• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Permanence

Permanence

September 30, 2002 JimK Leave a Comment

Some photographs ought not to last. I’ve made my share. How convenient it would be if they slowly faded away to nothingness. I’m in good company: when Edward Weston decided that he didn’t like some formerly-loved images, he scraped the emulsion off the negatives and turned them into windowpanes. I bet he wanted the prints back, too.

Nevertheless, for the most part we want our art to be permanent. If you’re a photographer, maybe you’d like your work to be message to the future, or a piece of you that will go on long after you’re dead. If you own photographs, you’d certainly like your collection to last your lifetime, and it might make you feel good to imagine it being cherished by generations to come.

Photographic permanence comes in two forms. Collectors and the photographers who sell to them are interested in the longevity of their prints. Photographers and archivists are also interested in the longevity of intermediate photographic objects that can be used to produce prints: traditionally, these are negatives.

We’ve been blessed with long-lived photographs since the beginning of the medium. The very first published photographic process, the Daguerreotype, although mechanically fragile and light-sensitive, produced images that can still be enjoyed today. The silver gelatin prints on paper that form the core of today’s black and white photographic market were introduced in the 1870s. Silver negatives on glass are exceedingly stable, and silver negatives on most other materials are as stable as their base. By the latter half of the twentieth century we’d gotten archival black and white processing, mounting, and storage down to a science, and anyone who wanted to learn the steps and took the care to execute them carefully could produce long-lasting work.

The advent of modern color photography in the 1930s brought a huge step backwards in permanence compared to black & white. Early color negatives showed noticeable fading in a decade, and color prints weren’t much better in dim lighting, and far worse in bright conditions. Over the years diligent and clever chemists have greatly improved the longevity of both negatives and prints, but they’re still a far cry from where black and white has been for a hundred years.

When the computer entered the photographic picture in the 1980s, history repeated itself, and longevity of prints took a setback (Longevity of intermediate forms in the age of the computer is a complex issue, and one best discussed in a later column). The early high-quality photographic computer printers weren’t intended for artistic use; they were meant as proofing devices for documents intended to be printed on presses. In that application, the print just had to last until the presses stopped running. A few artists saw the potential of these devices in spite of their image-stability problems; receiving little support from the printer manufacturers, they started mixing their own longer-lived inks. Soon, small companies supplied lightfast ink commercially. After a while, the printer vendors realized that the market for photographs in general was potentially much larger than the market for proofs for offset lithography, and that many of their new customers cared passionately about permanence, so they called in the chemists and jumped on the image-stability bandwagon.

The progress has been astonishing. In the past ten years, the longevity of the best computer photographic color output has gone from much worse than a standard C print to much better, and the pace of progress is increasing. No one knows where it will all end, but it appears likely that color prints lasting several human lifetimes can be attained. In addition to improved longevity, computer-based photographic output offers a dizzying array of options. Ink-jet printers allow the artist to print on a wide range of papers, and well as silk, canvas, and other materials. Prints too big for most labs to produce conventionally can be easily made in fairly small spaces. If you work in color, you owe it to yourself to explore some of the new options.

The Last Word

← Obsolesence B&W Permanence →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.