Archival inksets for inkjet printers.

Frontier prints advertise 65 year life expectancy. That relys on a well kept
chemical line, not something drug stores, mass marketing printers are known for
,and a very low ambient light. When Fontier prints were subject to Wilhelm's
standards (light almost 4x of what Fuji specifies the print life was more in
the 20-30 year range. Under Wilhelm's specs inkjet pigment inks do much better.
Is this the final answer, probably not. But right now, according to accelerated
testing pigmented inkjet inks have a slight advantage. Don't knock accelerated
testing too much, it has been the standard for testing fabric dyes for most of
this century.

Tom



At the professional lab I use the most common color print is now the digital
Frontier. Color dye prints are generally rated a display life of 100 years
today, not "20."

In any case, pragmatically there's no difference between a "common" print
(whatever nondescript assertion is meant by that...) made in a lab and the C,
Type R, or Ciba prints I've made myself. Color prints I have on my wall (some
made longer than 30 years ago) look like the day they were printed. I even
have boxes of machine color prints from the 60's that are 40 years old and in
good condition.




Don't know of any 200 year old photographs either colour or B&W, mainly
cause photography wasn't invented until the 1840's. But there are
colour prints that are 100 years old and still looking good. Look up
"Carbro Process" and "Autochrome."

The Autochrome process produced prints before 1910 that are still
vibrant today.

http://www.institut-lumiere.org/engl...utochrome.html
http://toosvanholstein.nl/greatwar/kleur/kleur.html

Of course, for truly archival colour photography today one can take the
camera original and from it create tri-colour separation B&W
gelatin-silver negatives on glass plates processed and stored
archivally. There are a number of top-ticket professional labs and
museums that do exactly that.


"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:08:36 -0700, Tom Phillips
...snip...

May not outlast silver and gelatin, but with care can
eaisily outlast most conventional color photogrraphic
prints. So where are the 200 year old color photograhic
prints and where can I see them?



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

An autochrome is made by attaching tiny red, green and blue filters to
the surface of black and white film, reversal processing the film (leaving
the filters in place) and projecting the resulting colored slide.

Polacolor (Polaroids instant color slide film) is a lenticular Autochrome
process and is still in production.

US patent 822,532
French industrial patent 339,223
EPO classification G03C7/08

describe Lumiere's original technology. Though they are rather vague
on the fine points of sprinkling potato starch on pitch, as the
manufacturing process had not been worked out when the patent was
filed, what one man can do, so can another. As the process existed
until the '30's it should be possible to find factory workers who
still remember the details of the manufacturing process.

The Lumiere company stopped making Autochrome in the 1930's. Lumiere
was acquired by Ilford's parent company of the time, Ciba - of
Cibachrome fame, in the 60's and merged with Ilford, long
after Autochrome production ceased.

Since the pigments in an autochrome are only used for filtering the light,
any color absorbing material can be used, and the process is not limited
to (generally) organic dyes that can couple with silver grains.

There are many other color processes that do not rely on dye couplers,
the most common being 4 color lithography; another common method is
ink jet printing.

There is no technical reason that metallic pigments can not be used in
an ink-jet printer. OTOH, the color gamut of metallic compounds is fixed
and the accuracy of color reproduction will be reduced -- but this
limited color gamut serves painters very well.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

By common lab prints I meant the Kodak and Fuji photo paper (chemical)
enlargements churned out by those one hour labs at about the rate of 2
million a day. Ciba and Forntier prints do indeed have a longer life, but
while Froutier and other digital printing methods are on the rise, they are
usually found only in custom labs at this point where they are replacing
Ciba, which never was a process found in the great majority of labs.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Tony Spadaro wrote:

The life expectancy of the common lab print - 99% of all colour
prints
being made today - is 20 years and a lot look pretty bad in only one or
two
years.

At the professional lab I use the most common color print is now the
digital
Frontier. Color dye prints are generally rated a display life of 100 years
today, not "20."

In any case, pragmatically there's no difference between a "common" print
(whatever nondescript assertion is meant by that...) made in a lab and the
C,
Type R, or Ciba prints I've made myself. Color prints I have on my wall
(some
made longer than 30 years ago) look like the day they were printed. I even
have boxes of machine color prints from the 60's that are 40 years old and
in
good condition.




Don't know of any 200 year old photographs either colour or B&W,
mainly
cause photography wasn't invented until the 1840's. But there are
colour prints that are 100 years old and still looking good. Look up
"Carbro Process" and "Autochrome."

The Autochrome process produced prints before 1910 that are still
vibrant today.

http://www.institut-lumiere.org/engl...utochrome.html
http://toosvanholstein.nl/greatwar/kleur/kleur.html

Of course, for truly archival colour photography today one can take
the
camera original and from it create tri-colour separation B&W
gelatin-silver negatives on glass plates processed and stored
archivally. There are a number of top-ticket professional labs and
museums that do exactly that.


"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:08:36 -0700, Tom Phillips
...snip...

May not outlast silver and gelatin, but with care can
eaisily outlast most conventional color photogrraphic
prints. So where are the 200 year old color photograhic
prints and where can I see them?



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Patrick Gainer wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

"Rafe B." wrote:

Go back and review the thread.

I'm sure Gregory read the thread. I've not noticed him to not pay
attention, even if we disagree. It's you who either aren't paying
attention to, or aren't reading, what's being said.

No current inkjet technology relies on
electrostatics to propel the ink.

Piezo is a form of electrostatic. Giclee is an Iris. These are common
output. Even if inks in bubble jets aren't ph modified, that's not the
only reason inkjets aren't archival, something I clearly stated you just
find convenient to ignore.

Fact of the matter is that pigment-
based inkjet prints on appropriate
media most likely will far outlast
conventional color prints (C-prints)
and even Cibas (R-prints.)

Previously you asserted an inkjet will "easily outlast conventional
color prints." Interesting, considering no inkjet has so far lasted even
as long as the color prints I have hanging on my walls, which show no
deterioration or fading at all.

In any case it's an assertion you cannot prove. Someone else stated the
fallacy that C prints last maybe 20 years in "excellent storage
conditions" and Cibachrome "maxes out at about 30 years." I have pointed
out I have such prints older than this and also that stable color images
have been around for well over 100 years and counting.

The
bad news is that pigments don't
have the gamut or Dmax of dyes.

Well, that's also just one more reason not to use inkjets. The color
space of digital devices cannot reproduce the color gamuts of
photographic dyes, no matter how many inks are used.


I hate to interrupt this gentlemanly discussion,

hard to interrupt a discussion that already died weeks ago.

but do we not have
documents written with ink on paper that are over 200 years old?
Usually, the fistt to go is the paper, which turns into cornflakes.

Apples and oranges.


I placed a color photo in a local store window in a frame without glass.
This window faced the afternoon sun. It was there for a year without
fading or changing color. This photo was printed on Epson's Archival
Matte by a 2000P printer soon after it came out. This paper does have a
protective coating. The same printer working on Kodak Semi-Gloss Photo
paper of the time produced very different colors to begin with, so the
coating must have had something to do with the printing process. The
same picture that I displayed in that window has been hanging on my wall
for several years (when did the 2000P come out?) without fading.

When someone makes a claim, as did Epson, about a product, I do not
reject it offhand because I have a theory about crooked experts. I give
it the best try I can if I think I would like to use the product.

Tony Spadaro wrote:

By common lab prints I meant the Kodak and Fuji photo paper (chemical)
enlargements churned out by those one hour labs at about the rate of 2
million a day.

Those are machine prints. I don't know there's any difference between the
emulsion and dyes in the paper used for machine prints and the emulsion and
dyes in the paper used for C prints at custom labs.

I'm looking at a machine print as I write from a 35mm negative I took well over
20 years ago. It's in perfect condition with no fading. I have albums full of
these, all in excellent condition.


"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Tony Spadaro wrote:

The life expectancy of the common lab print - 99% of all colour
prints
being made today - is 20 years and a lot look pretty bad in only one or
two
years.

At the professional lab I use the most common color print is now the
digital
Frontier. Color dye prints are generally rated a display life of 100 years
today, not "20."

In any case, pragmatically there's no difference between a "common" print
(whatever nondescript assertion is meant by that...) made in a lab and the
C,
Type R, or Ciba prints I've made myself. Color prints I have on my wall
(some
made longer than 30 years ago) look like the day they were printed. I even
have boxes of machine color prints from the 60's that are 40 years old and
in
good condition.




Don't know of any 200 year old photographs either colour or B&W,
mainly
cause photography wasn't invented until the 1840's. But there are
colour prints that are 100 years old and still looking good. Look up
"Carbro Process" and "Autochrome."

The Autochrome process produced prints before 1910 that are still
vibrant today.

http://www.institut-lumiere.org/engl...utochrome.html
http://toosvanholstein.nl/greatwar/kleur/kleur.html

Of course, for truly archival colour photography today one can take
the
camera original and from it create tri-colour separation B&W
gelatin-silver negatives on glass plates processed and stored
archivally. There are a number of top-ticket professional labs and
museums that do exactly that.


"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:08:36 -0700, Tom Phillips
...snip...

May not outlast silver and gelatin, but with care can
eaisily outlast most conventional color photogrraphic
prints. So where are the 200 year old color photograhic
prints and where can I see them?



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Not what i had heard, thought Ciba bought Lumiere in the 30's and trashed their
factory, eliminating pototo starch Autochromes. If the Polaroid instant 35 is
any example of Autochrome technology it is a good thing it died. Though I doubt
Polaroid would use potato starch. I had also heard that they had not patented
the full process out of fear a larger company would copy the process. The
patent was for the whole process or some fraction of the process.
It seems that the Lumieres made a machine that did most of the process and had
very few employees, again distrust bordering on paranoia. I still don't think
that this is a process that is worth doing again other than for the educational
value.
In regards to metallic pigments, I was just stating that they cannot be used
with basic photosenitizers, probably as you said could be used in pigmented ink
for inkjets or 4 color printing.

Tom


An autochrome is made by attaching tiny red, green and blue filters to
the surface of black and white film, reversal processing the film (leaving
the filters in place) and projecting the resulting colored slide.

Polacolor (Polaroids instant color slide film) is a lenticular Autochrome
process and is still in production.

US patent 822,532
French industrial patent 339,223
EPO classification G03C7/08

describe Lumiere's original technology. Though they are rather vague
on the fine points of sprinkling potato starch on pitch, as the
manufacturing process had not been worked out when the patent was
filed, what one man can do, so can another. As the process existed
until the '30's it should be possible to find factory workers who
still remember the details of the manufacturing process.

The Lumiere company stopped making Autochrome in the 1930's. Lumiere
was acquired by Ilford's parent company of the time, Ciba - of
Cibachrome fame, in the 60's and merged with Ilford, long
after Autochrome production ceased.

Since the pigments in an autochrome are only used for filtering the light,
any color absorbing material can be used, and the process is not limited
to (generally) organic dyes that can couple with silver grains.

There are many other color processes that do not rely on dye couplers,
the most common being 4 color lithography; another common method is
ink jet printing.

There is no technical reason that metallic pigments can not be used in
an ink-jet printer. OTOH, the color gamut of metallic compounds is fixed
and the accuracy of color reproduction will be reduced -- but this
limited color gamut serves painters very well.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

Tony Spadaro wrote:

I guarantee you , they have lost some colour, and will continue to lose
more. Albums help as they spend les time exposed to light, but nothing will
actually stop the fading process.

Of course you have actually measured the Status A Reflection densities of my
prints, right?

Hey Tony, I guarantee the sun is losing mass as we speak. But still has lots of
energy left and hasn't changed color yet. So, check back in another 50 years.
Meaning what escapes you is just a little fading on an inkjet is catastrophic ,
since the whole idea behind inkjet spraying technology is to lay down as little
ink as possible. But photographic dye layers are quite thick in comparison not
to mention have the aditional protection of an actual binder.

BTW, it's an established fact photographic dye layer fading can be permanantly
stopped, if preservational storage is that important.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Tony Spadaro wrote:

By common lab prints I meant the Kodak and Fuji photo paper
(chemical)
enlargements churned out by those one hour labs at about the rate of 2
million a day.

Those are machine prints. I don't know there's any difference between the
emulsion and dyes in the paper used for machine prints and the emulsion
and
dyes in the paper used for C prints at custom labs.

I'm looking at a machine print as I write from a 35mm negative I took well
over
20 years ago. It's in perfect condition with no fading. I have albums full
of
these, all in excellent condition.


"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Tony Spadaro wrote:

The life expectancy of the common lab print - 99% of all colour
prints
being made today - is 20 years and a lot look pretty bad in only one
or
two
years.

At the professional lab I use the most common color print is now the
digital
Frontier. Color dye prints are generally rated a display life of 100
years
today, not "20."

In any case, pragmatically there's no difference between a "common"
print
(whatever nondescript assertion is meant by that...) made in a lab and
the
C,
Type R, or Ciba prints I've made myself. Color prints I have on my
wall
(some
made longer than 30 years ago) look like the day they were printed. I
even
have boxes of machine color prints from the 60's that are 40 years old
and
in
good condition.




Don't know of any 200 year old photographs either colour or B&W,
mainly
cause photography wasn't invented until the 1840's. But there are
colour prints that are 100 years old and still looking good. Look
up
"Carbro Process" and "Autochrome."

The Autochrome process produced prints before 1910 that are still
vibrant today.

http://www.institut-lumiere.org/engl...utochrome.html
http://toosvanholstein.nl/greatwar/kleur/kleur.html

Of course, for truly archival colour photography today one can
take
the
camera original and from it create tri-colour separation B&W
gelatin-silver negatives on glass plates processed and stored
archivally. There are a number of top-ticket professional labs
and
museums that do exactly that.


"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:08:36 -0700, Tom Phillips

...snip...

May not outlast silver and gelatin, but with care can
eaisily outlast most conventional color photogrraphic
prints. So where are the 200 year old color photograhic
prints and where can I see them?



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Tom Phillips wrote:

"Rafe B." wrote:

Go back and review the thread.

I'm sure Gregory read the thread. I've not noticed him to not pay
attention, even if we disagree. It's you who either aren't paying
attention to, or aren't reading, what's being said.

No current inkjet technology relies on
electrostatics to propel the ink.

Piezo is a form of electrostatic. Giclee is an Iris. These are common
output. Even if inks in bubble jets aren't ph modified, that's not the
only reason inkjets aren't archival, something I clearly stated you just
find convenient to ignore.

Fact of the matter is that pigment-
based inkjet prints on appropriate
media most likely will far outlast
conventional color prints (C-prints)
and even Cibas (R-prints.)

Previously you asserted an inkjet will "easily outlast conventional
color prints." Interesting, considering no inkjet has so far lasted even
as long as the color prints I have hanging on my walls, which show no
deterioration or fading at all.

In any case it's an assertion you cannot prove. Someone else stated the
fallacy that C prints last maybe 20 years in "excellent storage
conditions" and Cibachrome "maxes out at about 30 years." I have pointed
out I have such prints older than this and also that stable color images
have been around for well over 100 years and counting.

The
bad news is that pigments don't
have the gamut or Dmax of dyes.

Well, that's also just one more reason not to use inkjets. The color
space of digital devices cannot reproduce the color gamuts of
photographic dyes, no matter how many inks are used.
I hate to interrupt this gentlemanly discussion, but do we not have
documents written with ink on paper that are over 200 years old?
Usually, the fistt to go is the paper, which turns into cornflakes.

I placed a color photo in a local store window in a frame without glass.
This window faced the afternoon sun. It was there for a year without
fading or changing color. This photo was printed on Epson's Archival
Matte by a 2000P printer soon after it came out. This paper does have a
protective coating. The same printer working on Kodak Semi-Gloss Photo
paper of the time produced very different colors to begin with, so the
coating must have had something to do with the printing process. The
same picture that I displayed in that window has been hanging on my wall
for several years (when did the 2000P come out?) without fading.

When someone makes a claim, as did Epson, about a product, I do not
reject it offhand because I have a theory about crooked experts. I give
it the best try I can if I think I would like to use the product.

"Patrick Gainer" wrote

I hate to interrupt this gentlemanly discussion, but do we not have
documents written with ink on paper that are over 200 years old?
Usually, the fist to go is the paper, which turns into cornflakes.

It is the ink that eats through the paper. The inside of all the loops
fall out.

The standard permanent ink of the period was an iron pyrogallol, a familiar
chemical to the darkroom crowd.

Pliny II, in 29 AD, reported an experiment where papyrus soaked in gallic acid
turned black when dipped in a solution of iron salts. He noted that the use
of gallic acid in making colorants was already an old practice.

The idea to use pyrgallol as a developer came from the knowledge of its
action on iron salts. Normally Oak litter wouldn't come to mind if one
was looking for the first developing agent.

Again: the permanent pigments are metallic. Some do have a few drawbacks,
though...

Organic dyes are also capable of destroying the substrate. The aniline
dye used for dying Victorian era womans' silk dresses a deep purple-black
has turned the fabric of nearly every last one to fine dust.

Ref:

http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa/ink/html/ink.html & others.

Great site.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

I guarantee you , they have lost some colour, and will continue to lose
more. Albums help as they spend les time exposed to light, but nothing will
actually stop the fading process.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Tony Spadaro wrote:

By common lab prints I meant the Kodak and Fuji photo paper
(chemical)
enlargements churned out by those one hour labs at about the rate of 2
million a day.

Those are machine prints. I don't know there's any difference between the
emulsion and dyes in the paper used for machine prints and the emulsion
and
dyes in the paper used for C prints at custom labs.

I'm looking at a machine print as I write from a 35mm negative I took well
over
20 years ago. It's in perfect condition with no fading. I have albums full
of
these, all in excellent condition.


"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Tony Spadaro wrote:

The life expectancy of the common lab print - 99% of all colour
prints
being made today - is 20 years and a lot look pretty bad in only one
or
two
years.

At the professional lab I use the most common color print is now the
digital
Frontier. Color dye prints are generally rated a display life of 100
years
today, not "20."

In any case, pragmatically there's no difference between a "common"
print
(whatever nondescript assertion is meant by that...) made in a lab and
the
C,
Type R, or Ciba prints I've made myself. Color prints I have on my
wall
(some
made longer than 30 years ago) look like the day they were printed. I
even
have boxes of machine color prints from the 60's that are 40 years old
and
in
good condition.




Don't know of any 200 year old photographs either colour or B&W,
mainly
cause photography wasn't invented until the 1840's. But there are
colour prints that are 100 years old and still looking good. Look
up
"Carbro Process" and "Autochrome."

The Autochrome process produced prints before 1910 that are still
vibrant today.

http://www.institut-lumiere.org/engl...utochrome.html
http://toosvanholstein.nl/greatwar/kleur/kleur.html

Of course, for truly archival colour photography today one can
take
the
camera original and from it create tri-colour separation B&W
gelatin-silver negatives on glass plates processed and stored
archivally. There are a number of top-ticket professional labs
and
museums that do exactly that.


"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:08:36 -0700, Tom Phillips

...snip...

May not outlast silver and gelatin, but with care can
eaisily outlast most conventional color photogrraphic
prints. So where are the 200 year old color photograhic
prints and where can I see them?



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com