Archival Quality

[openspace]

Ok. Archival quality. Who's the best? What have been your experiences with your printer / paper combo? Real world data, please. No "my printer, my paper is better than yours because Canon or Epson or HP rules!"

I am especially interested in hearing from pros who are selling their work in galleries. I have seen some of the test results on various websites, but even these vary wildly based on lighting conditions, whether the print was behind glass, etc.

[Webster]

When discussing archival printing, be aware that the expected lifetime of a print depends heavily on both ink and paper, as well as the environment it lives in. I recently noticed extreme color shifting in prints I made using pigment based inks on Epson Premium Semigloss paper. The color shift happened after less than a year. Epson Premium Semigloss paper is not recommended for pigment based inks, but I had assumed it was because of the absorption problem - it takes a few months for the ink to dry on coated papers such as this. It turns out that the lack of absorption affects the color life, too. Also be aware that the lifetimes quoted for various ink and paper combinations are based on subjecting the print to extreme environmental conditions, with the assumption that this is equivalent to a longer life under normal conditions. These assumptions are unproven, and the lifetime predictions tend to be wildly optimistic.

[John_T]

We would all like definitive answers to questions like this, but IMO there aren't any. There is only educated prognosis. There are too many variables as Webster is indicating. And you also need to define terms. Archival means archived under the most ideal conditions of light, temperature and humidity. That does not mean in use, as on somebody's wall under conditions you have no knowledge of, or control over. You can only say "best effort" with no guarantees.

I have dealt professionally with the issue of archiving audio & video recordings, print, photos, data and other things needed to be preserved for the long term. Meaning finding the ideal mediums and ideal conditions. A few years ago during a conference I spent the evenings discussing this subject with a VP of Warner Bros whose biggest concern was their huge archive and their biggest asset. Conclusion: None.

With every medium there are batch variations, manufacture faults, design faults, storage errors, et cetera ad infinitum. Each medium has its advantages and disadvantages. I've seen mediums that nobody had expectations of last much longer than those designed to last "forever". On one occasion the "best professional" from the largest and leading manufacturer was the biggest and most expensive disaster. 1,500 reels of master recordings on Scotch Grand Master gone sticky? It took three years and $750,000 to remaster them on DAT. I had smaller and similar or different incidents with every other tape manufacturer. It's not going to be any different with ink and papers.

Dye inks on "archival" papers are guesstimated good for 25 years. Pigment inks on archival papers are guesstimated for 75 years, but nobody will really confirm that. They can't. Marketing and advertising will say anything 'cause they are not likely to be around when your prints fade and crumble, but they've got their board and stockholders on their back now.

Choose what looks best to you and makes you look best, with a reasonable usage life of, say, 20 years at best. You can't do more.

[Rob Larsen]

openspace wrote:
Ok. Archival quality. Who's the best? What have been your experiences with your printer / paper combo? Real world data, please. No "my printer, my paper is better than yours because Canon or Epson or HP rules!"

I am especially interested in hearing from pros who are selling their work in galleries. I have seen some of the test results on various websites, but even these vary wildly based on lighting conditions, whether the print was behind glass, etc.


Henry Wilhelm is an authority on archival properties. He has conducted many objective tests on specific paper and ink combinations and subjected them to controlled accelerated aging processes. There is a great interview with him about inkjet achievability in the November issue of Shutterbug. Quickly scanning the Wilhelm Research site, I found some numbers for Epson and HP performance here:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/print_permanence.html

Hope this helps!

[John_T]

Excellent resourcing Rob!

...but I still wouldn't make any claims to customers based on those findings beyond "We strive to make the best renditions using the best materials we find appropriate."

[Longwatcher]

Based on lab tests, epson using 'archival' inks with 'archival' paper seems to be best. But then they also had many consumers complaining how fast they faded in real life. I should point out 'archival' means expensive - cheaper to send to lab.

As to Canon (of which I have the S9000 (uses BCI-6 inks). Short answer is I have found best results in Kodak Ultima paper, except in outdoors diplay, then Ilford wins. Canon paper is okay, but fades quickly in my office unless spray coated.

for further information I just posted my spring/summer test results of my S9000 on the 'talk about photography" sub-forum.

I suspect the flouresecent light issue to be the main reason most instructors I have talked to, dislike inkjets.

Lastly since most good labs use a process that results in more traditional printing methods being used, the odds are much higher that prints you have printed in a lab will have more longevity.

I have seen traditional darkroom prints that faded as fast as inkjet prints at times (except for in the office prints, which went really fast).

Just my opinion,

[openspace]

I heard that Epson has had serious problems with prints turning orange due to high ozone content in the air (i.e. high pollution) and in fact offered a buy back program to users of the 1270 not too long ago.

HP claims their new formula Premium Plus paper will resist fading for more than 70 years with their new 6 & 7 ink systems, but independent tests have listed fade resistance anywhere between 4 - 90 years.

I have even heard that certain mounting compounds that are used without issue to mount lab prints have been known to react over time with some digital prints.

I for one would really like to see a forum or website dedicated to user experience with print longevity. There are just too many variables. What kind of light's in the room, humidity, pollution, regular glass vs. non-glare glass, range of colors in the print, etc. Wilhelm's data is an excellent starting point, but there is just no way for Wilhelm Research to test for every variable. What work's in Florida may not work in Colorado, what works under fluorescent lighting may fail in sunlight.

Anybody know of a board like this? Anyone willing to start one?

[John_T]

As I was intimating in your other thread, I take Wilhelm with a big sack of salt. Nobody can nail him on his "tests" because he can always pull up the very same facctors you mention here plus dozens of obscure others. Besides, I feel the vast majority of those caught up in the digital boom are on a consumer binge, more interested in impressing people than uncomfortable thoughts about factors of longevity. And further, the majority of P&S remains in the electronic medium on hard disks, internet and e-mails.

When my sister and I were restoring the family photo archive, with pics going back to the beginnings of photography, we found more damage from Scotch tape, mounting corners, album paper (acidic) and humidity than anything else. Still, it was totally amazing what we brought back to life after scanning, PSing and reprinting of some. We printed new albums of the most interesting pics and distributed them around to the family. The prints are no longer so relevant, as the archiving is now in another medium and we can print out whatever we want whenever we want. I think that now the electronic archiving medium is more important than the paper one. (Some day it will be all recorded in crystals.)

So in this sense, if you want to open a forum on archiving and longevity, I would suggest you include all mediums, because all are relevant and not particularly at the forefront of peoples' awareness.

[sstinman]

Electronic archiving is what I'm consider. Which media to use? CD-R, CD-RW, or DVD variants. I have knowledge that first gen DVD media may have issues with the organic medium using to store the information. It may rot over time (i.e. 2-3 years). Thus lossing the stored data.

I'm thinking the best bet today is CD-RW. The media used to create RW version is usually better and more consistant the CD-R. Fewer factories have the ability to manufacture it. But to avoid getting caught the a bad batch I'm going to use two different brands. That is discs produced at two different factories (perferably in Japan). This information can be found and every CD using Nero's ID software. So each picture will be saved twice and kept at different locations. Will this method preserve the picture for 100 years? I don't know but its my best guess today.

Is there a better way?

[openspace]

Nothing will save your images for 100 years. Technologies are rendered obsolete. You can't play your 30 year old 8-track tapes anymore, and I guarantee you will be hard pressed to find a CD player in 20.

Sooner rather than later, something better will come out and if we are smart, we will all transfer our CD data to it while we can. So don't worry about 100 years from now. 10 should do it.

I burn all my images to CD-R. For exceptional images, I burn 2 disks. I have rarely encountered a bad disk, but if you have one you'll figure it out during the recording process because your system won't be able to write the track.

I do not recommend CD-RWs simply because they can be erased - and mistakes do happen.

I. too, am waiting for the next generation DVD-R drive, and for prices on the blanks to come down. There is still too much bickering in the industry, and too many media standards competing for the consumer dollar. Sooner or later something will have to give. Some standards will survive and, just like Betamax VCR tapes, some standards will die. God forbid you choose the wrong one.

[robertwgross]

openspace wrote:
Nothing will save your images for 100 years. Technologies are rendered obsolete.


Wow. I'll have to figure out what that means.

I have a photo of one of my ancestors (great-grandfather) that was shot in 1866. It is possible that this print was made later from a good negative. However, fundamentally, the image is still good.

I did a very high resolution scan of the print, and then I enlarged the area of my ancestor. Strangely enough, they say that I look exactly like him. So, those old photos still work for me.

---Bob Gross---

[sstinman]

Your write Openspace the media will eventually become obsolete. But I still can record and play back on 8-track. My family rarely throws anything away that is of value. Including old vinyl and record palyers. So my point is technology may change but older equipment can be kept. And one day the format will have to be changed to the next best medium. Also, CD-RW copies can be closed so that it can never be erased or changed.

Also, I'm considering using a dedicated archiving hard-drive as well. My thoughts are, I create data at a rate of 4-5 GB per year, mutiplied by 10 years that is only 50 GB of data, 20 years is 100 GB. I still haven't filled my 120 GB hard drive. This would become useful when the storage media advances beyond CD-RW then I can use the data on the hard drive to generate new copies. Saving the step of recalling the back-up files for saving onto the newer media.

What do you guys think? Fairly cheap and secure archive method?

[John_T]

Right Bob, I've done the same, but that won't apply to the current state of the art. I have to agree with openspace. The biggest corporations and governments are grappling with the same questions for their own archiving and preservation of art and intelectual properties. From my experience it is not just a question of money. It is more a question of technology.

For the time being, I think you can only archive in the digital format and move from medium to medium as new technologies evolve, being careful not to postpone remastering your originals too long. In the meantime you can still enjoy your pix in whatever medium you wish, while having no illusions about their longevity.

[openspace]

When I was working as a computer consultant, I would get calls from clients who were upset because they were running version 1 of software X and now 10 years later, they couldn't upgrade their software or data files to version 10.

It happens more than you think. Companies will only continue to support earlier versions of their products as long as it's profitable.

Sure you can still find services that will convert betamax tapes, 8 tracks and magnetic reel tapes to modern mediums. But they grow fewer by the year, and more expensive as a result. Sstinman still has an 8 track player. But will parts be available if it breaks?

Our great grandchildren may dig out a box of our old CDs 100 years from now. And there may still be services that will offer to transfer the data to the 22nd century storage medium or choice. But what about file formats? Will the current JPEG or TIFF standard still be readable? Maybe. But do you want to take the risk?

My point is that the consumer has a certain responsibility to keep up with the times. Welcome to the 21st century and planned obsolescence. As John_T pointed out, there are companies across the globe who have simply waited too long to convert old mediums into new formats, and now they're facing a massive and very expensive problem. Where can we find systems that still read punch cards and 12 inch reel tapes? Where can we find software that can read the formats? Whoops.

So will our CD-R's last 100 years? Probably. Are we insane if we don't convert them to a different format a dozen times over before then? I think so.

----

Regarding the storage of files on a HD - I do the same. But hard drives crash and viruses destroy. So don't ever count on your hard drive being there! Burn those CDs!

Yes, you can close a CD-RW. Great point. But if you are just going to use a disk once and close it, why spend the extra $$$ on the rewriteable format?

[Webster]

This thread reminded me of The Rosetta Project (http://www.rosettaproject.org/live). They're printing much of the world's literature on nickel disks in many languages. The most interesting part is that they are printing everything microscopically fine, in printed characters. Supposed to last 2,000 years.

I wonder if they used Wilhelm to get that figure.

[John_T]

First off, CD/RW is more subject to loss than CD/R. It is only more expensive because of the rewrite capability which may also have nothing to do with manufacture costs or quality at all. It is a less stable medium BECAUSE of its rewrite attributes. Digital 0s and 1s are laser burnt into the metalic wafer of a CD/R, usually aluminum. That information remains there until the metal begins to oxidize. You would only see the oxidation under an electron microscope, but one speck of oxidation only needs to obliterate a few 0s and 1s to make trouble. Missing 0s and 1s can be reconstructed or interpolated to a certain point, but beyond that the data begins to break up. They have tried gold instead of aluminum or silver, but since gold is more difficult to burn, a few 0s and 1s may not get burnt, so it comes out to the same thing. When the plastics and adhesives in a CD begin to break down due to temperature, humidity or light, the wafer may warp or humidity may seep in so that's that. Printing and labels on CDs may do the same thing too. Then in manufacture there are batch variations, faults and errors you will never see. Though a CD might last over ten years, I would give it a max of ten years for safety.

Magnetic is still a valid archiving medium in that a strong or a weak 0 or 1 is still a 0 or 1. When remastering a huge audio and video archive some years ago I chose DAT and D2. Even that was argued, but the R&D chief and top engineers of Sony brought unadulterated facts, experience and hard reality to the table and that decided it. But here you are talking about big bucks.

On the consumer and prosumer level you can't really believe anything because all the words that had meaning or should have meaning have been corrupted by marketing and lawyers. "Professional", "quality", "best", etc. are just more or less words to raise the the price. "Archival" seems to have descended to the consumer world too. You ARE alone in the jungle. Unless you have the judgment, experience and intuition to make valid decisions, you need to find someone else who does. Someone with knowledge and experience will give you recommendations "to the best of my knowledge and experience" but will make no claims or promises.

My impression is that Wilhelm is just carving out an "authority" niche for himself and selling printers for the highest bidder, being a little bit careful not to get too far off the carpet.

I would only say there IS no answer, just what satisfies your needs with a pound of salt.

I might add that film is a pretty good archiving medium, provided that they are stored at the CONSTANT ideal temperature and humidity, and darkness. In film if it dries out it cracks and warps, or the compounds break down and go sticky-gooie.

And what you can do absolutely nothing about is the influence of the earth's electromagnetic fields and radiation, and solar flares! l

[Webster]

Digital 0s and 1s are laser burnt into the metalic wafer of a CD/R, usually aluminum. That information remains there until the metal begins to oxidize. You would only see the oxidation under an electron
It's my understanding that on a CD-R the laser heat marks the 1s and 0s by altering the reflective properties of an organic dye. No pits are made at all. Same with the CD-RW - just another kind of dye. It's the commercial audio CDs that are the pits (oh, sorry, I meant have the pits), and (again, my understanding) they are actually physically stamped into the metallic layer.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Like JohnT. says,. CD-R is superior to CD-RW for archive. Buy Hi quality CD-R over CD-RW for archiving. A CD-RW can randomly become unreadable after only months of storage... (it happens all the time)

I have never had a CD-R "go bad" without obvious damage being inflicted.

[CyberDyneSystems]

webster wrote:
Digital 0s and 1s are laser burnt into the metalic wafer of a CD/R, usually aluminum. That information remains there until the metal begins to oxidize. You would only see the oxidation under an electron
It's my understanding that on a CD-R the laser heat marks the 1s and 0s by altering the reflective properties of an organic dye. No pits are made at all. Same with the CD-RW - just another kind of dye. It's the commercial audio CDs that are the pits (oh, sorry, I meant have the pits), and (again, my understanding) they are actually physically stamped into the metallic layer.

Right on the money Webster,.
Commercial CDs have an aluminum substrate with stamped "pits" Tgis has the BEST archival quality.

CD-R is dye based.. the color is altered by laser. This has very good archival quality depending on the quality of the dyes.

CD-RW uses a crystaline material that is "melted" to an amorphous nature so it can have similar "dots" in the substrate as the Dye based method does. It can then be "reheated" to erase the dots, thus rewritable. The trouble is that other environmental influences can have an effect on the crytsline nature of the CD-RW... thus data loss for no apperent reason.

[Motorsports Photo]

Blah blah blah blah........!

Quick and simple. Original message mentioned PRINTERS so I'll add my 2 cents.

Epson 1280 25 years
Epson 2200 55 years
Epson 2200 200 years

MANUFACTURERS claims with some stipulations.

I looked for print life information on other manufacturers and never found any. Of course Epson can make up numbers just like any other manufacturer, but having a comparison still gives me a good idea of what to expect.

I have two 2000P printers that only use genuine Epson supplies. I have some prints I put in the most abusive place I could think of for my own long term testing- The dashboard of my van. Now the abused prints have tended to curl up with the heat but the inks have been true. Other printed materials left there even short term have not fared so well.

HOWEVER, because of all the problems I have had with the printers, and Epsons REALLY REALLY BAD customer service, I cannot recommend them in good conscience. Life is great within the first year while your printer is under warranty. They just send you another one. (I've gotten SIX!) After that: TOUGH!

On the good side my customers are very happy with the prints I have sold to them, and I know they wont fade, at least in their lifetime. I have not had ANYONE come up to me and complain their print turned orange or they were upset with metamerism. So for me those complaints are non-issues.

Good luck in your own quest for stable materials.

-Pete

[John_T]

...I think you missed openspace's suggestion above. And if you don't like the blah-blah, go do some Neandrathal cave paintings...