archival properties - paper ink permanence info

[Stefan Ohlsson]

Following up on this, I've received confirmation from one of the manufacturer's representatives who sought it directly from source that the new IGFS is identical to the old and there are no OBAs in it.

Why then does the old paper turn blue when I turn on my UV light? Does the representative know what OBA is?

[Ernst Dinkla]

Following up on this, I've received confirmation from one of the manufacturer's representatives who sought it directly from source that the new IGFS is identical to the old and there are no OBAs in it.

I trust my spectrometer more than most representatives. Not that I did not hear some interesting rumors on the Photokina.

I also trust Aardenburg-Imaging's spectrometers on the OBA content.

If you want to know where some Ilford imaging staff, patents and equipment went:
http://iis-liquidation.ch/
http://www.wifag-polytype.com/fileadmin/user_upload/press_downloads/2014-05-08_Ilford/PR20140219-Fachpresse-Ilford-E.pdf
http://www.wifag-polytype.com/group/actual/news/

A company that makes coating machinery.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2014 update, 680+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Alan Goldhammer]

I just deleted my post in the thread about the two new Baryta papers that Mark reviewed yesterday on the LuLa home site where I commented on the presence/absence of OBAs in IGFS.  If it is "true" that there are no OBAs in the 'new' IGFS then the paper is not the same as the old version.  As noted din the two posts above, there were OBAs present in that paper.  Even so, the paper does seem to be pretty stable in the Aardenburg stability tests.

[MHMG]

Following up on this, I've received confirmation from one of the manufacturer's representatives who sought it directly from source that the new IGFS is identical to the old and there are no OBAs in it.

It is always amazing to me how old myths never seem to die.  Way back when IGFS was new, at least one Ilford brochure said it had no OBAs. That printed claim was erroneous. Trade reps then picked up on this "selling point" and spread that mistake far and wide. Now, it appears as IGFS is being reborn, this old myth may once again be making the rounds amongst the sales reps. To be clear, the old IGFS does have OBAs at low levels. I don't have any of the latest IGFS, but if it truly does not have any OBAs then it is not the original formulation and only the name is reborn, not the original product. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd bet it the latest version does indeed contain OBAs, but that will be easy enough to determine by simple examination with a blacklight, or by instrumentation in the manner in which Ernst and I report our media white point measurements.

The Old IGFS OBA content was located in a subbing layer (but not the paper core). Because it was used in moderation and not located in the top coat the incorporated OBAs hold up better in light fade testing than some OBAs in other OBA-containing papers, especially ones with high OBA content like Epson Exhibition Fiber paper.  However, the incorporated OBAS do eventually fade, and there's also some LILIS effect (light induced low intensity staining) that can show up eventually when the print is taken off display and retired for several months or more to dark storage.

I'm growing fonder and fonder of OBA free papers in my own personal printmaking efforts. Perhaps it's an acquired taste

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

[Mark D Segal]

Well, that's why I made the inquiry and posted here the response I received. I shall now feed this link back to the source of the information and let us see how they respond. :-) Thanks guys. Should be an interesting discussion if they wish to engage further.

Cheers,

Mark

[Ernst Dinkla]

I just deleted my post in the thread about the two new Baryta papers that Mark reviewed yesterday on the LuLa home site where I commented on the presence/absence of OBAs in IGFS.  If it is "true" that there are no OBAs in the 'new' IGFS then the paper is not the same as the old version.  As noted din the two posts above, there were OBAs present in that paper.  Even so, the paper does seem to be pretty stable in the Aardenburg stability tests.

The reviewed Hahnemühle Photo Silk Baryta is identical to the new IGFS and to the Felix Schoeller J23160 True Baryta. Hahnemühle mentions very low OBA content for that paper, which is correct. The old IGFS had even lower OBA content and shows a near identical spectral plot to the new version.

Edit, a screenshot of the respective papers. It looks like with every incarnation of IGFS: Galerie, Galerie Prestige, New Galerie Prestige, the level of OBA went up. The top plot, yellow/green/blue, is the merging of the new generation of IGFS clones.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[Mark D Segal]

I just deleted my post in the thread about the two new Baryta papers that Mark reviewed yesterday on the LuLa home site where I commented on the presence/absence of OBAs in IGFS.  If it is "true" that there are no OBAs in the 'new' IGFS then the paper is not the same as the old version.  As noted din the two posts above, there were OBAs present in that paper.  Even so, the paper does seem to be pretty stable in the Aardenburg stability tests.

Hi Alan, OK, we're dealing with opposing views both from highly respected specialists in the field. The manufacturer and Wilhelm reporting one thing, and Ernst and Mark reporting the opposite. One or the other is correct, or the reality lies in some factor that has yet to be revealed (and hence I wouldn't have a clue). So I have referred this discussion back to the manufacturer's representative and asked them if they care to revert back to source and help with further clarity on the matter. Let us see what comes next.

[dchew]

This thread bolsters my belief that the "Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks" area of this forum is one of the best. Thanks to all the contributors.

Dave

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Dave,

Just visited your website - superb work there.

Cheers,

Mark

[John Caldwell]

How does one reconcile the reported 90-year longevity numbers for Exhibition Fiber with the knowledge that users of this paper report unstable white-point of the paper? Do longevity ratings, from Wilhelm or otherwise, not encompass fade of paper white values?

[TylerB]

How does one reconcile the reported 90-year longevity numbers for Exhibition Fiber with the knowledge that users of this paper report unstable white-point of the paper? Do longevity ratings, from Wilhelm or otherwise, not encompass fade of paper white values?

John, frankly the statement at face value is so hard to swallow I don't try to reconcile it, I don't take it seriously. Under what conditions will it "last" 90 years? What exactly will it look like at 90 years, is there a range of change considered acceptable and "lasting"?
The only longevity ratings that seem serious to me are Aargenburg's. In fact I don't consider them longevity ratings, what they really provide, is some kind of scientifically deduced expectation of what a given combination of materials will look like over X amount of time under X conditions.
Isn't that all we can really expect?

Among other things this helps us select processes when put in comparative contexts with others, and helps us learn how to care for our art. I never tell anyone how long a print will last any more, I tell them the efforts gone into making it as robust as possible given alternatives, and any care and handling advice I can give with confidence. Generally this is not what people want to hear, they want to hear how many years it will last period, a concept unfortunately propagated by marketing techniques for decades and very difficult to counter without sounding sleazy...

[Mark D Segal]

John and Tyler,

Much as qualified scientists have tried their best to simulate longevity estimates using sophisticated techniques, simply because not enough time has elapsed to verify the predictions, it is not possible to put errors of estimate around these very long term predictions. I think this is why it is indeed to be cautious when responding to people seeking these assurances, regardless of what they want to hear. I think it also necessary to read the footnotes accompanying every estimate of image and paper longevity that WIR publishes -  heaps of context and qualifiers there, as well as the numerous PDF document's on MHMG's website dealing with methodology and meaning.

[John Caldwell]

Thanks Mark and Tyler. If we, for the moment, just address the simple question of whether longevity ratings - no matter from whom the come: Do they speak only to ink fade or time, or do that also encompass changes in a paper's whiteness over time? I understand that there are limitations in simulating long period of time.

Thank you,

John Caldwell

[MHMG]

How does one reconcile the reported 90-year longevity numbers for Exhibition Fiber with the knowledge that users of this paper report unstable white-point of the paper? Do longevity ratings, from Wilhelm or otherwise, not encompass fade of paper white values?

I could give a lengthy seminar on how manufacturers and testing labs arrive at meaningful (or not so meaningful) failure criteria used in accelerated aging studies, but to answer your question as succinctly as I can ...Wilhelm's WIR Visually-Weighted Endpoint Criteria Set v3.0 is a legacy standard based on densitometry not colorimetry and derived as a consumer satisfaction (acceptability) rating for noticeable fading and discoloration of 20th century color chromogenic papers.  With the WIR 3.0 criteria set, a fairly liberal paper white point color shift (i.e yellowish stain level) is allowed (e.g., 0.15 blue density increase) because traditional wet process color photo papers of that era exhibited rather high paper stain levels both on display and in dark storage.  Other visual tolerances, some tighter, some looser, are given to factors like color balance shift, fading of "pure" colors like cyan, magenta, and yellow,etc. There are 17 individual criteria in all for the WIR 3.0 criteria set, but the one that reaches its limit first during testing becomes the defining endpoint for the test and thus the basis for the predicted lifetime rating. Today's inkjet media rarely if ever fail on the WIR white point criteria because it is set pretty loose to be "fairer" from a consumer tolerance point of view to traditional chromogenic color papers.  Consequently, the current WIR test method is not really able to differentiate poorer inkjet papers from better inkjet papers with respect to white point stability over time.

Multi-colorant inkjet systems also pose other challenges to the legacy WIR test method and to evaluations made with densitometric measurements rather than colorimetric measurement in general.  Henry Wilhelm and I collaborated for several years on a better evaluation protocol that culminated in the publication of the open source I* metric at the end of 2004. The I* metric achieves what we set out to do, ie., solve the technical problems with image appearance evaluation of systems with very complex fading behavior. I went on to found AaI&A in order to refine a practical test target (largely based on the color values specified in Macbeth Color Checker Chart) for evaluating color blends and skin tone colors that the older test methods don't even have any means to evaluate, and when used in conjunction with the I* metric would complete my goal of a fair and impartial light fade test for modern printing systems.

Unfortunately, the industry has been very slow to embrace any new testing methodology which is presumably why WIR still performs testing for clients with the legacy WIR 3.0 method, and why there continues to be a fragmented bunch of print permanence claims, no ISO standard for print permanence testing, and no standardization in how manufacturers provide the customer with any truly meaningful information about print permanence of their products
 
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Mark. I think that post would be a fitting "finishing touch" on this thread - not that I am trying to stifle any discussion - it's just so very succinct about where the science and commerce stands that it leaves one wondering what more there is to say for addressing the comfort level under current conditions.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Thanks Mark. I think that post would be a fitting "finishing touch" on this thread - not that I am trying to stifle any discussion - it's just so very succinct about where the science and commerce stands that it leaves one wondering what more there is to say for addressing the comfort level under current conditions.

The one "final touch" that really needs to be done is to move towards an acceptable ISO standard.  That way we could have confidence in an accepted approach to permanence.  I don't know whether there is a standing group on such things within ISO or one of the other standards organizations (I was a member of ASTM, HL-7, and GS1 during my working career but none of these were involved in photography).

Alan

[Mark D Segal]

I agree, but I'm wondering whether the state of the science and the scope for consensus amongst those concerned would facilitate developing such a standard.

[MHMG]

The one "final touch" that really needs to be done is to move towards an acceptable ISO standard.  That way we could have confidence in an accepted approach to permanence.  I don't know whether there is a standing group on such things within ISO or one of the other standards organizations (I was a member of ASTM, HL-7, and GS1 during my working career but none of these were involved in photography).

Alan

There is an ISO working committee on print permanence standards (light, heat, gas fade, etc). I was on it for several years, but finally quit when it became clear that there were too many manufacturers with too many diverse agendas to proceed at any rational pace towards a meaningful standard. There was never any contention that the science wasn't solid enough to create a good standard. There was plenty of contentiousness about how and where to set pass/fail specifications and what assumptions to use for a "typical" display environment which was needed to make any extrapolation to the "years on display" time in order to reach the specified failure criterion limit.

I quit nearly 10 years ago, but I keep in touch with how that effort is going through my colleagues who remain involved. IMHO, the prospects for a meaningful set of print permanence standards are worse today than when I quit. Turmoil in the industry (demise of Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Konica, Polaroid, etc) combined with a growing public misconception that print permanence is not necessary in this modern digital era of "fade-free" digital images, conspires to make consensus within the task group even tougher today than it would have been ten years ago.

All that said, I do firmly believe that meaningful print permanence information is still important to the printmaking community, that prints surviving into the future from this era of inkjet printing will be artistically, historically, and/or sentimentally important, and that the ones in superior condition will be especially coveted.  I also genuinely believe but have utterly failed to prove with the AaI&A digital print research program that the printmaking community is in a much better position to fund and produce this information for ourselves.... not to rely on the manufacturers to objectively provide it to us. And perhaps naively, I believe that such an effort spearheaded within the printmaking community could lead to various independent testing labs embracing a single testing protocol and sharing the testing workload. The more the merrier. And lastly, if that happens, then the appropriate ISO committee(s) could finally be incentivized enough to adopt the outcome as an ISO standard or set of standards.


OK, Mark S.  Now I'm also ready to say, that's my "final touch" to this thread. But others could easily suck me back into it .
cheers,

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

[Alan Goldhammer]

Mark,

Thanks for the overview on the standards organization work.  I agree with you that this is the "final word" and that your conclusion about the print makers obligation here.

Alan

[JRSmit]

As a Fine Art Print maker i agree with you Mark. That is why i support your work.  And i urge all printmakers to support AaI&A if you are not already doing that. I honestly believe i owe that to my customers.