Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: archival, photography, printer | Themes: Digital Cameras
3. A Short History of Archival Prints
The American Civil War was one of the first conflicts that had the photographic coverage we have come to expect with our daily news today. We have a better sense of the carnage because photographs from that era make the history real. Our history books have shown this picture "Dead Confederate soldier in Devil's Den," credited to Matthew Brady, taken shortly at the end of the Battle for Gettysburg. This image as well as hundreds of others, such as "The "Dictator" shown here that was taken in Petersburg, VA, exist today because the photographers that created them used materials that would stand the test of time. that is materials that were of archival quality.
Their negatives were made from glass plates. These plates were coated with a light-sensitive material, most frequently as part of what is called a "wet-plate" process. The plate was taken into a tent, the light-sensitive solution was applied, and the photographer then ran out to expose that plate. As often as not, the photographer then had to process the plate before the solution dried. (See here for a description of wet plate/collodion photography.) Bear in mind that the prints made during this time were the most important, since the glass plates were expensive and the photographer would clean off the negative image and reuse the plate.
The photographic prints made from these glass plates were printed on paper that was very low in acidic content. The papermaking process has, for many years, left an acidic trace in the paper that is the seeds of its own destruction. Over time, that acid will start to discolor and degrade the paper and the image. Papers from the Civil War era lack that same level of acidic content, thus minimizing their deterioration and preserving them for posterity and our history.
- Previous page Why Bother?
- Next page Which Type of Printer?
There are archival class DVD media that have longer warrantied life spans than that mentioned in the article. Taiyo Yuden and TDK offer archive class DVDs' with life span of 70 years which is pretty good don't you think. It is implied that Laser Printers cannot be used for archive class photos, is this really the case?
i would rather see advice on preserving negatives or digital files since we only print when we need it and printing is improving constantly.
This was a really really good article. I remember using Illford photographic paper in college in basic photography. We used an Iris printer for computer graphics printouts. It cost over $50k. I don't know what the shelf life of the prints is. I have them mounted on mat board in a portfolio which is in storage. These days you can make prints that are just as good or better for a lot less money.
You should also mention that when framing a photo it is important to have UV filtering glass, since UV light can fade photos as well.
It would have also been good to include in the article a section about getting the prints done somewhere. For people that will only need to do a small number of photos, the cost of the high end printers/inks might not be worth it. I don't know if places like Wal-Mart offer multiple paper choices, but there are many profession photo printing services available on the internet that give you a range of professional Kodak papers to choose from. These services have the added benefit of using million dollar printing machines which can produce higher quality prints than consumer printers especially if the home user isn't knowledgeable enough to properly calibrate the printer.
Do you have any information on a scalable solution to scan all those photos that you don't have negatives for? I know you can outsource it but since they are irreplaceable I hate mailing them away. Is there a place that you can bring a box of them and they scan them and hand the box back to you?
Very good article. I have a Epson R380 Photo Printer and Epson 4490 Photo Scanner. Both devices work very well for what I use it for. It is a shame that alot of my relatives never kept the negatives as I could have scanned it with my scanner to produce photos for them to keep.
Now these days we all take digital photography for granted. Just point and click. Then take the SD card home to a printer for instant gratification for something that would have taken hours to do. I think doing it the old fashioned way a few times would show true appreciation of photography as it was in the old days.
Case in point, pioneer photographers with monster box size cameras strapped to a donkey on a long trip whereas today we just whip the camera out of our pocket and take a quick snapshot. Boy, times sure have changed! LOL
This should article should have been more prominent on the home page. One of the better written ones this month.
Good article. I would like to second the motion on adding information on getting the prints done by someone else. I am currently using Fotki because they claim to use archival quality inks and paper and I would be interested in seeing how they stack up to other firms. Also, I always thought that you couldn't print your own pictures for cheaper than an outside firm could. There are probably monetary advantages to going with someone else for printing. I think a follow-up article could be very interesting.
You should just go to a real photo lab and have your photos printed if you have any interest in having your prints last a lifetime.
Why give money to the ink cartels? Seriously, they told us 10 years ago our prints would last a lifetime too. Why should we believe them this time around?
Chemistry prints are the way to go.