Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jakapecki" <jakapecki@...> wrote:

> Most consumers, however, neither understand nor want to learn about lux or ppm ozone or Arrhenius plots. They're understandably busy with other things. They want to know "How Long Will It Last" and they want that answer in years. Is it better to provide them with a number that has a large measure of uncertainty built in (perhaps better, a range)or to simply say nothing and provide no guidance at all. This is a debate that imaging scientists, conservators, and photographers have had for years (I commend to all a recent excellent article by Peter Mason of Torrey Pines Research on this issue--see their website). "Consumer Reports" and Wilhelm Imaging Research have done quite well by choosing the first alternative. Aardenburg serves a different audience. 
> 
> However, if we do choose to provide a years metric for some users, then we must base on the the best scientific data we can gather, not guesses or assumptions or personal beliefs. On that point, I won't back down.
>

The audience of dedicated printmakers and collectors I have chosen to reach out to with my research is no doubt a decidedly different demographic than the typical consumer of photofinished prints, but that doesn't mean the typical consumer is better served by the whole "how long will it last" argument. For many years (up to and including the last time we saw each other, Jon), I accepted that whole argument that "consumers need a simple soundbite" and believed a reply to that question expressed in years was the way the "experts" were supposed to answer.  However, it is now painfully clear to me that consumers take these answers at face value and it unfortunately leaves most of them with the false notion that they play no role in the outcome. The "life" is inherent in the object. That's a huge problem with ratings expressed in years.  I have thus come to categorically reject permanence ratings based on "years of life". 

If you want to keep it simple, then give consumers five star ratings, 1-10 rank level scores or the like, for individually rated factors like heat, light, humidity, gas fading, and lightfastness that can be correlated to a rigorous standardized set of tests. But years of life? Even the most fugitive  and fragile systems can last hundreds of years when moderate efforts are made to preserve them.  That reality totally negates the significance of ratings expressed in terms of years. 160+ year old copies of Fox Talbot's "Pencil of Nature" salted paper prints survive to this day because people recognized the historic value of the work early on and figured out what Talbot's early salted paper prints' relative print permanence strengths and weaknesses were. In terms of light fastness, these vintage prints wouldn't even make the 5 megalux hour mark (20 years on display using the Kodak 120lux/12hr per day estimate)  when applying any rational criterion for fade and discoloration because these prints were made before sodium thiosulfate fixing procedures were discovered. They are incredibly light sensitive to this day, but collectors quickly figured that out and hence do not display them year after year at 120 Lux for 12 hours per day.

My point is that with reasonable care, any modern photographic print can easily last well over a century. So, shouldn't we just tell that to the public and leave it at that? Hey folks,  buy any print you like, even one printed with fugitive dyes on ordinary newspaper pulp, treat it with reasonable care. and it will survive well over a century! That's no lie, and it's an easy soundbite to remember!  But it doesn't tell you what factors will cause the print to fail prematurely and what steps you need to take to ensure "reasonable" care.  For that we need the rigorous testing and more intelligent ways of communicating the results to the public.

I admit I don't have all the answers, but the sooner the imaging industry gets past this grossly oversimplified notion of display life for print permanence ratings and moves to ratings that address durability issues on a more honest scoring basis, the sooner we will have meaningful advice to tell the consumer about caring for the specific print processes that they choose to buy.

End of rant...but definitely in the spirit of this thread for sure!

cheers,

Mark