I am a records manager (& archivist) with a past life as a photographer.
John is completely correct in the difference between computer and silver
halide printing processes. Both depend on the quality of the materials
used. A digital print on high quality paper with high quality (near)
permanent inks will last a long time under ideal conditions. But will
never outlast a traditional photographic print made using medium to high
quality materials.

As for the citation of 500 years for photographs, I believe that refers
to dye-transfer prints - the most durable and stable photographic
printing process -- and also expensive. Microfilm, a photographic
process, is also estimated to last 500 years.


Stephen Cohen, MLIS
Document Controls Manager
MARNELL CONSULTING
222 Via Marnell Way
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
(702) 739-5751 x5765 Phone
(702) 739-5770 Fax
(203) 376-5535 Mobile
 

www.marnellcorrao.com

 

NOTICE: This message may contain information that is privileged and/or
confidential and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient.
If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for
delivering it thereto, you may not disclose, use, disseminate,
distribute, copy, or take any action in reliance upon this message or
any attachments thereto in any way. If you receive this message in
error, please return it by forwarding the message and any attachments to
the sender.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of John Annunziello
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: photographic records

"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

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