Re: Is metamerism all hype?

[Thane Thurmond <tthurmond9@comcast.net>]

Nice observations Rob; however, you're assuming that the technology 
that exists 15 years from now will still be able to read today's 
digital storage media and formats.  Predicting the future is not an 
exact science, it's much easier to predict the past.  Anyway, as you've 
also noted many variables go into determining longevity of both 
traditional and digitally-produced photographs (I think longevity is 
probably a better term, since archival refers primarily to dark storage 
stability).  A "classic" example (now we're getting into what passes 
for history in the digital arena) is the "orange shift" debacle which 
occurred when the Epson 1270 light cyan dye inks were found to fade 
under atmospheric conditions on several of the Epson papers ( either 
from ozone-related damage, or damage due to some other oxidant being 
present).  Neither Epson nor Henry Wilhelm could have predicted this 
occurrence, although Epson did take a lot of heat over it (probably 
because people had quite a bit of money tied up in the inks and paper, 
myself included).  Henry has since modified his testing procedures to 
test for potential atmospheric damage, and Epson reformulated some of 
the papers (especially the premium glossy photo papers) to reduce (not 
eliminate) the problem, and added warnings and instructions for 
protecting printed images to their package inserts.  As the area of 
digital reproduction matures (maybe in the next two years or so) we'll 
see enhanced longevity which may rival that of traditional prints, and 
maybe even extended color gamuts to rival ilfochrome.  That is if some 
other unforeseen variable doesn't crop up.

Scott

On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 01:24 PM, Robert Gullixson wrote:

> I admit a certain negligence about inks and dyes for digital paper, 
> but I do know it's a harder sell to guarantee any longevity/archival 
> issues right now - Dave's five-year-old prints seem to serve as one of 
> the most extensive real studies out there...haha.  No really - I mean, 
> accelerated testing is better than nothing, but if we're splitting 
> hairs with color shifts, etc (as tends to be in photographers' 
> natures), then why would you trust the 'pinpoint' accuracy of 
> accelerated testing?  The only way to know for certain will be when 25 
> REAL years have passed and we can pull out those prints and look at 
> them.  Then again, if the reasonable accuracy of accelerated testing 
> is good enough for you, then the color shifts occuring in ink, dye, OR 
> silver prints should probably pass your standards too!  And as it's 
> been said - "daylight" viewing conditions vary EXTENSIVELY depending 
> on time of year, time of day, etc.  I mean, anyone who has pulled-out 
> a color meter on a location shoot knows that the temperature can 
> change several hundred degrees just with a cloud passing through.  And 
> on a last note - albeit shamefully - when I was first starting out I 
> worked at a custom lab that did "archival" prints - guess what, any 
> lab using some big RA-4 processor to crank out prints is NOT giving 
> you "archival" prints - regardless of what they may claim.  The 
> super-heated chemistry used to lower developing, fixing, bleaching, 
> etc times lowers the longevity of the print.  So, 90% of conventional 
> color prints out there don't meet the TRUE standard of "archival" 
> anyway.  So, unless you're planning on going Ansel Adams and building 
> underground concrete vaults for your negatives, don't stress too much 
> about your printing shifting 10 points magenta 15 years down the line. 
>  Hey, it's digital - just spit out another one!  :)
>
> ~Rob
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail