In 1995 the first dye-based photographic printers produced
prints that could change visibly in a year or less, depending on
display conditions. Some dyes would fade more quickly than
others, dramatically altering the color balance of the images as
the prints aged. The transient nature of these prints was a huge
disappointment to lots of people, and it gave photographic ink
jet printing a big black eye. There were improvements in these
dyes over the next few years but the big change came five
years later in April of 2000 when pigment based inks were
introduced. They made it possible to create color prints with
that could last well over a century without visible changes. In
what was essentially a single step, inkjet printing had become the
most permanent color process in the history of photography. With
print permanence problems solved, manufacturers turned to issues
like gloss differential and bronzing on semi-glossy and glossy
media, and metamerism, all of which were side effects of the
long lasting pigments. In
the nearly twelve years that have followed print lifetimes have
extended to nearly four centuries on certain papers displayed
under UV inhibiting glass, and numerous other improvements have
been made. Today we have large
format professional printers that are capable of making the best
and most permanent prints in history on materials that range
from matt and glossy papers to canvas, sheets of aluminum, and
wood veneers. Things will get better in the future, but inkjet
printing has definitely matured and I wouldn't expect any
earth-shaking improvements in this process of color printing.
.
With long lasting inks in use, the substrate (I’ll confine
myself to paper) now has proportionately more influence on print
life than it did in the past. Perhaps because of that there are
more accelerated aging tests being done on more papers by more
labs and companies than ever
before. The resulting data helps raise awareness that not all
papers are created equal, and it can help everyone make more
informed decisions when choosing papers. That’s fantastic, but
quite a few seem to have become obsessed with archival characteristics
and let them overshadow more
important aspects of paper selection. First and foremost, paper choice
plays a huge part in the appearance of an image, and therefore
in the photographer’s personal interpretation of that image.
Paper surfaces can be perfectly smooth, in finishes that range
from matt to glossy, or they can have any amount of texture in
finishes that range from matt to semi-glossy. Paper choice can
alter the amount of fine detail visible in a print. It can mute
highlights and make an image look softer and more painterly, or
it can reproduce every fine detail in the image accurately with
a high contrast traditional photographic look. There are
obviously many possibilities. In
the fine art world a photograph's appearance is its only reason to
exist. It is what fulfills the photographer's personal vision and brings it to
others. Very little compromise is acceptable in this regard, so
you can't just go to a table of accelerated aging tests and use
it to choose a paper. You have to actually print on some and
pick the ones that work for you.
.
Certainly, if two papers are equal in terms of appearance but
one has a longer expected lifetime, that’s the paper to use.
Unfortunately that’s not how it works. Most papers have no
visual equivalent unless it’s the same paper under a different
brand name. “Similar” is as good as it gets when looking for an
alternate paper, especially among the various baryta-based
papers. Whether it’s similar enough is a judgment call,
but I’ve never been able to find a paper “similar enough” to
replace any that I use. It's obvious that good print permanence is
always a requirement, but beyond some point, that each of us
must define, permanence needs to take a back seat to one’s
vision for the image at hand. Most prints really don't need to
look new 400 years after they are made. The key is learning about the
properties of the materials you use in order to make informed,
reasonable, and balanced choices.
.
Papers that provide the longest print life without appreciable
appearance changes have matt finishes and a very warm tone. They
have a smaller color gamut than the whiter and shinier papers,
the black tones aren’t as dark, and according to someone I know
these papers look old before you print on them. In spite of that
these papers work extremely well, depending on the
photographer's intent, for certain images. On the other hand, no
single paper can be right for every image. When faced with an
image that needs deep blacks, bright whites, and the look of a
silver gelatin photograph, printing on a warm matt paper only
serves to produce a compromised print that will last several
centuries before it starts looking even worse. It’s much more
sensible to make a print that really sings for a mere lifetime
or so before the effects of aging begin to appear.
.
It’s important to realize that without an identical reference
that has not aged, which no one ever has, only significant
changes in appearance are detectable to the human eye. For
example, aging changes that become detectable after 50 years in
a side by side comparison with an un-aged reference may not
become evident for 70 years without that reference. I'm making
up numbers here, but you get the idea. Even the
term “lifetime” is extremely subjective in this context. Any
good acid and lignin free paper will last for centuries with
proper care, and modern pigment images on these papers will
remain
perfectly visible and identifiable. “Lifetime” is a matter of
how much change occurs, how much of it you are able to see, and
how much is acceptable.
.
I would go on about optical brightening agents (OBAs) and lots
of other factors if not for the fact that image permanence has
nothing to do with life expectancy for most prints.
Photographers don’t like to hear it, but most prints are not
displayed long enough for aging to become an issue. The best
data I can find was compiled by Kodak from an informal survey of
professional photofinishing labs. It indicates that 46% of all photographic prints are displayed for less than 5 years, 58% for less than 10 years,
79% for less than 20 years, 98% for less than 40 years, and
virtually no prints are displayed for 60 or more years. People
have finite wall space, they replace old artwork with new,
accidents happen, and people die. Prints are often retired to
attics or basements where environmental conditions ruin them
regardless of what paper is used. Physical damage occurs and the
print ends up in the trash. Prints are thrown away, given away,
or offered for a few dollars at garage sales when the owners die
and the survivors have different tastes, or when the owner
simply gets tired of the piece. Unless you attain incredible
fame and your work sells for a small fortune your prints will
probably be incinerated or buried in a landfill before
discernable aging takes place. Again, this is not to say that
anyone should use lousy short-lived materials, but it emphasizes
that compromising your vision in an attempt to make that
compromised vision immortal is ridiculous.
.
Prints, people, mountains, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and
the universe itself have beginnings and endings. Change fills
the time between. Everything is transient, and our lifetimes
last for only a moment. The greatest thing you can do in your
moment of printmaking is create prints that truly fulfill and
convey your personal vision. They will last longer than you
will.
.
Happy printmaking,
.
.
As a somewhat
unrelated side note, I’ve digitally restored a number of prints
that are more than a century old. All or most have at one time
or another been stored in less than ideal conditions, all were quite
yellowed, some faded almost to the point of vanishing, and many had
mechanical damage or deterioration of the paper to the point of
crumbling. Some of these exhibited "silvering", metallic
silver on the surface of the print, caused by improper washing
of the print after
developing and fixing the print. In other words, they were not
properly processed to begin with. In spite of all this they
survived. While a number of these restorations could have been
made to look like new, without exception their owners wanted
them to “look old”. Most high quality prints made today will not
“look old” in 100 years, if they survive that long. Make of that
what you will, but perhaps age has some charm of its own. |