Mountain Rider wrote:
So, when you make prints to adorn your walls, what... (
I lean to metal prints and thin canvas.
Since I do a lot of sunsets, High Definition Chromaluxe metal is my choice. I am fortunate that I have a friend that has a 40x60 inch heat press he lets me use so I do them for the cost of the metal panels. I get more money for my work when on metal than on canvas or luster paper. When I owned my lab I used Kodak metallic paper a lot.
High quality prints on paper will outlive me! /Ralph, 73 with arthritis, cancer and heart congestion
Best wishes Ralph, and take care of yourself.
I have mine printed on metal. They look fantastic.
Printing your own on archival paper, with good inks can last a long time.
I have been enjoying metal recently. Not sure of longevity.
Make sure you preserve the digital files, that is what will last longest in practical terms.
Go to museums and fine art galleries and see how art is displayed and preserved. Also talk to librarians and painters.
Fancy boxes for flash drives are really nice presentations. Also small prints in boxes are classy and last since they are out of the light.
I put my two cents in earlier but about I do Canvasses and Paper Prints , since then I went to see a insurance agent ], that called me. And sold 10 canvases (24X36 & 30X40) I had a good day.
I like canvas prints! Lately the glass prints from Fracture have me intrigued me as well.
I print on paper, I now use Red River Paper. Portraits I use Ultra Pro Satin. Landscapes, I use Satin, Polar Pearl Metallic and UltraPro Gloss. Wildlife I go to Satin & Gloss with a Canon PIXMA PRO 9000 MKII.
There is no law preventing anyone from calling any paper "non-acid" or "archival". Those
terms have no legal definition. Anything is "archival" if somene says it is.
In other words: don't believe everything you read in advertising. "Non-acid" papers
often are simply wood pulp paper plus an alkaline (high pH) sizing that (temporarily)
buffers the acid created by the breakdown of the wood. Some papers advertised as
"non-acid" have a pH as low as 6 and are made entirely from wood-pulp.
Various standards have been adopted by standards organizations for permanence of various
materials. For paper, the main one is: ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 -- Permanence of Paper for
Printed Library Materials, which covers publications on uncoated papers.
It was first enacted in 1984 as Z39.48-1984 - Permanence of Paper for Publications
and Documents in Libraries. It was adopted internationally by ISO in 1992.
Books printed on paper that meets this requirement can display the sideways-8 symbol
on the copyright page.
Note that this standard was developed to meet the needs of libraries, not of art museums
(which require art works to last much longer than library books).
ISO 11108:1996 "Archival paper: requirements for permanence and durability"
provides one definition of "archival" for unprinted paper, but has no force of law.
The word "archival" is not defined in law or any regulation I know of.
So unless a material is indendently certified to meet a particular standard
(e.g, ISO ) claims that it is "archival" aren't worth much.
Even product guarantees are worthless, since they are always limited to refunding
the purchase price of the material.
Today, if it comes down to a choice between staying in business and preserving
our cultural heritage, which do you think a CEO will chose? Permanent ingredients
tend to be more costly.
Not that long ago, industrious and innovative American businesses would sell
you radium water or laudenum for arthritis. That's the entrepreurial spirit! It's
also why the US drug industry is now regulated by the FDA. Lots of people died
so that patent medicine companies could maximize profits.
The only truly permanent paper is one with a pH above 7 that does not contain any
lignin or sulfer.
Professional art conservators use only materials and techniques that have been proven
by time to be permanent.
Many photographs survive from the mid-19th century in good condition. The ones in
the best the sepia-toned prints on 100% rag paper (wood pulp paper wasn't invented
until 1843 and wsn't in widespread use until the 1900s). Technology and greed created the
non-permanent paper problem.
I suppose the most permanent printing process is an optical print on platinum paper (in use
since at least Ferdinand Gehlen of Germany in 1830). Palladium is equivalent. Then come:
* "sepia" sulfide-toned silver print
* gold-toned silver print
* selenium-toned silver print
* untoned silver print
This assumes the photo-sensitive paper is made from 100% cotton paper and fixed and
Ink-jet ink formulations are "secret formulas", thousands of variations exist and they change
frequently without notice. Even if a black ink or toner is based on carbon, what's the binder
and is it permanent?
Mountain Rider wrote:
So, when you make prints to adorn your walls, what... (
I will assume that you are shooting digital these days. The best way to make sure that your descendants appreciate what you've done is to organize the "important" photos (family etc) so it is easy for them to review them. If you have photos taken on film, you should consider digitizing them before the original media deteriorates. I'm talking about the negatives and perhaps slides as well. I'm in the process of scanning hundreds of rolls of film taken over my lifetime, color and black and white negatives and slides, and fortunately, most of them are still in pretty good shape.
As for which paper or medium gives the most lasting prints, you'll have to do some research. Back in the 90s, I took many rolls of film to a place that printed on Fuji archival paper with a guaranteed 50 years without fading. Those prints still look perfect. Prints made elsewhere on Kodak paper have started to fade. The negatives are saving me.
This is always a matter of personal taste, but I've always thought textured surfaces detracted from the print. Canvas prints to me look like photographs that have been covered with a piece of transparent cloth, whose weave is still visible. My standard paper for silver gelatin prints was glossy dried on a fiberglass screen, which comes out semi-glossy. I'm old enough to remember when you made glossy prints and squeeged them onto a ferrotype tin, which resulted in a high gloss. The problem with a high gloss, however, is that the print is like a mirror--you can't really see what's in it unless you move off to the side. So, there's such a thing as too glossy. But the nice thing about glossy is that it gives you the best blacks, which, in turn, is what makes pictures pop (I've always disliked matte surfaces, because they make prints look flat). I haven't tried metal or glass, but I've had good results with acrylic--this is really a glossy print that is attached to a clear acrylic substrate (or, rather, superstrate--the print is behind the acrylic, protected from the elements). Obviously, you've got a sheen like glass, but since the print is behind the acrylic, you don't run into the problem of the surface acting like a mirror.
I really like Ilford "Pearl" for most of my work. Some subjects are nice on canvass. It's all a matter of individual taste.
If I have a wall hanger I like metal. I usually deal with Bay Photo.
I dislike prints on canvas. I don't like prints on metal either. I prefer prints on high gloss paper. I want a print with the most dynamic range and details.
I agree on the gloss paper. Some brands of photo paper guarantee their longevity. IMHO the glass, metal, and canvas media are just gimmicks, and the canvas is the worst because it disrupts the image. Not being critical of anyone. I am an admitted purist. If these options work for you, it's all good. >Alan
Hate to be a sourpuss, but your kids will probably care less about the photos of where you've been. I'm finding that out now as we're throwing away a lot of things that we like and no one else does. Ask the kids whether they are interested in things like the photos before you sink a lot of money into them. If not, take the money and go on another cruise.