How long will our photos last has been a question for many years. There is one man who began a research lab with the purpose of testing photographic prints. This was because he found his colour photos of the 1960's and 70's had faded. The research lab is well known in the photo industry and is named The Wilhelm Imaging Research lab. Their latest report on 4x6 photos has just been released. It covers photographic silver-halide paper like ours, as well as ink jet paper and ink used in the home as well as dye-sub used in instant print kiosks. Most home printers are ink-jet and with some using the right ink and paper can be the best in permanence. With the wrong ink these digital photos can fade in a few months. Home printers that don't need ink are dye-sub and use heat to transfer dye from a ribbon to paper. These are the same printers used in quick print kiosks and are the least permanent. They often have a uv filter laminated on top to help but this gives them a foggy look. The paper in photo mini labs is the traditional silver-halide and we use Fuji. If you look at the report there is a big difference with the permanence of Fuji, Kodak and Konica-Minolta. This info is about how long a photo will last before fading and is important to consider when digital files may not be around to print another photo. If you have been using a digital camera than you may know how easy it is to lose digital files with hard drive crashes and CD failures. Here is a link to Wilhelm Research If you would like to test your own photos, an easy way to do so is to cut a photo in half and put one half in a window with some sun. The last time I did this was with a dye-sub printer I was thinking of selling. There was a very large change in two weeks. I sent the printers back. Bill
1 comment:
The problem with a window test is that it tests for only one of the four major factors influencing image fade--and that factor is both way out of balance relative to the others and atypical of home or gallery display (unless you live in a glass house).
As at least one company discovered, airborne pollutants can have a greater effect of some images than even direct sunlight. Plus greater than 95% of consumer prints are stored in the dark where thermal, humidity, a pollutant effects dominate.
The right way to measure image permanence requires a holistic approach--testing for all four factors in the proper balance that one sees in a real customer environment (which may well be different for consumer, gallery/museum or commercial).
By the way, when looking at ratings provided by on-line testing sites, be suspicious when one or more factors are still listed "test in progress" for more than a few months. Ozone tests, for example, are much quicker to perform than other tests and shouldn't be "in progress" for months or even years. Could it be that the product whose company paid for the tests have a problem with that missing result? And what does that say abouit the independence of the testing organization?
Post a Comment