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
|
|||
|
|||
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" (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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Archival inksets for inkjet printers.
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" (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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Archival inksets for inkjet printers.
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" (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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Archival inksets for inkjet printers.
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Archival inksets for inkjet printers.
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" (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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Archival inksets for inkjet printers.
....
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 _______________________________________ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Archival inksets for inkjet printers.
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Archival inksets for inkjet printers.
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Archival inksets for inkjet printers.
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Archival inksets for inkjet printers.
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|