Archival inksets for inkjet printers.

Tony Spadaro wrote:

And I guarantee that you are not quite as stupid as you appear to be from
your posts - but don't really care.

Typically when you cannot defend your arguments (baseless assertions you cannot
prove...) you resort to insult and sputtering nonsense.


"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


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

And I guarantee that you are not quite as stupid as you appear to be from
your posts - but don't really care.

--
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:

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

No, I simply point out that you are not bright enough to know that your
old prints are fading - which makes you too dumb to bother with.

--
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:

And I guarantee that you are not quite as stupid as you appear to be
from
your posts - but don't really care.

Typically when you cannot defend your arguments (baseless assertions you
cannot
prove...) you resort to insult and sputtering nonsense.


"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


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

"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
No, I simply point out that you are not bright enough to know that your
old prints are fading - which makes you too dumb to bother with.


While a top posting moron like yourself cannot trim a hundred lines of
drivel just to get your insult across.

Tom

Tony Spadaro sputtered once again:

No, I simply point out that you are not bright enough to know that your
old prints are fading - which makes you too dumb to bother with.

The hue and saturation of my "old" prints are brighter than your (yawn...)
boring, witless retorts and assertions. At least I can actually measure them
with a densitometer; your lack of comprehension appears too dense even for an
MRI.

Fading is *relative*. As I pointed out, even the sun is going to fade at some
point. The issue here, if you'd read the thread, is that inkjets aren't
"archival," or only theoretically so, for various reasons including the
application of the pigments, the sparseness of the sprayed pigment layer which
makes inkjets exceptionally sensitive to whatever oxidation does occur, the
fact that there is no binder, the fact that in their short existence they are
*known* to fade rapidly, etc. etc. Not to mention that you are so ignorant as
to not know that dye layer fading in photographic materials can in fact be
arrested by proper storage, contrary to your clueless assertion that "nothing
will actually stop the fading process."

The reality is color photographs of many different types (carbon, dye transfer,
dye destruction, etc. etc., beyond your so called "common" prints) have been
around for decades and some as long as 140 years. They're in good condition.
"Common" chromogenic prints certainly have a life far exceeding your baseless
assertion of only "20 years." Color photographic processes thus have a proven
track record. Inkjets don't, plus, they are not "photographs." They are ink
reproductions. Now, go rest your butt on your bubble jet before you strain your
keen mind by having to come up with yet another earth shattering reply that
leaves everyone in awe of your less than grand command of the english language.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Tony Spadaro wrote:

And I guarantee that you are not quite as stupid as you appear to be
from
your posts - but don't really care.

Typically when you cannot defend your arguments (baseless assertions you
cannot
prove...) you resort to insult and sputtering nonsense.


"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


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

....
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.
....

jan2704 from Lloyd Erlick,

Yes, quite a bit over 200 years, I think. The works on paper by Blake
are already well over 300 years. And I doubt they received proper
storage for most of that time.

regards,
--le
_______________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits,
2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1,
Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada.
---
voice 416-686-0326

http://www.heylloyd.com
_______________________________________

The early inks were based on colloidal suspension of carbon black in a
liquid... Carbon being an element the stroke will remain visible forever as
long as the carbon molecules stay attached to the substrate, and the
substrate remains intact... The first writing inks are from 2500BC, so 4,500
years old at this time - egyptian and chinese...
Modern inks, especially colors are synthetic pigments, dyes, and resins...
They are subject to oxidation and dissolution and will disappear in time...
denny

wrote in message
...
...
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.

And anal retentive to boot. Bye bye, loser.

--
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" wrote in message
news:LjgRb.123106$5V2.638652@attbi_s53...

"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
No, I simply point out that you are not bright enough to know that
your
old prints are fading - which makes you too dumb to bother with.


While a top posting moron like yourself cannot trim a hundred lines of
drivel just to get your insult across.

Tom

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 fistt to go is the paper, which turns into cornflakes.

The crumbling of paper is something that happened with the widespread
introduction of paper made from wood pulp in the 19th century. Some of
the chemicals used to reduce the paper to mush for paper-making were
acidic and have slowly rotted the paper fibres. This is proving a great
problem to big libraries with stocks of old books that are rapidly
falling to pieces! They have had to spend huge amounts of money on
chemical treatments to stop the rot.

Much older books used paper made from linen rags and this paper is
_much_ more stable. Books printed 400-500 years ago are still OK,
provided that they are kept away from the damp conditions that promote
mold and fungus attacks.

Brian Rumary, England

http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

The Lumiere company stopped making Autochrome in the 1930's.

I imagine this was because the Agfacolour and Kodachrome slide films
went on the market in the mid-1930s, and I suspect they were much
cheaper and easier to use than Autochrome.

Brian Rumary, England

http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm