Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: archival, photography, printer | Themes: Digital Cameras
8. Photo Gloss vs. Acid Free Papers
Photo Gloss Papers
The papers best used with the dye-based inks found in inkjet printers are much improved over what the photographer had to select from just 10 years ago. The current papers, along with the current dye-based inks, have much improved display life spans. Images printed today on these papers and dye-based inks will likely last well over 20 years, with some claims of over 30. The only problem with these claims is the fact that we will likely have no recourse in 20 to 30 years if the claims prove to be erroneous.
The expected life span of these images is no worse than what we can expect from a print made with a photographic process at your local drug or photo store. But, if your point is to create a print that will be with your family for several generations, then this will likely not be the best paper for you.
The problem with these papers is analogous to the non-fibre based photographic papers we discussed above. The manufacturing process for paper includes acids. Without the elimination of those acids, the substrates are doomed to discoloration and fading. Unfortunately, these inkjet papers cannot be washed for several hours to eliminate those acids, therefore you must turn to inkjet papers that are acid-free.
Acid Free Papers
Since we already made note that you cannot spend hours washing the papers that you put through your inkjet printer, you must depend on others to do the washing for you. Epson, Canon, and HP all offer acid-free papers for their line of inkjet printers.
There are numerous third-party paper manufacturers that produce similar acid-free papers. It is during the manufacturing process that these papers have been subjected to extended washing and acid-neutralization materials.
These buffering agents, frequently calcium bicarbonate or magnesium bicarbonate, will build up a buffering reserve in the paper. This reserve is needed to ensure that the paper maintains its acid-free state after it ships. Some data indicates that these "alkaline" papers, that is the papers that have been treated with some form of carbonate, could have a life span of 500 to 1,000 years. This seems likely to be a point that will be of little concern to the average photographer.
If your printer will accept thicker substrates, there is no need to purchase a vendor-specific, acid-free paper. The owner’s manual and user guide for your printer will specify the thickness your printer can handle. You can go to your local art store and check out its many acid-free papers. These can also go by the description of “rag paper” or “museum paper.” They may have varying amounts of linen or cotton and may have any number of finishes to their surface. Depending on what effect you are looking for with your picture, this is an alternative to the printer vendor's papers. You might find a paper that you like, but it is sized larger than the print you plan to create. In this case, you must get it professionally cut to size, which incurs yet another cost.
This is the crux of creating your own photographic history. Without these papers, in conjunction with a printer that uses pigmented inks, your images stand diminished chances of passing into history intact.
- Previous page Photographic Paper Back in the Day
- Next page The Color of Paper
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.