Slashdot Mirror

Basically, UV, acids, and our atmosphere, especially in cities, is hostile to colours we use in images. Look at the faded signs as well as faded photos. But print on non-acid paper, with inert pigments rather than fragile organic dyes, and keep the air out with a sealed frame or box, and you can expect hundreds of years of stable colour life.
So print it yourself (Canon and Epson have pigment inks on some photo printers) on no-acid paper and matte it under glass (UV protection), keep it out of the sun, and enjoy. (Not against the glass- it will stick. That's why the matte.)
If you're storing photos away, make sure the environment is all non-acidic, too, eg, metal boxes not cardboard or plastic.
Cost-wise, look for processors who advertise no-acid paper and pigment inks.
See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for the most comprehensive look.

As far as we know, modern inkjet prints can be extremely long-lasting, based on accelerated testing. If you pop for a high-end printer, e.g. Epson 3880, you can make really good prints that will (probably) last decades. High-dollar printers, in my experience, don't have the problems that cheap inkjets do. They're much more durable even if you don't use them that often, but you probably should use them regularly.

But then you're off in the rabbit hole of display/printer calibration (non-trivial), ICC profiles, $500 to refill the inks, etc. Each print will probably cost several dollars. It's probably not worth it for most people. But if you're going to buy your own, save yourself a lot of frustration and get a really good printer (and IPS monitor).

I've had good luck with MPix for making high quality prints. Others are probably good also.

I have no idea how long photo books last, but there are a lot of them out there. I've had good luck with MyPublisher and Blurb for prints that look like what I sent them.

So, aside from keeping multiple digital backups, verifying them regularly, off-site storage of backups, and updating formats over years, which presumably you would do anyway, do this:

Print the photos you like best on archival inkjet paper and put them into an archival box. Take notes of who, what, where, when. Reference the original digital file. That has as good a chance as anything of lasting a few decades.

A good discussion is here at TOP, and read the comments too.

I agree with doing it at Costco. If you poke around their website you will see that you can download ICC profiles. Yes, Costco does color calibration.
Recently my local one had a machine problem, and they actually gave me a phone call to tell me it would be delayed.
That said, print 2 copies, one to view and one to keep in an archival, lightproof, packed with silica gel box, kept below 75 degrees, that is not to be opened for at least 30 years.
check out THE book on the subject http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

The usual place that talks about print permance is Wilhelm Research: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ In general, the answer for home printing is the HP or Epson pigment printers with the appropriate papers, and UV blocking. However, I would tend to think that the only way forward is to backup the digital media, and backup early, backup often. You want the photos stored on your own backups that you control, stored as standard JPG images at full resolution. You want multiple backups, spread phsyically across different media and stored in different locations. You do want to think about cloud or other remote backups, in case something like Hurricane Katrina comes through and wipes out your whole town and surrounding area. In any backup system, you want to plan for at least every 5 years of recopying files from the old media to new media, as the media evolves.

of course, i didnt rtfa.

but.. i think this "Tom" was beaten out by Wilhelm long ago!

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc. conducts research on the stability and preservation of traditional and digital color photographs and motion pictures.

Wilhelm was a founding member of the Photographic Materials Group of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, is a member of the Electronic Materials Group of AIC, and was a founding member of American National Standards Institute/ISO subcommittee IT9-3 (now called ISO WG-5 Task Group 3), which is responsible for developing standardized accelerated test methods for the stability of color photographs and digital print materials

yeah!!! but uhh, maybe this geek website is doing better?

I seriously doubt that. Unless they've been stored in sub-zero conditions, I guarantee you that your film has faded over the last twenty years. I suggest you read Henry Wilhelm's "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs", the definitive work on traditional photographic permanence.

And the book is available for free download here: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

I am not a pro, but I researched this a little before buying my photo printer. I think
I would be considered in the "Pro-Am" category.

Epson Ultrachrome pigment-based inks are fairly long lasting. I bought an Epson R800
printer, which works with these inks, and I use it a lot. According to Welhelm, the prints should last 100+ if
framed under glass. These are the photos I care about as I hope to sell prints someday soon. I don't want to take someone's money
and have them disappointed when 3 years later, the color has faded.

I started taking 35mm photos in the late '70s and the colors have definitely faded since then in
both the prints and the negatives. The black and white photos look the same as the day
I printed them.

Making your own prints is more expensive than having someone else do it. But if you are
into photography, you might enjoy the control you get and the learning process of how
to produce good digital photos.

The ink-jet, Epson Ultrachrome inks produce prints that last longer than film based color prints.

And according to http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ the best of the inkjet prints last longer than the best of the photo prints. This makes sense because with inkjets there is no chemical process to cause problems.

If you want prints to last you need to use acid free paper and good pigment based inks. However the low end of injet prints is pretty bad. This is one of the reasons that Kodak's injet printers are interesting -- they use good inks for about half the price of and HP cartage.

Quote: "The problem is actually more nuanced than this; it's that no-one has a reliable and standardized way of testing inkjet prints for longevity."

Do some research. See that http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ does have such tests, and has for quite a while:

"Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc. conducts research on the stability and preservation of traditional and digital color photographs and motion pictures...

"Henry Wilhelm and Carol Brower Wilhelm are the authors of the landmark 744-page book, The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures, published in 1993."

I don't work for them. I just take a lot of digital photos.

If you take a look at a particular printer such as the HP Photosmart 8450 you can see that depending on what paper you use the lifetime of the print can last from 9 to 108 years. The method that you keep the printed photo will affect its longevity as well. Most printer manufacturers quote the Wilhelm lifetime when the photo is framed under glass. As you can imagine, when kept under glass the prints last longer.

Who you get the ink from also affects the lifetime of the print. The first article I linked examines some refiller cartridges. This is where ink refillers are really weak.; their lifetimes are much shorter.

If you take a look at a particular printer such as the HP Photosmart 8450 you can see that depending on what paper you use the lifetime of the print can last from 9 to 108 years. The method that you keep the printed photo will affect its longevity as well. Most printer manufacturers quote the Wilhelm lifetime when the photo is framed under glass. As you can imagine, when kept under glass the prints last longer.

Who you get the ink from also affects the lifetime of the print. The first article I linked examines some refiller cartridges. This is where ink refillers are really weak.; their lifetimes are much shorter.

3rd party inks don't last as long. This is a very scientific test and shows that if you want your prints to last for your children to enjoy and their children to enjoy the actual ink used by the manufactures EXCELLS in all these areas, and you are actually paying for something when you pay all that money! -=Matt=-

Inkjets are better than laser for photos, but on the other hand how often do you closely inspect a photo after buying the printer? And if you do, there are photo printer services that can outdo your inkjet. I've found my color laser to be fine for snapshots and even some framed stuff, because I don't put my nose to the photo when looking at it.

There are photoservices which will outdo an inkjet, but they are actually few and far between. Inkjet on the right paper does a superb job.

Also, I expect the toner will outlast the ink (as in color fading), but I haven't really checked into that.

I lack data my self. http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ doesn't seem to address color lasers. Epsons Durabright last time I checked had really decent archival life. Ultrachrome less so but well worth the exchange. But this is to be expected with pigments.

In response to the gp poster, last I checked LaserJets were laser and OfficeJets, DeskJets and DesignJets were ink. And JetDirect is their line of internal and external print servers.

In response to the gp poster, last I checked LaserJets were laser and OfficeJets, DeskJets and DesignJets were ink. And JetDirect is their line of internal and external print servers.

I'm sure HP has some pigment based solutions for their high end inkjets. Canon has some in their wide models, and plans to release an a3+ pigment printer, but it was slated for release last october and has been delated for spring 2007 the last time I checked. Epson is the way to go if you want archival inkjet, but I find the printers fickle and prone to clog.

Is that true?

I had heard that many of the 'digital photo labs' actually use almost exactly the same kind of short-lifetime ink as home printers, and therefore suffer from the same problems. I can't find a source to justify this online. (It was a PCWorld article but I can't find it)

The article at : http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Digital_Photo_Pro_ May_2004/Digital_Photo_Pro_May_2004.pdf suggests that the problem is not as terrible as you are suggesting, and that the difference between silver halide and ink is not all that huge.

Personally I comfort myself in the thought that my digital photos are all backed up, I can easily reprint, and if I do have to reprint in 5-10 years I will probably have bought a better printer by then!

The longevity of convential silver halide prints is often overstated. Most people don't keep their prints in so-called 'dark storage' condition, but in frames up on their walls or on their mantlepieces. These prints fade (that is, lose some colour; not become completely colourless) within just a few years, and nonetheless we happily keep these slightly faded prints without complaint. It's not clear that digital prints are all that much worse.

If you're interested in learning more there is lots of information at the WIR site at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Is that true?

I had heard that many of the 'digital photo labs' actually use almost exactly the same kind of short-lifetime ink as home printers, and therefore suffer from the same problems. I can't find a source to justify this online. (It was a PCWorld article but I can't find it)

The article at : http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Digital_Photo_Pro_ May_2004/Digital_Photo_Pro_May_2004.pdf suggests that the problem is not as terrible as you are suggesting, and that the difference between silver halide and ink is not all that huge.

Personally I comfort myself in the thought that my digital photos are all backed up, I can easily reprint, and if I do have to reprint in 5-10 years I will probably have bought a better printer by then!

The longevity of convential silver halide prints is often overstated. Most people don't keep their prints in so-called 'dark storage' condition, but in frames up on their walls or on their mantlepieces. These prints fade (that is, lose some colour; not become completely colourless) within just a few years, and nonetheless we happily keep these slightly faded prints without complaint. It's not clear that digital prints are all that much worse.

If you're interested in learning more there is lots of information at the WIR site at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Unless you have specially treated paper, your prints are likely to fade and lose color to the oxidation process within 5 to 20 years. Whereas photo prints are typically guaranteed to retain their color for 100 years in moderate to indirect sunlight.

Wrong.

Older (dye-based) inkjet printers had fading problems, but more recent models use pigment-based inksets, and the resulting prints actually tend to exceed the longevity of traditional color prints.

The Epson Ultrachromes, for example, are Wilhelm rated for over 100 years in good display conditions, and over 200 years in dark storage.

Actually the droplet size doesn't affect resolution, it affects the smoothness of the image. If a printer has large droplets you will see them at a normal viewing distance in the highlights. With small droplets you can't see the dots unless you look real close. Another thing this completely missed and everyone extolling the virtues of DyeSub has no clue about is: how long the prints last. Even the prints from a 1 hour photo will fade in a shoebox after 40 years, most dye-sub prints don't even last 8. Read http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6.html (the Epson R800 uses the same inkset as the picturemate)

I don't deny that Bill G will use this in an ultimately unscrupoulous way. But this venture is funding preservation of information that may have deteriorated otherwise and become simply unavailable at any cost.

Inkjet was always touted as the 'razor' for any company coming up in the ranks. The problem is ... much much much research $$ goes into finding pigments and dyes that are permanent and light fast... as well as fit the receiver requirements.

And companies want to recoup that cost as fast as possible.

I worked on some yellow dyes and can tell you it's a very difficult process. Very expensive- you might have 6 months of failures.. and the floor lab might be stained a million colours.

But when it's done (and your scale up engineers have done it right) you'll get the cost of your ink way down.... I seem to remember some were down around 30$/kg. Pretty cheap. But that was the 'cost' of making the ink, not including all the $$ into research.

And being a chemist I can tell you inks in suspension aren't good after sitting for awhile. Yes, it's in a dark cartridge, but I don't know many people that will tell you it's safe to take a drug /pill thats been in a bottle for 4 years. Ink's not a drug (tho as expensive as cipro!) but it is used to print a photograph that will, if said photo should fade, be lambasted as a "cheap ass company" for producing a bad product (See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ ... mind you I dont have a very high opinion of his work... but it's still a consumer 'start' ... he'll be re-inventing quite a bit of knowledge because he's refused help)

Anyways.... this shouldn't surprise anyone that works with inkjets. The high-volume people will never see the problem, only the low volume people. And those that know will probably do something like this instead http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&cate gory=1246&item=6746041397&rd=1 - note I am not endorsing this seller or product, only that I'm currently contemplating buying it...)

Shameless plug: http://www.inkjetart.com/mitsui/index.html

If you buy them in 100's, they're $1.09 each.


Or you could always "save" your pictures by printing them (and they will fade in <20 years unless you're using an archival printer). Check out http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for more info on that.

If you want to know more about print permanence, have a look at this site :
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

They did very strict studies on many printers and papers.

you want substance? I'll give you substance: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence _preview.html This is a report done by the Wilhelm Imaging Research labs. All they do is test stuff to see how long it will last. You're not going to find "and it's still good enough to print grnadma's album" - you'll find a real scientific analysis. Enjoy the substance.

From the Bettman archives to the collections of the JFK presidential library, even the finest quality pictures have often suffered horrible degradation even under excellent storage conditions. Things have gotten a lot better in the past several years, and a lot of labs use either Fuji Crystal Archive or Kodak Duralife papers, which do last quite well if treated properly. But be sure you check it out, don't just assume! For example, my step mother just bough very expensive professional studio portraits of her granddaughter, and they came back on papers that are known to degrade terribly in as little as 10 years.

In general, for most of the history of photography, assume things won't last unless you know otherwise, because it's generally proven to be the case.

If you don't want to research a place near you that uses quality, long-lasting processes, I believe that, among other places, Walmart uses Fuji Crystal Archive paper for all their prints.

I bought a canon instead of replacing my workhorse 1270 epson.Even after checking Wilhelm print longevity. Why?

The color. The epson pigment inks just don't have the pop of the canon dye based ink (especially in the greens). The epsons look good till I compaired them side by side.

My experience is anything I've framed from the epson 1270 which is dye based like the canon, has lasted. Some of by unframed stuff from the same printer hasn't and has shifted significantly in a little as 3 years.

And by converting my old 1270 into a BW printer with pigment inks, I get great Black and White.

Others have had archival print quality for a long time. A quick Google search turns up this Nov. 2000 review of the Epson 2000 with 100-200 year longevity. Epson 2000 review
Check out the Wilhelm Imaging Research website for the latest research in this area.

Here is a site that talks about how long printed images will last, Wilhelm Research seems to be an authority on the subject:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

They talk about cheap inks to avoid and various paper/ink combinations among many other factors.

Really old black & whites, from Daguerreotypes to early silver gelatin prints, fade horribly when subjected to light. For most glossy black & white prints the substrate slowly breaks down into vinegar, causing the emulsion layer to bunch up, crack, and peel. Nearly all color prints face horrible color shifts- some in as little as two or three years, while others are good for ten or twenty. Most negatives fade too, and a lot of slides are just awful. Kodachrome slides last well, but a lot of Ektachrome slides fade entirely to red in just ten to twenty years. And I don't just mean a red "shift," I mean near total loss of two thirds of the image data. And it doesn't matter much if you store them "right"- in complete darkness, with low humidity and constant temperature. They still fade. It's an internal chemical process. Yes, light fading usually makes things much worse, but most photographic prints have trouble with dark fading too.

The world expert in photographic print longevity is Henry Wilhelm. You can download a lot of great articles on print longevity, as well as the entire text of his book, The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures, from his website.

Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Duralife papers are both good attempts to fix this problem, but most existing prints were done before these were developed. Even most expensive prints from professional studios fade away terribly.

What can you do about it?

Well Bill Gates knows. He owns Corbis, which bought New York's famous Bettman Archive and is storing the whole thing in sub-zero storage underneath Iron Mountain in Pennsylvania.

But what can the average user do? Scanning and digital storage is pretty good, but it's true that unless you run regular backups, a hard drive crash can obliterate your entire photographic history in seconds. And most backup media have potential problems too. I'd suggest backing up your photographs to a Mitsui Gold Archival CD. Various libraries have certified these as an "archival" format. Then keep two copies of each CD in different locations (far apart), in case of a natural disaster.

This is very safe and affordable, if not particularly convenient. As for prints from the digital files lasting, most ink jet prints aren't any better than photographic prints. A lot of older Canon printers produced photographic prints that were practically worthless in a year. But there are a few very good options now. Epson has three printers with archival, pigmented ink sets: the 2000p, the 2200 (2100 in Europe), and the R800. Additionally, many Epsons, and some other printers, can use third-party long-life ink sets, made by companies like Lyson, MIS, and others. Used on the right papers and stored properly, prints made with these should last for several generations.

Disclaimer: I have a company that preserves photographs. I have no ties with anyone listed above in this message. If you are interested, my company, The Family Reserve, is here.

Really old black & whites, from Daguerreotypes to early silver gelatin prints, fade horribly when subjected to light. For most glossy black & white prints the substrate slowly breaks down into vinegar, causing the emulsion layer to bunch up, crack, and peel. Nearly all color prints face horrible color shifts- some in as little as two or three years, while others are good for ten or twenty. Most negatives fade too, and a lot of slides are just awful. Kodachrome slides last well, but a lot of Ektachrome slides fade entirely to red in just ten to twenty years. And I don't just mean a red "shift," I mean near total loss of two thirds of the image data. And it doesn't matter much if you store them "right"- in complete darkness, with low humidity and constant temperature. They still fade. It's an internal chemical process. Yes, light fading usually makes things much worse, but most photographic prints have trouble with dark fading too.

The world expert in photographic print longevity is Henry Wilhelm. You can download a lot of great articles on print longevity, as well as the entire text of his book, The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures, from his website.

Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Duralife papers are both good attempts to fix this problem, but most existing prints were done before these were developed. Even most expensive prints from professional studios fade away terribly.

What can you do about it?

Well Bill Gates knows. He owns Corbis, which bought New York's famous Bettman Archive and is storing the whole thing in sub-zero storage underneath Iron Mountain in Pennsylvania.

But what can the average user do? Scanning and digital storage is pretty good, but it's true that unless you run regular backups, a hard drive crash can obliterate your entire photographic history in seconds. And most backup media have potential problems too. I'd suggest backing up your photographs to a Mitsui Gold Archival CD. Various libraries have certified these as an "archival" format. Then keep two copies of each CD in different locations (far apart), in case of a natural disaster.

This is very safe and affordable, if not particularly convenient. As for prints from the digital files lasting, most ink jet prints aren't any better than photographic prints. A lot of older Canon printers produced photographic prints that were practically worthless in a year. But there are a few very good options now. Epson has three printers with archival, pigmented ink sets: the 2000p, the 2200 (2100 in Europe), and the R800. Additionally, many Epsons, and some other printers, can use third-party long-life ink sets, made by companies like Lyson, MIS, and others. Used on the right papers and stored properly, prints made with these should last for several generations.

Disclaimer: I have a company that preserves photographs. I have no ties with anyone listed above in this message. If you are interested, my company, The Family Reserve, is here.

Really old black & whites, from Daguerreotypes to early silver gelatin prints, fade horribly when subjected to light. For most glossy black & white prints the substrate slowly breaks down into vinegar, causing the emulsion layer to bunch up, crack, and peel. Nearly all color prints face horrible color shifts- some in as little as two or three years, while others are good for ten or twenty. Most negatives fade too, and a lot of slides are just awful. Kodachrome slides last well, but a lot of Ektachrome slides fade entirely to red in just ten to twenty years. And I don't just mean a red "shift," I mean near total loss of two thirds of the image data. And it doesn't matter much if you store them "right"- in complete darkness, with low humidity and constant temperature. They still fade. It's an internal chemical process. Yes, light fading usually makes things much worse, but most photographic prints have trouble with dark fading too.

The world expert in photographic print longevity is Henry Wilhelm. You can download a lot of great articles on print longevity, as well as the entire text of his book, The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures, from his website.

Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Duralife papers are both good attempts to fix this problem, but most existing prints were done before these were developed. Even most expensive prints from professional studios fade away terribly.

What can you do about it?

Well Bill Gates knows. He owns Corbis, which bought New York's famous Bettman Archive and is storing the whole thing in sub-zero storage underneath Iron Mountain in Pennsylvania.

But what can the average user do? Scanning and digital storage is pretty good, but it's true that unless you run regular backups, a hard drive crash can obliterate your entire photographic history in seconds. And most backup media have potential problems too. I'd suggest backing up your photographs to a Mitsui Gold Archival CD. Various libraries have certified these as an "archival" format. Then keep two copies of each CD in different locations (far apart), in case of a natural disaster.

This is very safe and affordable, if not particularly convenient. As for prints from the digital files lasting, most ink jet prints aren't any better than photographic prints. A lot of older Canon printers produced photographic prints that were practically worthless in a year. But there are a few very good options now. Epson has three printers with archival, pigmented ink sets: the 2000p, the 2200 (2100 in Europe), and the R800. Additionally, many Epsons, and some other printers, can use third-party long-life ink sets, made by companies like Lyson, MIS, and others. Used on the right papers and stored properly, prints made with these should last for several generations.

Disclaimer: I have a company that preserves photographs. I have no ties with anyone listed above in this message. If you are interested, my company, The Family Reserve, is here.

According to Wilhelm Research most traditional photos will last 19 years (#5) but check out how long the prints on the Epson PictureMate last - this is the "female" printer talked about on Slashdot last year. You also have the option of using REAL GOLD archival CD-R discs, most tests of the MAM-A discs (formerly called Mitsui) will last over 150 years, I doubt you'll even have a functional CD drive at that point!

There's a book:

The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs

Ziploc bags sound like a really bad idea. (Plastics outgas, if there's moisture in there it's trapped, etc)

The fungus damage is probably not repairable, but hang on to those films anyway.

Google around for preservation tips: I found this page but there's probably more out there.

Make sure you use a good printer (many choices from Epson, or the latest gen. from HP) and use the right inks, and the right paper if you're doing it at home. At a photo lab, you should be fine if you're only looking for 18years. If you think photos should last for you're grandkids, make sure you go to a lab that uses paper.

Cymbolic Science is no longer the only maker of digital laser plotters. Polielettronica, Fuji, Agfa, Noritsu, and Durst all manufacture digital RGB laser or LED plotters that expose onto conventional color RA-4 paper with quality equal to the LightJet. Most photo labs today either have one of these printers or can send work to a lab that does. Since the materials used are the same as conventional printing, the price is, or should be, the same as getting conventional reprints. Less if you consider that there is no film to process. For those who are not DIY'ers, these same labs will also have high quality scanners to digitize your prints and film to CD at a variety of resolutions.
Also, reasearch at Wilhelm Imaging shows that Fuji's Crystal Archive photo paper has a life expectancy of 68 years, making it the longest lasting color paper on the market, much better than the papers of the 1970s.