If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
bob wrote: Tom Phillips wrote: Black and white silver imaging will always be practiced as an art form. Plus in 1000 years when all those digital files stored on hard drives and CDs have disappeared, photos on film (any film) will still be here. Difference between having a real bird in hand vs two cyberbush birds that don't really exist to begin with. Images from digital files can be archivally printed too. Why do you think that photos from color film will be around in 1000 years? Bob, I thought this thread was about b&w... _Film_ can easily last 1000 years, color or b&w. Ever hear of transparencies? No digital file will ever come close; in a 1000 years you probably won't even be able to read the media it's stored on even if the data hasn't yet corrupted (fat chance.) These issues and facts have been discussed ad nauseam (at least in in r.p.dakroom), so I guess you just haven't read the info. Plus, the very real likelihood/danger is _all_ digital information may disappear (big article recently in the NY Times on this...) except that diligently maintained by the government (after all, they have to spy on somebody...) BTW, inkjets are not photographs, they're reproductions from stored computer data. There is no photograph in the digital process. It's all regenerated data (electrons - voltage - digital signals - magnetic data bits - screen pixels) until output as an reproduction from a digital file (i.e., drops of ink sprayed onto paper.) Sprayed ink is not a photograph; it's fancy newsprint Now, when those repro images on fancy giclee newsprint have been around as long as real silver photographs (almost 200 years and counting), get back to me and we'll talk about inkjet longevity ;-) I've got color prints that have already faded; there's no way they will last 100 years, let alone 1000. In fact, typical color dye prints today do have a display life of at least 100 years. Color technology is more advanced than when I'm guessing you printed those. OTOH, it's _all_ a matter of storage and display with color materials. All color dyes, inks, etc will fade if not stored or displayed properly. If your prints have faded, I doubt it's the print's fault. I have ciba's on my wall that look like the day I printed then 30 years ago. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
bob wrote: rafeb wrote: I'll put my money on pigment inks, but dyes are inherently less stable. The only hope for dye ink longevity is a very compatible substrate that can prevent oxidation of the inks. I don't know how I'm particularly interested in the archival qualites of color laser printout. I have a feeling that the prints will last as long as the paper, but I don't know with certainty. They don't seem to be impacted by UV. Those are _silver_ based images (assuming you're talking about lightjets, etc.) Inks and pigments have to be sprayed. You're mixing up a lot of terms and printing technologies here... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Phillips wrote:
bob wrote: Tom Phillips wrote: Images from digital files can be archivally printed too. Why do you think that photos from color film will be around in 1000 years? Bob, I thought this thread was about b&w... _Film_ can easily last 1000 years, color or b&w. Ever hear of transparencies? So when you said "film" you really meant "the subset of film comprised of archivally processed silver B&W film, plus Kodachrome"? Your use of the general term without the qualifiers was misleading. No digital file will ever come close; in a 1000 years you probably won't even be able to read the media it's stored on even if the data hasn't yet corrupted (fat chance.) These issues and facts have been discussed ad nauseam (at least in in r.p.dakroom), so I guess you just haven't read the info. I've read the opinions, sure. Mostly they are discussions of 25 to 50 years hence, not 1000. In 1000 years maybe civilization will have collapsed and there will be no computers at all to read the digital files. It's also possible that technology will continue to evolve, and will do things beyond our wildest imagination. Plus, the very real likelihood/danger is _all_ digital information may disappear (big article recently in the NY Times on this...) except that diligently maintained by the government (after all, they have to spy on somebody...) I don't read the NY Times. What is the theory? I suspect that for the most part things will go on in the future the way they do now. Important papers (with writing or images) will be preserved by people for whom they have meaning, and the rest will be discarded. BTW, inkjets are not photographs, they're reproductions from stored computer data. There is no photograph in the digital process. It's all regenerated data (electrons - voltage - digital signals - magnetic data bits - screen pixels) until output as an reproduction from a digital file (i.e., drops of ink sprayed onto paper.) Sprayed ink is not a photograph; it's fancy newsprint You're not going to get many takers for that argument. Just look at the meanings of the two roots, photo, and graph. There is nothing in the meaning of the word that requires silver gelatin emulsions. I don't make inkjet prints anyway, except when I use the 36" plotter. Now, when those repro images on fancy giclee newsprint have been around as long as real silver photographs (almost 200 years and counting), get back to me and we'll talk about inkjet longevity ;-) But there are ways to print digital files without using inkjets. Example: you can print a (B&W) images on a laser printer, and use acetone to transfer the toner onto a stainless steel plate. Without doing any testing, I think it would be much easier to maintain an archive of toner on steel plates than silver in gelatin on plastic. In fact, typical color dye prints today do have a display life of at least 100 years. Color technology is more advanced than when I'm guessing you printed those. OTOH, it's _all_ a matter of storage and display with color materials. All color dyes, inks, etc will fade if not stored or displayed properly. In my testing, color toner does not fade. Rather simple, uncontrolled tests, like leaving a print on my dashboard. If I leave them outside in the yard they eventually fade, but I think that's more to do with the rain and the dogs than the sun. If your prints have faded, I doubt it's the print's fault. I have ciba's on my wall that look like the day I printed then 30 years ago. My mom has a book of color prints that date back 30 or so years; most of them look just fine, but one in particular has nearly vanished. These prints are all dark stored (together). The one print is clearly defective, in comparison to the others. Bob |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Phillips wrote:
bob wrote: rafeb wrote: I'll put my money on pigment inks, but dyes are inherently less stable. The only hope for dye ink longevity is a very compatible substrate that can prevent oxidation of the inks. I don't know how I'm particularly interested in the archival qualites of color laser printout. I have a feeling that the prints will last as long as the paper, but I don't know with certainty. They don't seem to be impacted by UV. Those are _silver_ based images (assuming you're talking about lightjets, etc.) Inks and pigments have to be sprayed. You're mixing up a lot of terms and printing technologies here... Reread my question, and assume that I am not mixing anything up. I am actually wondering about toner based color laser printers -- i.e. the HP color LaserJet 4560n. I know that B&W laserjet toner is archival. I wonder about color. Bob |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote
Forecast the future of B&W. Where do you think it will be in: 5 years? Digital B&W is now _very_ good, but still not a match for 4x5 & up. Kodak has been purchased/merged. The film business is spun off but keeps the name. Ilford survives. Tri-X and Plus-X bite the dust. No new 35mm cameras have been announced for the past 5 years. 10 years? The last Leica rolls off the line. Nikon, Pentax, Minolta ... are talking about ceasing production of all film equipment. Silver photography resolution lags behind digital. No longer even a contest. The DVD is set for replacement. A few CD readers are still available. A new disc format with 1 terabyte capacity is in the wings. Movies no longer made on film. Light sensors and displays made by embossing plastic films appear. Pictures are no longer printed. Wallets have a small digital display for the kid's photos. Electronic displays hang on the wall instead of picture frames. Photographer's Formulary et. al. are major suppliers of processing chemistry. Kodak's ex film division changes its name. Begins to supply industrial/scientific markets only. Re-processors slit/repackage industrial films for the photography market. 20 years? Audiophiles swoon over the whiter and more liquid sound quality of old CD's. CD players made in basements and garages. Only New[Old]Kodak, Ilford and Lucky (China) make B&W film. Only Basic B&W materials are available: TMAX 800 for everyone. Microfilm and X-Ray film are still available. Large format is split 50/50 between conventional film and a resurrection of the coat-it-yourself wet plate. The wet plate process is updated with newer and more convenient technology - the 'damp plate' on scratch-proof plastic. One boutique paper house survives (Kentmere?) 'Digital Imaging Wallpaper' becomes common. Large format digital photography has a small renaissance with 20x24 plastic image sensors. Artars, Ronars and Brown Process Lenses are dusted off. It is discovered that old recordable CD's develop a haze that prevents them from being read. Library of congress sponsors research on data recovery. 50 years? Data is stored in solid plastic cubes. The remains of Ilford are purchased by Kentmere. The combined operation relocates to the village of Twee on the river Twiddle, doubling the village's population of 12. Whatever is left of Kodak isn't left anymore. Scratch-proof plastic is found to turn to goo if stored in high-humidity environments. Preliminary findings warn it may crumble into dust if kept too dry. B&W is all large format. The medium is wet-plate on glass. Anything on plastic is eschewed. B&W has a following comparable to present-day pinhole imaging. Following Photorgraphers' Formulary's lead photographic chemistry is shipped from Baffin Island and Ultima Thule. The hot sex and action TV stars are virtual and do not exist in real life. Shades of 1984 but 70 years late: Total immersion TV on 4-walls, ceiling and floor. Electrode implants into the visual and auditory cortex are experimentally used for cellular communication. Development steams ahead into developing the 'feely-phone' with electrodes in the sensory nerves. Cleveland's pornography industry experiences a renaissance. If there is enough participation the average of the predictions often turns out to be pretty accurate. Ha! In 1964 the K&E Slide Rule company used the Delphi method: by the year 2000 we would live in domed cities, commute to work by personal helicopter and slide rules would have _both_ trig and deci-trig scales. The development of the pocket calculator was not foreseen. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"bob" wrote
I know that B&W laserjet toner is archival. I wonder about color. replies: Oh that it were so. Xerox toner is anything but archival. It is carbon loaded vinyl and melted onto the paper, it doesn't penetrate. As the vinyl loses it's plasticizer to evaporation it will become brittle and flake off the paper. Too much plasticizer kills toner much quicker: as all know, the print on Xerox copies kept in plastic binders turns to goo. The large amount of plasticizer used in the flexible vinyl cover gets to the toner vinyl and makes it so flexible it becomes sticky. Dust to dust. Ashes to ashes. Plastic to goo. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article et,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: No new 35mm cameras have been announced for the past 5 years. Wow, is it 5 years already that Nikon announced the F6. That must be record delay between announcements and actually shipping a 35mm camera. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it bad been done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses where so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Philip Homburg" wrote in message .phicoh.net... In article et, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: No new 35mm cameras have been announced for the past 5 years. Wow, is it 5 years already that Nikon announced the F6. That must be record delay between announcements and actually shipping a 35mm camera. You seem to have missed the point that Nicholas was answering the question of where will B&W be in 5 years.... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On 3/14/2005 2:05 PM Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus:
"bob" wrote I know that B&W laserjet toner is archival. I wonder about color. replies: Oh that it were so. Xerox toner is anything but archival. It is carbon loaded vinyl and melted onto the paper, it doesn't penetrate. As the vinyl loses it's plasticizer to evaporation it will become brittle and flake off the paper. Actually, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that: I know for sure that Kodak toner, at least, is pigment (which may well be just carbon black) mixed with powdered polystyrene, not vinyl. Same for Canon toner. Too much plasticizer kills toner much quicker: as all know, the print on Xerox copies kept in plastic binders turns to goo. The large amount of plasticizer used in the flexible vinyl cover gets to the toner vinyl and makes it so flexible it becomes sticky. Of course, I've noticed this too. 'twould seem in this case that the fault lies with the plastic binder (as in notebook binder) which contains the plasticizers, not the plastic binder used to fuse the pigment onto the paper. Don't see why a properly-stored laser print shouldn't be completely archival (depending on the paper, of course). Perhaps even color laser or color copier prints as well. -- "I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote: "Philip Homburg" wrote in message q.phicoh.net... In article et, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: No new 35mm cameras have been announced for the past 5 years. Wow, is it 5 years already that Nikon announced the F6. That must be record delay between announcements and actually shipping a 35mm camera. You seem to have missed the point that Nicholas was answering the question of where will B&W be in 5 years.... Okay, missed that. It still sounds rather unlikely. Sales of 35mm cameras are not zero at the moment. There a good chance that there will a be a new P&S model in the next 5 years. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it bad been done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses where so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | William Graham | Digital Photography | 0 | November 8th 04 12:20 AM |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | William Graham | Digital Photography | 0 | November 8th 04 12:18 AM |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | Linda_N | Digital Photography | 0 | November 6th 04 03:08 PM |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | ArtKramr | Digital Photography | 4 | November 5th 04 12:00 AM |