RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
John Annunziello <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:13:45 -0400
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
"Increasingly, many "photographs" are digital and are therefore not
printed from a negative using traditional silver photographic
processing....but on a computer printer using "photographic paper" made
for those printers.  What is the comparison of longevity of the images
from the traditional process and the computer printed images?"

Hi, I'm not an Archivist but a photographer by trade.  So, I'll give you 
my two cents worth on this. 

Photographic prints are far move stable than the inkjet variety. Depending 
on when the inkjet was produced, it may be water soluble and easily 
discolured by exposure to periods of light.  The same can also be said 
about photographic prints but it would need extended periods of strong 
light to discolour.  However, photographic prints are not water soluble. 
That being said, the older photographic prints are not as stable as todays 
prints.  If kept away from light and in a cool, regulated environment, all 
photographic prints could in essence last hundreds of years. (Does this 
sound like most mediums?)  With todays newer inkjets, they are not 
bothered by water exposure.

I would suggest that the photographic paper you are suggesting is good, 
but the image itself is not of a permanent nature.  As the image "sits" on 
the surface of the paper it would be more susceptible to injury.  In the 
traditional silver halide process the image does not reside on the surface 
but is almost "burned into" the paper and less susceptible to damage. 

Todays computer printed images are often run through colour 
copiers/printers/scanners.  These prints are far more stable than inkjet 
but still not as good as the photographic process. 

I once remember reading a recent Kodak article that suggested that if the 
prints were properly cared for, they could last for over 500 years.  Mind 
you, the same was said about long term storage of CD"s.

So... if you want to preserve your prints long term, use the traditional 
photographic process.

John Annunziello
Manager, Records and Information 
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
[log in to unmask]

"Information is a corporate, strategic asset that needs to be managed"

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

ATOM RSS1 RSS2