I just read an article on images printed on photo paper.Who wrote the article was the president of the 1-hour photo corp. in Old bridge, N.J. It says pictures printed on computers are not photographs. they are simply ink printed on paper and will fade rapidly. Regular photos go through developer, bleach fix and stabilizer. I heard something about this myself.How long before fading starts? I wonder if digital owners and future buyers know this. I've never read anything about this on the web. I would appreciate an answer. Thank you

-- frank grimaldi (frankiegny@yahoo.com), January 20, 2000

Answers

I just read the same article. I was just about to post that same concern but ya beat me to it.:-) The article in the paper here (Beacon News in Aurora Illinois) said that technology is great but what people dont understand is that ink fades in time and thats all a digital camea print is..ink. Where as a regular 35mm or any film that gets developed goes through a developing stage where some kind of solution is put on the pictures to make them life long memories.

-- Carrie (Redhead01@aol.com), January 20, 2000.

Digital images can be digitally printed such that they will last for 6 months (cheap) or 60 years (expensive). Or they can be printed using 'photographic' paper and chemicals (probably even more expensive). Traditional photographic prints vary in longevity.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), January 20, 2000.

HP and Epson are coming out with ink cartridge's that will last for 3 years. As for now, you can use one of the online printing services. I believe they last as long as film prints at approximately the same price as film. As for digital, they will never fade on you hard drive, and I'm sure in the near future printers will evolve to were they last as long as film.

Tom

-- Tom Colsher (tjc74@prodigy.net), January 20, 2000.

Hey,

I'll join into this no-win battle. I have 3 boxes of photo albmus that I really don't know what to do with. They are so big and bulky. Really the pictures are up to 60 years old ... some came from my grandfather.... and you can almost see them.

I also have one cd-rom with all the photos I took last year.. about 400. I took 200 more over Christmas, but they will be added to the 2000 album. I expect that I will be able to hold down to no more than 800 photos for a year... should fit on one cd. Of course, I don't expect this to last more than 5-10 years when I will probably copy them all to a dvd-rom ... all of them to one disk! But they all will be printable at what ever medimum is available. I enlisted my kids to keep backup copies of my cd. They think I gave them copies, but they are really providing me offsite storage at no cost!

Those 1000s of negatives... ruined because the basement flooded. All I have is the photo books and they are fading. I doubt I will be able to see any thing at all in another 50 years! I'll only be about 120 then.

Of course my slides and movies are in great shape... uh ... I guess, since my projectors died and I've been spending money on digital stuff.

-- Dave Clark (daveclark@mail.com), January 20, 2000.

You could have the image files printed on a Fujix Pictograph or a pro type unit. I read the article in my local paper and my thoughts were, who the hell would shoot their once in a lifetime (hopefully!) wedding on a digital camera. You pay a professional and IF he shoots digital it won't be with a $1000 digicam, it would be with a DCS520 or a good pro piece. Those images would print fine and could be effectively archived for a long time. Now if your crazy and your next door neighbor shoots your wedding on a 640x480 Jam-Cam and gives you wedding prints off a $80 printer, no doubt your in trouble. By the end of the article I couldn't help but feel that it was a little self serving for him, after all, the new digicams and printers are hurting business since the whole concept is to cut out the film processing step! I always shoot the most important stuff on 35mm since I still don't trust the Nikon 950 to give me 100% success.

-- Cris Daniels (danfla@gte.net), January 20, 2000.

The anti-ink lobby are talking Bull-sh*t. Theoretically, it's a lot easier to make an archival quality ink than it is to come up with non-fading photographic dyes. Pigment based colours can last for hundreds of years. Has anyone seen a faded Rembrandt? Now, hands up all those with old Ektachrome slides with no red and hardly any green left in them (1,2,3,4,5,6,7....... I'm counting in millions here). A photographic colour print will fade after only a few years if exposed to bright light, and the gelatin base will yellow with age regardless.

It's true that properly processed Black & White photographs can last almost indefinitely, because the image is made of metallic silver. It's also true that most inkjet prints fade after a very short time, because the ink manufacturers aren't trying hard enough. Come on Epson and the rest, pull your finger out and give us reasonable value for those over-priced ink cartridges.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), January 21, 2000.

Actually Epson is working on it. They have come out with the Photo 870 printer that is available in Hong Kong right now. Its print life is rated for 10 years.

http://lioncity.s-one.net.sg/~printer/news/870/

Here is some current information on archieval ink for printers available in the US.

http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/

http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/Wilhelm102999.pdf

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

Frank, The fading issues are not something heavily advertised by the inkjet manufacturers but it's a pretty well known phenomenon. And new people do become aware of it. Just as you did. Here, word of mouth, etc. Unfortunately some find out when they or a friend experiences the fading. When it comes to to true archival stability, it probably comes down to people not original media (in a general sense - a non- permanent original may only be preservable as a copy or translation anyway). Somebody needs to make the choice to save, duplicate, preserve something of value. The media is not too important after the decision is made. Then there is a need for skill on the part of the archivist. Look at some of the problems found with poor restorations or preservation efforts in the past! OTOH, the Dead Sea Scrolls were just shoved in a cave and all those early movies on nitrate film that have been lost over time simply because nitrate deteriorates (or was disposed of as hazardous, to gain library space, etc.)

-- Craig Gillette (cgillette@thegrid.net), January 22, 2000.