Digital BW, The Print

Just wondering what your thoughts might be on these guidelines. I've had some positive conversations with them and I explained the advantages of carbon ink printing. I didn't see that technique listed here, but they did end up accepting carbon b/w prints. They used to accept only archivally processed darkroom prints.

Please note especially the inks and paper they approve, on page 3. I realize this is a b/w group, but I gather one of the reasons we like b/w prints is for their archival qualities.

http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/guidance/Photo_Policy_final.pdf

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Paul

PS I started a thread on this a couple of years and the responses were very helpful. But I don't recall addressing this particular question.

"Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
>
> Just wondering what your thoughts might be on these guidelines. I've had some positive conversations with them and I explained the advantages of carbon ink printing. I didn't see that technique listed here, but they did end up accepting carbon b/w prints. They used to accept only archivally processed darkroom prints.
> 
> Please note especially the inks and paper they approve, on page 3. I realize this is a b/w group, but I gather one of the reasons we like b/w prints is for their archival qualities.
> 
> http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/guidance/Photo_Policy_final.pdf
> 
> Any thoughts?


It looks like they are basing their guidelines on Wilhelm's numbers.  If Claria on brightened paper meets the criteria, the bar is nowhere near the 100% carbon images we are pursuing.  But, if you rely on Wilhelm, ">200 years" of dark storage sounds very impressive (that for Claria).  (That, of course, is not B&W and a degree of fade we might be a bit embarrassed by.)  And, all the products that are on the National Register list are good, but not close to the best and maybe not even what we'd be comfortable with.  

For a much more accurate yet simply way to judge image longevity, I would recommend that the people who developed the National Register take a look at the "Conservation Display ratings" developed by Mark McCormick-Goodhart at Aardenburg Imaging.  

At http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/documents.html the third document from the top is "An Overview of the AaI&A Conservation Display Ratings."  This PDF explains what I consider a better system of fade and image evaluation.  In the words of this document, "The Conservation Display ratings in the AaI&A lightfastness testing database indicate the range of acceptable light exposure to which prints can be subjected and still remain in very good to excellent overall condition."


Looking at how long images will be in "very good or excellent overall condition" comes a lot closer to the criteria I would apply to my work or what I would be looking for if I were a collector or museum.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> It looks like they are basing their guidelines on Wilhelm's numbers.  If Claria on brightened paper meets the criteria, the bar is nowhere near the 100% carbon images we are pursuing.  But, if you rely on Wilhelm, ">200 years" of dark storage sounds very impressive (that for Claria).  (That, of course, is not B&W and a degree of fade we might be a bit embarrassed by.)  And, all the products that are on the National Register list are good, but not close to the best and maybe not even what we'd be comfortable with.  

> For a much more accurate yet simply way to judge image longevity, I would recommend that the people who developed the National Register take a look at the "Conservation Display ratings" developed by Mark McCormick-Goodhart at Aardenburg Imaging. 

I've got a new project lined up with a local architect, I've worked her since the days when I submitted darkroom prints. I've been thinking of doing just what you suggested and including a printout of my latest Aardenburg results when we send the prints to the Register. I'm now at 90 Megalux-hours (item #144) and still holding strong. Mark plans to continue my test even after I hit 100.

> At http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/documents.html the third document from the top is "An Overview of the AaI&A Conservation Display Ratings."  This PDF explains what I consider a better system of fade and image evaluation.  In the words of this document, "The Conservation Display ratings in the AaI&A lightfastness testing database indicate the range of acceptable light exposure to which prints can be subjected and still remain in very good to excellent overall condition."

That about sums it up.

> Looking at how long images will be in "very good or excellent overall condition" comes a lot closer to the criteria I would apply to my work or what I would be looking for if I were a collector or museum.

I want to go about this tactfully when I submit my prints. The Register's website states that they welcome new ideas and new technologies, but still...  

Your comments are what I was hoping for... Thanks, Paul

Paul-


Let me preface my comments.
During a break from phojo work, I was the photographer for a major, 
well-funded historical society in the mid-80's.  I mean they owned 
original Audubon books, original letters from Billy The Kid, an original 
of the Declaration of Independence, etc.

During that time I worked along side one of the top photo conservators 
in the country.  She even helped me design and test a C-41 "blix" system 
using Kodak chemicals that Kodak kept responding "It won't work or we'd 
have done it."  It was used by the Associated Press until they went to 
digital.

I've been around these people. ~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~ end group email -->

That said, it looks to me as if they have LOWER standards than we (as a 
community) have.

5MP point-and-shoot?  Gimme a break.  That they would even mention PAS 
is a key.

"Acceptable resolution" is 2MP?

As to archival Gold disks, who makes these any more?  I still have about 
200 left from when Kodak quit making them.  I would question the dye 
technology, though, since it has improved so much since Kodak Gold.

Sharpies on a CD/DVD?  That's been a no-no for archival disc storage for 
a long time.  They may be okay on inkjet printable discs, but gel is 
safer at that point.

printing at 300 dpi?  Why would you?  We know better.

Their paper choices are all glossy.  Without GLOP, this would probably 
be an acceptance issue with them for inkjet.  It seems like the 
pre-digital mentality for newspaper reproduction.  But, since they have 
the file on disc, what would be they issue?  I don't think they truly 
understand archival survival rates.  Especially since lab printed prints 
are acceptable.  There aren't too many machine fed prints--color or B&W 
that get true archival washing and treatment.  Fact!  We darkroom folks 
know that.

It does not look as though they understand OBAs either.  Another place 
you can educate them.

Printer inks.  They have no concept (it appears) of carbon-based rather 
than dyes.

The use rights section is scary.  This comes from my phojo side!!  "But 
not limited to" is a rights grab, although non-exclusive.  Keep in mind 
the National Park Service not only publishes a lot, they sell a lot in 
their stores.  NPS actually has regulations on who may sell photographs 
taken in parks, though you have to dig a little to find it.  It's pretty 
unenforceable, but it's there.

I applaud your efforts at educating them on carbon prints.  IMHO Wilhelm 
ratings are questionable if that is their basis.  As far as dark storage 
fading goes, Wilhelm really cannot test that.  I'd rather see Aardenburg 
or RIT Image Permanence Institute testing results.

Also, I wonder if Alexis is an archivist in the true sense--training and 
experience.  The email is "contractor'" so you (we) may have a long road 
to turn them from some test they "read" somewhere.

Some ammo:  The National Anthropological Archives sells inkjet 
prints--ON MATTE PAPER.
                         The Northeast Document Conservation Center 
lists inks almost verbatim.  They do, however, state the long term 
stability of pigment over dye AND the use of 100% cotton rag over 
resin-based. They ARE "sleeping with" Wilhelm from all appearances.

You'll love this!  A November 2011 article about "Heritage Documentation 
Programs (HDP), part of the National Park Service" paper at 
http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/standards/PhotoGuidelines_Nov2011.pdf states:

Camera recommendations: A large-format view camera with ample movement 
for perspective correction
must be used. Acceptable film formats are 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10...."
Paper:  "Resin-coated papers of any kind are not archival and will not 
be accepted for inclusion
in the HABS, HAER, and HALS collections in the Library of Congress."  
ROTFLMAO!!

Written by the NPS photographer.

Nuff said.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Seth,

Wow... obviously you are more versed in this topic than I, but I had some similar misgivings the more I looked at those guidelines. They just didn't add up, but I wasn't able to articulate why, not having the background you do.

It's odd, because years ago when I first submitted darkroom  prints as part of a Register Nomination, I understood and agreed with their requirements. They were pretty clear and understandable, and I was able to produce acceptable darkroom prints. This would have been back in the mid '70s. Like many people here, I gradually, with hesitation, moved more and more into the digital world. 

Thanks to people like Paul Roark and Clayton Jones, I became convinced that the carbon ink print was a worthy step to make. I use the 3MK carbon inkset in an Epson R1800... I've submitted a test print to Mark at Aardenburg and it's doing very well. (Hats off to Mark too, I must add.) I believe the longevity of the carbon print is a worthy challenger to the darkroom print. But as you pointed out, the current Register guidelines for a print are a step back from the darkroom days.

The hitch is long term storage. I still feel more comfortable with a film backup, although I did medium format, not large. I did pretty well at it, had a variety of lenses, but did my perspective control in the enlarger. The digital file strikes me as inherently volatile. I was not able to run with the big boys doing large format but I certainly understand and respect that level.

What to do? How does one go about working for an improvement in their guidelines? And how do we preserve digital files? That's where I have to defer to an older, safer storage medium such as film. The carbon ink prints I make will last, I have no problem there. But what about my "negatives", ie the digital backup to the print?

No easy answers, for now anyway.

I really appreciate your giving an articulate voice to my fears.

Regards,

Paul


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Seth Rossman <seth@...> wrote:

>
> Paul-
> 
> 
> Let me preface my comments.
> During a break from phojo work, I was the photographer for a major, 
> well-funded historical society in the mid-80's.  I mean they owned 
> original Audubon books, original letters from Billy The Kid, an original 
> of the Declaration of Independence, etc.
> 
> During that time I worked along side one of the top photo conservators 
> in the country.  She even helped me design and test a C-41 "blix" system 
> using Kodak chemicals that Kodak kept responding "It won't work or we'd 
> have done it."  It was used by the Associated Press until they went to 
> digital.
> 
> I've been around these people. ~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~ end group email -->
> 
> That said, it looks to me as if they have LOWER standards than we (as a 
> community) have.
> 
> 5MP point-and-shoot?  Gimme a break.  That they would even mention PAS 
> is a key.
> 
> "Acceptable resolution" is 2MP?
> 
> As to archival Gold disks, who makes these any more?  I still have about 
> 200 left from when Kodak quit making them.  I would question the dye 
> technology, though, since it has improved so much since Kodak Gold.
> 
> Sharpies on a CD/DVD?  That's been a no-no for archival disc storage for 
> a long time.  They may be okay on inkjet printable discs, but gel is 
> safer at that point.
> 
> printing at 300 dpi?  Why would you?  We know better.
> 
> Their paper choices are all glossy.  Without GLOP, this would probably 
> be an acceptance issue with them for inkjet.  It seems like the 
> pre-digital mentality for newspaper reproduction.  But, since they have 
> the file on disc, what would be they issue?  I don't think they truly 
> understand archival survival rates.  Especially since lab printed prints 
> are acceptable.  There aren't too many machine fed prints--color or B&W 
> that get true archival washing and treatment.  Fact!  We darkroom folks 
> know that.
> 
> It does not look as though they understand OBAs either.  Another place 
> you can educate them.
> 
> Printer inks.  They have no concept (it appears) of carbon-based rather 
> than dyes.
> 
> The use rights section is scary.  This comes from my phojo side!!  "But 
> not limited to" is a rights grab, although non-exclusive.  Keep in mind 
> the National Park Service not only publishes a lot, they sell a lot in 
> their stores.  NPS actually has regulations on who may sell photographs 
> taken in parks, though you have to dig a little to find it.  It's pretty 
> unenforceable, but it's there.
> 
> I applaud your efforts at educating them on carbon prints.  IMHO Wilhelm 
> ratings are questionable if that is their basis.  As far as dark storage 
> fading goes, Wilhelm really cannot test that.  I'd rather see Aardenburg 
> or RIT Image Permanence Institute testing results.
> 
> Also, I wonder if Alexis is an archivist in the true sense--training and 
> experience.  The email is "contractor'" so you (we) may have a long road 
> to turn them from some test they "read" somewhere.
> 
> Some ammo:  The National Anthropological Archives sells inkjet 
> prints--ON MATTE PAPER.
>                          The Northeast Document Conservation Center 
> lists inks almost verbatim.  They do, however, state the long term 
> stability of pigment over dye AND the use of 100% cotton rag over 
> resin-based. They ARE "sleeping with" Wilhelm from all appearances.
> 
> You'll love this!  A November 2011 article about "Heritage Documentation 
> Programs (HDP), part of the National Park Service" paper at 
> http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/standards/PhotoGuidelines_Nov2011.pdf states:
> 
> Camera recommendations: A large-format view camera with ample movement 
> for perspective correction
> must be used. Acceptable film formats are 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10...."
> Paper:  "Resin-coated papers of any kind are not archival and will not 
> be accepted for inclusion
> in the HABS, HAER, and HALS collections in the Library of Congress."  
> ROTFLMAO!!
> 
> Written by the NPS photographer.
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I forgot to add that I use 100% cotton paper, matt finish, with no OBA's. See item  #144 on Aardenburg.

Paul-

I have very redundant (some might say anal) storage system.  My most 
recent years, plus those used often, are stored on two 1.5TB HDDs in my 
system.  Those are also backed up weekly (auto) to a 2TB (RAID 1) NAS 
box.  NAS really is not a backup device.  Monthly, it backs those up to 
a 1.5TB USB drive attached to it.

EVERYTHING is on CD/DVD as separate shoots.  There are two of each using 
different brands of discs.  No Memorex or cheapies as memorex have been 
known to disappear within as little as two weeks.  One set goes off-site.

Sounds anal, huh?  A fire would wipe all the drives, leaving only my 
off-site.

Seth

On 3/14/2012 11:21 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> What to do? How does one go about working for an improvement in their 
> guidelines? And how do we preserve digital files? That's where I have 
> to defer to an older, safer storage medium such as film. The carbon 
> ink prints I make will last, I have no problem there. But what about 
> my "negatives", ie the digital backup to the print?
>
> No easy answers, for now anyway. ~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~ end group 
> email -->
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Seth,

Well, last time I bought an external drive I was a little embarrassed because I was already backing up to two drives, one an internal in the desktop itself, and the other an external. I said I felt a little obsessive but then the sales guy said "Well,if you're obsessive so am I."

Now, when we travel, I take one of the externals with me - I should store it offsite, I know. But if the house burns down and takes my computer along with it, I suppose my b/w negatives will go too.

I spoke with my architect this am asked what they do... backup to the backup to the backup, she said. I'll have to ask if they store anything off-site. And by the way, her staff person found those NR guidelines confusing too.

Just wondering... what is the difference between the National Register and HABS? Do they have different missions? She had not heard of HABS, nor had I until talking with another preservation friend a while back.

Paul

Can you say bureaucracy?  Probably two agencies doing the same redundant 
task without co-ordination. ;-)

Seth

On 3/14/2012 2:50 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> Seth,
>
> Well, last time I bought an external drive I was a little embarrassed 
> because I was already backing up to two drives, one an internal in the 
> desktop itself, and the other an external. I said I felt a little 
> obsessive but then the sales guy said "Well,if you're obsessive so am I."
>
> Now, when we travel, I take one of the externals with me - I should 
> store it offsite, I know. But if the house burns down and takes my 
> computer along with it, I suppose my b/w negatives will go too.
>
> I spoke with my architect this am asked what they do... backup to the 
> backup to the backup, she said. I'll have to ask if they store 
> anything off-site. And by the way, her staff person found those NR 
> guidelines confusing too.
>
> Just wondering... what is the difference between the National Register 
> and HABS? Do they have different missions? She had not heard of HABS, 
> nor had I until talking with another preservation friend a while back.
>
> Paul ~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~ end group email -->
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 15.03.2012 9:18 AM, Seth Rossman wrote:
> Can you say bureaucracy?  Probably two agencies doing the same redundant
> task without co-ordination. ;-)
[snip]
> On 3/14/2012 2:50 PM, Paul wrote:
[snip]
>> Just wondering... what is the difference between the National Register
>> and HABS? Do they have different missions? She had not heard of HABS,
>> nor had I until talking with another preservation friend a while back.

The two sets of records have different purposes, and they are both 
maintained by the one agency (the National Park Service of the US 
Department of the Interior):

The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of places 
that have legislative protection
http://www.nps.gov/nr/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places

HABS (Historic American Buildings Survey), along with HEAR (engineering) 
and HALS (landscape), are programs to record and document places, 
including those at risk of disappearance or change
http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_American_Buildings_Survey

Peter Marquis-Kyle
conservation architect
Australia

HABS is the Historic American Buildings Survey, part of the Library of Congress that produces a photographic record of historic structures (and some not so historic).  Inclusion on the National Register has some very strict criteria, much more so than HABS.

Donald E. Ehrenbeck, AICP, P.P.
24 Crane Parkway
Cranford, NJ 07016

908-276-4671 (H)
908-578-9879 (M)



To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

From: peter@...
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:57:30 +1000
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photo guidelines for National Register of HIstorice Places


















 



  


    
      
      
      On 15.03.2012 9:18 AM, Seth Rossman wrote:

> Can you say bureaucracy?  Probably two agencies doing the same redundant

> task without co-ordination. ;-)

[snip]

> On 3/14/2012 2:50 PM, Paul wrote:

[snip]

>> Just wondering... what is the difference between the National Register

>> and HABS? Do they have different missions? She had not heard of HABS,

>> nor had I until talking with another preservation friend a while back.



The two sets of records have different purposes, and they are both 

maintained by the one agency (the National Park Service of the US 

Department of the Interior):



The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of places 

that have legislative protection

http://www.nps.gov/nr/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places



HABS (Historic American Buildings Survey), along with HEAR (engineering) 

and HALS (landscape), are programs to record and document places, 

including those at risk of disappearance or change

http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_American_Buildings_Survey



Peter Marquis-Kyle

conservation architect

Australia



    
     

    
    






   		 	   		  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

One more question, Seth: When you wrote ROTFLMAO!! did you mean the HDP guidelines were overly strict, or that that's what guidelines should be compared to the lower standards of the Register? or.. ? I'm not critical of your comment but just wondering if I'm not getting it!

Thanks,

Paul

> You'll love this!  A November 2011 article about "Heritage Documentation 
> Programs (HDP), part of the National Park Service" paper at 
> http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/standards/PhotoGuidelines_Nov2011.pdf states:
> 
> Camera recommendations: A large-format view camera with ample movement 
> for perspective correction
> must be used. Acceptable film formats are 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10...."
> Paper:  "Resin-coated papers of any kind are not archival and will not 
> be accepted for inclusion
> in the HABS, HAER, and HALS collections in the Library of Congress."  
> ROTFLMAO!!
> 
> Written by the NPS photographer.
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Look at the glossy papers recommended in that original article.  There 
are resin papers listed as acceptable.  Quite contrary to the LOC 
guidelines.

However, I question the LOC's statement.  RCs (in a silver-based 
spectrum) are much easier to vacate hypo and acids than from paper-based 
prints, though both are doable.

Seth

On 3/15/2012 8:18 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> One more question, Seth: When you wrote ROTFLMAO!! did you mean the 
> HDP guidelines were overly strict, or that that's what guidelines 
> should be compared to the lower standards of the Register? or.. ? I'm 
> not critical of your comment but just wondering if I'm not getting it!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul ~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~ end group email -->
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Seth Rossman <seth@...> wrote:

> However, I question the LOC's statement.  RCs (in a silver-based 
> spectrum) are much easier to vacate hypo and acids than from paper-based 
> prints, though both are doable.

Early RC (1970s) paper, color and B&W even more so, got a bad reputation because the manufacturers missed a new form of deterioration caused by their switch to TiO2 whitening agents in place of Baryta. The TIO2 was actually light sensitive, generating free-radicals that then caused peroxide formation which then caused premature brittleness and cracking in the RC (polyethylene) layer plus serious silver tarnishing in the B&W RC prints. The products were greatly improved as manufacturers learned to add anti-oxidants and use other structural forms of TiO2.  Nevertheless, the bad reputation had been earned early on, and that's why you see restrictions on it's use for "archival" documentation.  Incidentally, this light-heat-humidity induced RC B&W tarnishing reaction is very difficult to replicate in the laboratory, so the ISO committee working on archival recommendations for RC Paper failed over a 20+ year effort to ever come up with a standard.  Another reason for archivists not accepting this type of material (when they can get away with it).  And of course, by now RC silver halide papers are a vanishing breed, so the need for an ISO processing standard has become a moot point.


best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Guess this thread is coming to a close... it's been very helpful, thanks to you all.

Paul

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

>
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Seth Rossman <seth@> wrote:
> 
> > However, I question the LOC's statement.  RCs (in a silver-based 
> > spectrum) are much easier to vacate hypo and acids than from paper-based 
> > prints, though both are doable.
> 
> Early RC (1970s) paper, color and B&W even more so, got a bad reputation because the manufacturers missed a new form of deterioration caused by their switch to TiO2 whitening agents in place of Baryta. The TIO2 was actually light sensitive, generating free-radicals that then caused peroxide formation which then caused premature brittleness and cracking in the RC (polyethylene) layer plus serious silver tarnishing in the B&W RC prints. The products were greatly improved as manufacturers learned to add anti-oxidants and use other structural forms of TiO2.  Nevertheless, the bad reputation had been earned early on, and that's why you see restrictions on it's use for "archival" documentation.  Incidentally, this light-heat-humidity induced RC B&W tarnishing reaction is very difficult to replicate in the laboratory, so the ISO committee working on archival recommendations for RC Paper failed over a 20+ year effort to ever come up with a standard.  Another reason for archivists not accepting this type of material (when they can get away with it).  And of course, by now RC silver halide papers are a vanishing breed, so the need for an ISO processing standard has become a moot point.
> 
> 
> best,
> Mark
> http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
>