quality it has when I deliver it. No yellowing or fading for at least 75 years.
I print up to 24x16 myself but use a printer in Boston for larger prints. They use the hahnemuhle photo silk baryta and the photo rag baryta. I'm not not familiar with the second paper but have used sold prints using the photo silk baryta before. I was alarmed to read that article.
Anything I sell is professionally framed.
I'm not a scientist - Mark are you saying the photo silk baryta is going to yellow or fade?
-
On another note, the article cited by the OP has many misconceptions and partial truths (i.e. conclusions that aren't necessarily entirely wrong, yet offer a very confused and misleading assessment of the true media properties). I don't know where to begin to set that record straight.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Scanning that article fast I got the same impression, enough to skip a more thorough reading.
On the OBA content, the FineArt varieties have more OBA than the matte PhotoRag Bright White 308 has and that paper shifted its white point in time. I added a SpectrumViz screengrab of the FineArt papers + the PhotoRag Bright White (red plot). Few identical papers by other brands so HM origin I think, Calumet has more HM identical papers.
The Photo Silk Baryta belongs to a larger family of papers we all know some members of, Felix Schoeller origin in my opinion. Aardenburg Imaging tested some samples of that family. Screengrab added. Blue grey plot in the center is the PhotoRag Baryta 315 that shows no OBA content and has a cotton base so is another paper type.
With UV protected glass covering the print the OBA will not create the fluorescent effect it is added for in the paper. It can still degrade so it is wise to avoid it.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Thank you, Ernst.
-
Thanks for the discussion. I always use UV protected glass. I also dry mount all my photos that I sell. So museum standards aren't my concern as they might object to the mounting - I want a print that will maintain the image quality it has when I deliver it. No yellowing or fading for at least 75 years.
I print up to 24x16 myself but use a printer in Boston for larger prints. They use the hahnemuhle photo silk baryta and the photo rag baryta. I'm not not familiar with the second paper but have used sold prints using the photo silk baryta before. I was alarmed to read that article.
Anything I sell is professionally framed.
I'm not a scientist - Mark are you saying the photo silk baryta is going to yellow or fade?
Hi Sharon,
When Ilford went into bankruptcy a few years back, dealer inventories of the popular paper Ifford Gold Fiber Silk began to dry up, and with uncertainty at the time whether IGFS would ever be produced again, other paper companies stepped in to fill the IGFS market gap with more IGFS "look-alikes". Hahnemuhle was one of those companies, and undoubtedly added "silk" into the Photo Silk Baryta name in order to help customers draw a subtle IGFS connection to the newer Photo Silk Baryta. As Ernst has alluded to, where the base sheet papers get coated is a fairly well known fact in this industry, and those coatings tend to dictate the main print quality characteristics and physical surface properties of the paper. Identically coated papers can get rebranded so as to create an undocumented family of "dead-ringers" in the market today. However, without actual testing, one can't be certain that some minor customer-requested production variations at the coating facility won't affect light fade resistance or other permanence properties of the product. Photo Silk Baryta does have some OBA content, but likely no more than HN Fineart Pearl, for example, and FineArt Pearl also has an a-cellulose paper base like Photo Silk Baryta rather than a cotton base. Hence, Hahnemuhle's description of Photo Silk Baryta in its published product sheet is indeed curious, and it may be more about product positioning in the Hahnemuhle "Photo" versus "FineArt" media lines, rather than based on any actual print permanence tests. Regrettably, Aardenburg Imaging has not yet tested HN Photo Silk baryta, so I can't give you specific guidance, but as Ernst suggested, you may want to take a look at the Aardenburg database for older samples of the IGFS and also samples of Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique (another IGFS look-alike). All other things being equal, Photo Silk Baryta would probably achieve comparable scores.
Now for a quick primer on using the Aardenburg-database :). Sharon, you have asked for "No yellowing or fading for at least 75 years" as your personal print longevity figure of merit, and I assume you are talking about continuous indoor display environment, not dark storage conditions. That's a great place to begin defining your own personal print longevity expectations, and indeed there are many printer/ink/media combinations that will meet your stated goal. That said, your goal is also highly dependent on your print buyer's environmental conditions, notably the anticipated average daily light levels on display. So, here's a quick lighting guideline to translate Aardenburg Megalux hour ratings into your desired "75 years on display" :
150 Megalux hours = 75 years of display at 450 lux for 12 hours per day (450 lux is the Wilhelm Imaging Research assumption for consumer light level on display)
75 Megalux hours = 75 years of display at 225 lux for 12 hours per day (relatively bright indoor conditioin)
40 Megalux hours = 75 years of display at 120 lux for 12 hours per day (kodak claimed 90% of all indoor home display conditions are at 120 lux or less, but that leaves 10% of home display locations at higher levels)
8.5 Megalux hours = 75 years of display at 50 lux for 12 hours per day (essentially, museum lighting conditions, rigorously adhered to for objects with low to moderate light fade resistance such as dye-based color photographs. Museums also routinely limit display time to manage and conserve print quality for many generations).
The Aardenburg database lists many printer/ink/media combination that achieve scores greater than 8.5, 40, and 75 megalux hours in test, and even some that reach 150 megalux hour ratings. 75 years with little or no noticeable fading is thus readily attainable, but the caveat, and it's a big one, is that the lower the megalux hour rating, the lower the average daily illumnation levels must be in the display location in order to meet your 75 year print life objective.
Tip #1: for home display conditions, the 225 lux level assumption accounts for about 97% of all locations inside a typical home, and the mental math becomes trivial, ie. Aardenburg's megalux hour ratings = years on display for little or no noticeable light-induced yellowing or fading (your desired outcome). Nevertheless, Aardenburg doesn't routinely extrapolate its print permanence ratings to just one assumed interior light level due to the extremely high real world variations found even with in one home, let alone all indoor locations. I always encourage the print owner to make a more informed choice about where the print will be displayed, and for printmakers to initiate that discussion with their clients rather than merely quote oversimplified one-size-fits-all print life ratings.
Tip # 2: noticeable fade is also image content dependent, hence Aardenburg provides a megalux hour range to encompass both weakest color and tone performance that may or may not be present in a printed image as well as average print color and tone response. However, by sorting the database on the lower conservation display rating limit("lower CDR" in the database filter menu) you will be guaranteeing little or no noticeable fade for all of your images up to that accumulated exposure dose over time. The reported megalux hour values also correlate with natural daylight illumination entering an indoor enviroment and with the print protected by standard acrylic glazing. UV-block museum glazing can in some situations (but not all) add an additional measure of fade protection. Also, the Aardenburg lower CDR limit is often influenced by media yellowing issues (e.g., OBA burnout and/or additional yellow stain formation), and therefore the lower CDR value is a particularly important rating to consider when trying to choose media wisely.
Tip #3: By using the Aardenburg database filter menu you can narrow your search for printer/ink/media candidates that meet your 75 year expectation at some corresponding illumination level you think is reasonable to assume for your buyer's display location. For example, enter 75 in the "from" field of the "Lower CDR" menu item. The Aardenburg database will return tested printer/ink/media/coating combinations that will meet your little or no noticeable fade for 75 megalux hours of accumulated exposure dose. In turn, that 75 megalux hour rating will satisfy your 75 years print longevity expectation in any display illumination environment of 225 lux or less for 12 hours per day. Add additional filters to narrow the search further, for example, "no coating" in the coating field, to find only samples that had no additional coatings, check box "color" to restrict found samples to color rather than B&W images which in many cases outlast color images due to restricted or specialized use of more stable pigments, etc.
Lastly, one of several unique aspects of the Aardenburg light fade testing protocol is that our Conservation display ratings (expressed in megalux hours) are indeed based on a curatorial expectation of "little or no noticeable fade", pretty much what Sharon has defined as her expectation for the retention of print quality over the total period of time the print will be on display. "Little" compared to "no" fade opens the test scores up to very small colorimetric changes that can be measured by instrumentation and might be just barely noticeable under a side-by-side close scrutiny with an unfaded control print, but this instrument-measureable amount of fade is not visually discernible in a single-stimulus viewing environment, i.e., no unfaded control print is available for direct comparison. In other words, little or no fade means the print is going to still be in excellent condition at the accumulated megalux hour exposure dose reported by the Conservation display rating, exactly what Sharon wants to achieve :) This goal is in stark contrast to other industry-sponsored print display life ratings that allow for "easily noticeable fade" and also misrate products due to obsolete testing methods. Pretty much everyone can closely agree on what constitutes little or no noticeable fade, but once the allowable fading criteria is relaxed to "easily noticeable fade" it becomes a slippery slope. How much fade is too much fade, in other words, when is noticeable fade acceptable versus unacceptable to the print owner? By confining the test scores to the period of print quality excellence where no visible fading is perceived by the viewer, the scores have consistent meaning for both professionals and amateurs alike.
Hopefully, the tips I provided above will help folks to explore the Aardenburg light fade database and better answer their own personal expectations about light fade resistance of prints on display. The database filter isn't as entirely user-friendly as I would like, but with a little experimentation and practice using it, it gets easier to make queries to the database. I also hope this discussion gives some insight on the value of a thoroughly modern, standardized, and instrumented testing protocol combined with an accurate color and tonal image appearance model (the I* metric) which is necessary to objectively quantify not just when prints fades but more importantly how they fade. I do wish we could test many more systems in order to build a far more comprehensive database for today's modern media. However, without more support from the printmaking community and/or manufacturers stepping up to bring their own testing methods and print quality criteria more in line with how we test at Aardenburg, it's as good as it gets for now.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Mark, my lighting concern is more of a professional environment where there is a large south facing window lit by fluorescent lamps. I've seen a lot of faded prints in these kind of settings and I don't want my print to be one of them. What would you estimate the light fade rating on your megalux scale would be, at least 2x or more over your normal 225 lux standard?
-
Thank you, Mark. Appreciate your detailed response. Sharon
-
Mark, my lighting concern is more of a professional environment where there is a large south facing window lit by fluorescent lamps. I've seen a lot of faded prints in these kind of settings and I don't want my print to be one of them. What would you estimate the light fade rating on your megalux scale would be, at least 2x or more over your normal 225 lux standard?
Commercial overhead fluorescent lighting, when in close proximity to a wall where a print is located, can often put 1000-1500 lux on the print surface and be left on for more than 12 hours per day, so a conventional chromogenic color print with 15-30 megalux hour Aardenburg rating wlll reach its tolerated exposure dose in perhaps as little as 2 years. After that, you will slowly begin to observe increasing levels of noticeable fade. Add any additional direct sunlight reaching the print and things start to head down hill very fast. Just six minutes average daily dose of direct sunlight striking a print can double the fade rate above and beyond the base exposure being received by diffuse indirect natural daylight. Sunlight striking a print directly through south facing windows is the most severe for buildings located in the northern hemisphere. It can easily put 40,000 to 60,000 lux on the print surface but for how long on an average daily basis often depends on geographic location, trees, foliage, and other physical line-of-sight objects on the property, etc! At 50,000 lux, it only takes 100 hours of direct sunlight illumination to reach a 5 megalux hour exposure dose on the print, 1000 hours to reach 50 megalux hours of exposure. You can do the math, but this is why even the best color pigment prints when used for store window display purposes (for example, a photo studio putting sample portraits in its front window for people passing by on the street to see) are not going to live up to any of their "archival" expectations. They will typically need replacement in a couple of years, and only six months or so if they have, for example a notably weak pigment like Epson's K3 yellow.
This extreme "elasticity" in how light exposure accumulates on prints located in varying indoor display environments is why I came to the conclusion a long time ago that lightfastness ratings expressed solely as a single value of "years on display rather than in megalux hours gives consumers an unwittingly naive view of print longevity, one that totally fails to educate the customer about the huge impact of the environment and what easily implemented steps he or she can take to vastly improve the longevity the print: simple things like displaying a print a few feet further away from a window, and/or installing some adjustable blinds on windows that permit a lot of sunlight to enter the building.
BTW, reasonably accurate lux meters cost less than $20 at Amazon these days...just saying a few spot readings with a lux meter over a period of a few hours or days can teach you a lot about your chosen indoor display environments.
cheers,
Mark
-
Mark, thanks for the info, that's a lot to consider (more than I realized). So it looks like that if you know ahead of time that your photo will be used in an office setting extra precautions to protect against UV should be made. I also didn't know I could buy a lux meter than cheap.
-
You can get an app for many phones that use the inbuilt sensors to give you lux readings.
-
... So it looks like that if you know ahead of time that your photo will be used in an office setting extra precautions to protect against UV should be made.
It's true that outdoor sunshine has about 3x the proportional amount of UV energy component in its full spectrum compared to the spectrum of natural daylight diffusely illuminating the wall inside a typical home or office, but the intensity is also routinely 100x to 1000x higher! The extreme light intensity levels are a major reason outdoor weathering conditions are so severe.
The first attenuation of the UV occurs as the sunlight goes through the soda lime window glass. Much more attenuation occurs due to absorption by the TiO2 pigments in all house paint, also by carpeting, drapes, etc. So, there's already a huge UV attenuation factor within any indoor display envirironment. Nevertheless, entirely filtering out the residual UV in the indoor lighting environment by means of UV-block museum glass, for example, will indeed reduce fade rates in many (but not all) prints by a factor of approximately 2-3x. Now, besides expensive museum glass what else can one do to reduce fade rates on prints by 2-3x? If you answered, "lower the lux level by 2-3x" you are entirely correct! And if you study interior display conditions you will see that even within any one room there are average lux levels on some walls (even across a single wall) that vary by 10X or more in intensity! Hence, the dirty little secret is that the print owner can frame two identical prints, one with regular glass, the other with expensive museum glass, and depending on where those prints are hung on the wall, the one with regular glass could easily be fading at a lower rate than the one protected by Museum glass! Thus, whereas Musuem glass does buy some extra protection, the main thing to worry about is the lux levels on your prints. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's famous line "It's the economy, stupid!", for light-induced print fading "It's the light intensity, stupid!" :) And, of course, choosing a more light fade resistant print process will also buy as much or more fade protection as Museum glass (e.g, OEM ink versus third party ink, or one media versus another).
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
This discussion is a good prompt for me to go back and visit my former employer in downtown Washington DC. I have about 20 11x16 images hanging in the hallway. All are framed under high quality acrylite (Frame Destinations). All of them were printed in 2007 with Epson K3 inks. Several are monochrome. the lighting is typical American office building, fairly harsh and on fo4 12 to 14 hours a day. I was back for a meeting in late 2011 and they still looked fine; no noticeable color changes. I'll need to go back one of these days and see how they look now as it's almost 10 years of display. Papers used for printing: Ilford Gold Fiber Silk; Museo Silver Rag; Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth (there is a lot of data on this paper on Aardenburg as Mark and I wanted to fully test out Epson ABW print driver).
For those of you who sell to doctors' offices like I do, this might offer a convenient way to check up on print stability.
Alan
-
This discussion is a good prompt for me to go back and visit my former employer in downtown Washington DC. I have about 20 11x16 images hanging in the hallway. All are framed under high quality acrylite (Frame Destinations). All of them were printed in 2007 with Epson K3 inks. Several are monochrome. the lighting is typical American office building, fairly harsh and on fo4 12 to 14 hours a day. I was back for a meeting in late 2011 and they still looked fine; no noticeable color changes. I'll need to go back one of these days and see how they look now as it's almost 10 years of display. Papers used for printing: Ilford Gold Fiber Silk; Museo Silver Rag; Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth (there is a lot of data on this paper on Aardenburg as Mark and I wanted to fully test out Epson ABW print driver).
For those of you who sell to doctors' offices like I do, this might offer a convenient way to check up on print stability.
Alan
Let us know how it turns out, Alan. I ordered a roll and box of the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta. It seems like a better choice.
-
This discussion is a good prompt for me to go back and visit my former employer in downtown Washington DC. I have about 20 11x16 images hanging in the hallway. All are framed under high quality acrylite (Frame Destinations). All of them were printed in 2007 with Epson K3 inks. Several are monochrome. the lighting is typical American office building, fairly harsh and on fo4 12 to 14 hours a day. I was back for a meeting in late 2011 and they still looked fine; no noticeable color changes. I'll need to go back one of these days and see how they look now as it's almost 10 years of display. Papers used for printing: Ilford Gold Fiber Silk; Museo Silver Rag; Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth (there is a lot of data on this paper on Aardenburg as Mark and I wanted to fully test out Epson ABW print driver).
For those of you who sell to doctors' offices like I do, this might offer a convenient way to check up on print stability.
Alan
Hi Alan. Please take a lux meter with you and make some spot measurements in front of your prints :) I think it will be very instructive, and the measurements combined with a reasonable guess for how long the prints are illuminated on a daily basis can be used to make a rough but still useful estimate of accumulated exposure dose to date. Then this estimated accumulated exposure dose can be compared to the Aardenburg Conservation Display ratings.
here's a decent one (CIE photopic spectral response and cosine corrected) that will work over a broad illuminance range. I bought this unit a while back for $15 on Amazon prime:
https://www.amazon.com/Sunche-Professional-Illuminance-Illuminometer-Photometer/dp/B00LSFR0FO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1492200195&sr=8-2&keywords=lux+meter+HS1010
My sample of this little luxmeter is within 5% accuracy over a tested 10-15000 lux range compared to the $2K NIST traceable radiometer I own to calibrate my light fade units.
all the best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks, Mark! I've ordered one.
I've always wanted to know how dark it is for the photo exhibits I visit. I saw an exhibit of Ansel Adams prints and the museum gallery was like a cave. I'm sure they have their reason for displaying them with that low a light but it made it very, very difficult for me to appreciate his prints. Now I'll know and compare it to how I view my Adams' prints (not by Ansel himself) at home.
-
... I saw an exhibit of Ansel Adams prints and the museum gallery was like a cave. I'm sure they have their reason for displaying them with that low a light but it made it very, very difficult for me to appreciate his prints. Now I'll know and compare it to how I view my Adams' prints (not by Ansel himself) at home.
Yes, many of Adam's prints contain OBA's, hence, to keep them in pristine condition, Museums have to treat them as if they are fugitive color prints. That said, older folks like you and me don't have the low light sensitivity we used to. Most lighting designers in Museums and Archives are aware of that fact, but don't always have the know-how or exhibition budgets to create adaptive surround conditions which allow everyone to see better color and tone under lower illumination levels on the print. I hate it when that happens! ;)
Glad to hear you picked up a lux meter. Maybe the Aardenburg website should move to a click-bait advertising model with loads of links to retailers in order to pick up a few extra dollars... not!!!
You will be fascinated with the range of light levels routinely encountered in real-world indoor display environments.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Glad to hear you picked up a lux meter. Maybe the Aardenburg website should move to a click-bait advertising model with loads of links to retailers in order to pick up a few extra dollars... not!!!
You will be fascinated with the range of light levels routinely encountered in real-world indoor display environments.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Amazon only have 7 left after my order just went in!!!
Alan
-
Amazon only have 7 left after my order just went in!!!
Alan
Amazon is a bit weird in that it stocks different distributors all selling exactly the same product but with variants of the product name and description. I'll bet if you type in "lux meter HS1010" into the amazon search box, you will see this exact same unit fulfilled by different vendors at varying price points. HS1010 seems to be the common model number going back to the actual manufacturer (probably some place in china :)). I picked that link because the description confirmed the CIE photopic response. The white diffusing disk confirms the cosine response. I didn't do an exhaustive study on which link is the rock bottom price, but at less than $15 I thought this lux meter a pretty darn good bargain.
As someone else noted there are also smartphone lux meter apps, but some are much better than others and some even allow for calibration, but it harder to know exactly what you are getting. Also, to do it right, you have to look for a smartphone luxmeter solution that sell you a white disk which fits over the smartphone camera lens or ports into the microphone jack. The white disk thingy is also then typically sold with the free app that is supposed to be used with it. Anyway, smartphone lux meter apps are another cool approach to affordable lux level reading, but I think the dedicated lux meter units require less market research to know what you are actually getting.
best,
Mark
-
Amazon is a bit weird in that it stocks different distributors all selling exactly the same product but with variants of the product name and description. I'll bet if you type in "lux meter HS1010" into the amazon search box, you will see this exact same unit fulfilled by different vendors at varying price points. HS1010 seems to be the common model number going back to the actual manufacturer (probably some place in china :)). I picked that link because the description confirmed the CIE photopic response. The white diffusing disk confirms the cosine response. I didn't do an exhaustive study on which link is the rock bottom price, but at less than $15 I thought this lux meter a pretty darn good bargain.
The meter came the other day and looks to be a great instrument for the price!!! It's pretty easy to use. I've confirmed that my 'gallery' is still hanging and I plan to go down and take LUX measurements and report back. As noted, most of the images have been hanging over eight years under fairly harsh office lighting. If I had some forethought I would have printed out a color patch set to hang up and measure (I'm sure the powers to be would think it to be some type of op-art).
Alan
-
I just got back from my old office. All the prints are still hanging and the colors look very good. The papers were Hahnemuhly Photo Rag Ultra Smooth, Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, and Museo Silver Rag. 10 images are hanging, all framed behind normal Acrylite and two are monochrome. The average LUX reading was 332 with a high value of 401 and a low value 258. The lights are on for about 13 hours a day. All the images are in the hallway and none receive any sunlight. As noted the pictures have been hanging since late 2008 and were printed on an Epson 3880.
Alan
-
I just got back from my old office. All the prints are still hanging and the colors look very good. The papers were Hahnemuhly Photo Rag Ultra Smooth, Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, and Museo Silver Rag. 10 images are hanging, all framed behind normal Acrylite and two are monochrome. The average LUX reading was 332 with a high value of 401 and a low value 258. The lights are on for about 13 hours a day. All the images are in the hallway and none receive any sunlight. As noted the pictures have been hanging since late 2008 and were printed on an Epson 3880.
Alan
Hi Alan, did the acrylic you use have uv protection?
-
Hi Alan, did the acrylic you use have uv protection?
No, plain acrylic.
-
No, plain acrylic.
That is great - very encouraging to know they held up.
-
I just got back from my old office. All the prints are still hanging and the colors look very good. The papers were Hahnemuhly Photo Rag Ultra Smooth, Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, and Museo Silver Rag. 10 images are hanging, all framed behind normal Acrylite and two are monochrome. The average LUX reading was 332 with a high value of 401 and a low value 258. The lights are on for about 13 hours a day. All the images are in the hallway and none receive any sunlight. As noted the pictures have been hanging since late 2008 and were printed on an Epson 3880.
Alan
Alan, your measured range of 258 to 401 lux is pretty consistent with typically quoted values for good office lighting conditions, although I was expecting a little more variablity from low to high. :) If we take the measured high value for daily exposure as 400 lux for 13 hours per day we can make a "worst case" estimate with respect to the total accumulated exposure to date.
400 lux x 13 hours/day x 365 days/year x 9 years x (1megalux/1000000 lux) = 17.082 Megalux hours
Assuming you printed with an Epson printer and K3 ink set, I found some Aardenburg test results for the papers you used. The worst two Aardenburg Conservation Display ratings among those I found were 51-84 and 59-95 megalux hours, respectively. If we then take the 51 megalux hour lower CDR limit as the worst case situation where just noticeable fading begins to occur, then your prints are still well within their “period of excellence” where essentially no fading is going to be observed. In fact, these prints on display in this location have at least 18 more years to remain in excellent condition at this estimated light exposure rate!
Consider if you had made conventional wet process chromogenic color prints instead of these K3 pigment prints and place under same display conditions. Aardenburg predicts a Conservation display rating for Fuji Crystal Archive at approximately 12-28 megalux hours. Your “period of excellence” would almost be used up entirely. Those prints would still look good today, but in another nine years they would then be into the “noticeable fade” stage of their print life, and 18 years from now would be well into their “easily noticeable fade” stage of deterioration, whereas the K3 pigment prints on your chosen papers, albeit then having consumed their full Conservation rated display time, will thus still look essentially fade-free.
Or consider if you had used a high OBA content paper like Epson Ultra Premium Presentation paper (aka, Epson Archival Matte). It scored an 8-103 meglux hour Conservation display rating with the K3 ink set, the upper CDR limit being extended because the strong media white yellowing is off-setting some of the K3 yellow fading in various colors on average. Thus, while many areas in an image would still contain colors and tones in excellent condition, the media white print margins and white areas as well as many highlight colors, especially light blue colors, would now be exhibiting noticeable color changes. The OBA fading is largely responsible for the visual outcome in this example.
Lastly, consider what might have occurred if you had elected to use a third party “K3 equivalent” ink set to make your prints. I have one popular brand in test at the moment (data not yet posted to the Aardenburg database) that more than likely is actually a dye-pigment hybrid ink set. Some third party inks do significantly better in Aardenburg testing than this one, but this one is going to get a rating of approximately 2-5 megalux hours despite being sold as a high quality replacement ink set for printer models using Epson k3, K3VM, or even HD inks. Without published fade test results, who would know? In some commonly encountered home display conditions under 100 lux/12 hour daily illumination, this product would still be relatively fade-free at your nine year mark on display and the buyer would likely feel justified at his/her purchase under those circumstances, but in the office condition you have measured, easily noticeable fade would have already occurred at your nine year mark. I wouldn’t want my signature on those prints!
I hope Alan's real world lux level measurements in a specific display location along with the extra examples of print process choice I discussed above help to inform folks why choosing print processes wisely is one important part of the print longevity puzzle. The other is display lighting. Real world variability in display illumination levels accounts for very large differences in print fading outcomes even when considering just one print process (e.g., printer/ink/media). It is why for the materials and processes we test, Aardenburg posts megalux hour ratings, and we hope you own a light meter ;).. in order to make a more informed decision with respect to "how long will my prints last?".
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Alan, your measured range of 258 to 401 lux is pretty consistent with typically quoted values for good office lighting conditions, although I was expecting a little more variablity from low to high. :)
Mark, thanks for doing the math!!! All the pictures are hung at viewing height and I did a number of measurements in other areas of the office to make sure that the meter was giving consistent readings. One of the interesting things that I looked at were three images taken in the fall when the color changes in tree foliage were at their peak. We know that the Epson yellow is the weakest in the ink set. Visually, these scenes still looked as vibrant as when they were printed.
It's good to know the display will hold up well for another decade or more. The only question is whether management may tire of them!!! Certainly the current employees continue to enjoy them.