Reading mode: Light Dark

Photography & Integrity

Go to last post
Joe Lavee said:
Would you consider overstating film merits, as opposed to digital, to
potential clients, a dishonest and un fair practice?
Click to expand...
I would consider overstating anything to your clients as dishonest. Be it the merits or disadvantages of film, digital, your skill, equipment or anything else you can think of. The above question is loaded, and as such should be disregarded. If a client asked me if I used film or digital I would ask them which one they would prefer. Currently I have started shooting film again, along with the digital and could not be happier. Perhaps I should start overstating the merits of shooting both?
Joe Lavee said:
Should the photographer spell out the disadvantages with film usage?
Click to expand...
See answer to above question.

I would have gone into damage control a long time ago Joe.
 
Lutti, did you loose your tongue, actually you need just a finger.
You made a statement and I asked you to back it with data.

You wrote "Selenium toned silver fibre based prints can, with the same storage as pigment prints last 150 to 300 years. Platinum prints 500 years +....Carbon prints in excess of 1000 years."

Do you have data to back it or this is another bull s* t? All of a sudden you turned mute.
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
TaoMaas said:
Is it unethical to not tell your clients that there's a chance that
the state-of-the-art digital camera you're using to shoot their
wedding may be near obsolete within the next 10 years? Or that
you're pretty sure their great-grandkids will be able to enjoy the
prints of this wedding a few decades from now, but you don't know
that for sure because digital prints haven't been around that long?
Click to expand...
That is something that hasn't even come up yet. I've got Kodachromes
from my dad's collection shot in the late 50's that are just fine.
Got a drive for that 8" floppy....or maybe a tape frive for that C
Vic 20?
Click to expand...
Ignorance is not a bliss.
Go to: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and at least try to
understand what you are talking about.
Photographic paper does not have the same longevity as pigment ink
prints (which have 100 years to 300 if kept in an album)
Read before you make statements.
Joe Lavee said:
My silver negs will last hundreds of years. Selenium toned prints
can make it many hundreds....platinum/palladium for many centuries.
Wanna guess how long a color carbon print will last ;-)

Regards,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Selenium toned silver fibre based prints can, with the same storage
as pigment prints last 150 to 300 years. Platinum prints 500 years
+....Carbon prints in excess of 1000 years.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to back it???
Lutti, kodak Fuji and the rest have data of print longevity. Color
25-30 years B&W longer. show your data.
By the way, do you know how longevity is defined?
Joe Lavee said:
As to conventional color prints on Crystal Archive, you can expect 65
to 100 years depending upon storage. I've read the Wilhelm site. As
part of my business is printing of other photographers portraits on
an Epson 3800 and 7800 for color and an Epson 7600 for carbon pigment
ink B&W, I know what works quite well thankyou.

I suggest you do your homework before you accuse others of a lack of
knowledge on the topic. Have you noticed in this thread that there
doesn't seem to be anyone agreeing with you? Have you noticed that
your response to everyone here is that we are all wrong, and you
alone hold the true, correct information? Have you ever noticed that
when one person is telling everyone else they are wrong....they
normally aren't?

Feel free to attack me and insult me now.....that is your true talent
it appears. Unfortunately, you appear to be the type that has to
learn the hard way what insulting people on a public forum can do to
their business.

It's a shame you never learned that before entering your fathers
business and tarnishing his name as well. I wonder how he feels
about your anger towards film users considering he must have been
one? Do you insult his work as well?

Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
as someone who has no vested interest in film or digital cameras or otherwise (though i have both a film slr and dslr) i can't help but think how some of you manage to make yourselves look like total idiots on here.

i wonder if you were to carry on like this in person, would any of your customers stay with you?

i wonder, if any of your customers decide to google your names are they going to find threads like this, see your behavior and choose some other photographer (your competition) that doesn't act like a dumb-ass?

apparently owning a camera makes some people here think they have a ticket to acting like pre-teens. from this outsider's point of view: you guys look like idiots. have fun wrecking your reputations, anyone researching your work on the net is going to find your stupidity here.
 
Joe Lavee said:
Did you try to wright "tried"? You wrote "I tied to explain" I
thought that you are a great speller. As usually, you don't read
what you write.
Click to expand...
LOL
You know what I mean little man, do you read anything anyone 'wright'? (sic)
Just keep bashing away with you tired agenda

The question is still there- you know- the one you asserted when starting the thread...
Joe Lavee said:
Joe Lavee said:
I'll ask you again:
Do you think I lack integrity and lie to my clients?
Thats why you started this thread isn't it?
To suggest certain people here are liars?
Who is that come on now- don't be bashful

Say it
Click to expand...
Yes, you talk from both ends of your mouth and you lied to me.
Click to expand...
No don't be silly you lie to yourself over that little misunderstanding; can we say 'cognitive dissonance'?

It's your thread Joe you are suggesting some people lie to their clients
Just answer the question- come on be a man.

Who here lacks integrity and lies to their clients?

Who is it?
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/
 
Lacol said:
You know, I was wondering how long it would take for such a reply to
appear. Actually, I was expecting it to come from Joe, but it seems
like you beat him to it.

Such childish reaction normaly shouldn't deserve a reply, but hey, I
have nothing better to do right now.
Click to expand...
Hey nor me.
Lacol said:
You could argue that I shouldn't give lessons about someone else's
grammatical errors when I make such mistakes myself. And you know,
you would be right. If you check my posting history (as, apparently,
you already did), you'll see that I'm not a grammar ****. Everybody
makes mistakes. As a non-native english speaker, I actually
appreciate it when someone constructively points out my mistakes, so
that I can improve my english skills.
Click to expand...
Jolly good, by the way English should be capitalized as I am sure French should.
Lacol said:
However, something seems to have eluded you: This is not about
spelling mistakes.
Click to expand...
Correct but that appears to be what you have made it. I merely replied to your rather inane comments.

The errors on Joe's site may not even be his, if
Lacol said:
he hired a web designer to build his site. This is about denying
they even exist . I never deny I make mistakes. When they are pointed
out to me, I try to correct them in future postings. I and other
posters in this thread actually did a service to Joe by pointing out
the mistakes in his web site. Some potential clients could find
ironic that they find grammatical mistakes on a web site that talks
so extensively about quality control. Correcting those mistakes
simply makes good business sense, and I have no doubt that that's
exactly what Joe's going to do. As for you, I laugh at your immature
and pathetic attempt at embarassing me. Your reply had nothing to do
with serious debating or constructive criticism, and everything to do
with childish posturing. You talk to me about my spelling when your
french is as good as my english.
Click to expand...
Again that would be English and French. However as you are a foreigner I will give you the benefit of the doubt. However you need to be squeaky clean before you start to correct people, French or not.

--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'
 
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
TaoMaas said:
Is it unethical to not tell your clients that there's a chance that
the state-of-the-art digital camera you're using to shoot their
wedding may be near obsolete within the next 10 years? Or that
you're pretty sure their great-grandkids will be able to enjoy the
prints of this wedding a few decades from now, but you don't know
that for sure because digital prints haven't been around that long?
Click to expand...
That is something that hasn't even come up yet. I've got Kodachromes
from my dad's collection shot in the late 50's that are just fine.
Got a drive for that 8" floppy....or maybe a tape frive for that C
Vic 20?
Click to expand...
Ignorance is not a bliss.
Go to: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and at least try to
understand what you are talking about.
Photographic paper does not have the same longevity as pigment ink
prints (which have 100 years to 300 if kept in an album)
Read before you make statements.
Joe Lavee said:
My silver negs will last hundreds of years. Selenium toned prints
can make it many hundreds....platinum/palladium for many centuries.
Wanna guess how long a color carbon print will last ;-)

Regards,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Selenium toned silver fibre based prints can, with the same storage
as pigment prints last 150 to 300 years. Platinum prints 500 years
+....Carbon prints in excess of 1000 years.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to back it???
Lutti, kodak Fuji and the rest have data of print longevity. Color
25-30 years B&W longer. show your data.
Click to expand...
Fuji Crystal Archive is rated at 50+ years displayed under UV glass....and in excess of 100+ years in an album....which is where a lot of wedding print purchases end up.

Selenium toned fibre based prints last into the hundreds of years as the selenium coats the silver particles with silver selenide which is less reactive that pure silver. These prints are capable of a lifetime second only to that of carbon prints and platinum/palladium prints.

A well prepared platinum/palladium print can easily last many hundreds if not even a thousand years. This permanence is unique in archivability and is attributable to the chemical inertness of the platinum/palladium metals and the purity and archival quality of the paper used in the printing process.

Common knowledge in the printing industry.

By the way, the figures for Fuji Crystal Archive are from Wilhelm Research themselves. They contradict you figures (which you claim come from Wilhelm) of 25 to 30 years.

Might I suggest that if you are going to attack someone with figures and tests, you actually have a knowledge of the topic. It makes you look less foolish when people respond to your post having to correct you.

Below is Wilhelms figures for Crystal Archive. As I'm not you photography teacher, I'm not going to bother with details on the other processes.....those results are well known in the photographic community.

By the way, as I print primarily using pigment inks on the Epson 7800 and 3800, and carbon pigment on the Epson 7600 for B&W, I'm well aware of the archival ability of pigment prints.....that is why I use them over standard chromogenic and cibachrome processes.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IST_2007_03_HW.pdf
 
Dennis' intuition is correct. English isn't my mother tongue and I must admit that I havn't proof -read it.
Non of my clients commented about it or was bothered by it.

Saying that, I'm sure that the issue would have not come up, if I had not sugested that some photographers overstate film merits.

writing the above, I had in mind the likes of David Luttmann that constantly keeps exaggerating. He charges $4000-$5000 per wedding, he has more work than he can handle, he has to turn away work, and yet he has plenty of time to lurk in this forum.
Or his claims that clients demand spesificly film (B&W)

Why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if he engages in exaggeration here, he would not do the same with his clients?

Film work flow is slower than digital, and lacks the safeguards of verification that digital offers, unless you shoot it together with Polaroid, which is impractical for every shot.

Film lovers, I know I touched a very sensitive and raw issue and to clarify, I,m referring to WEDDING and EVENT photography.

All the well wishers that tried to discredit me because they found some grammatical errors on my web page, would have not done so had I not hinted that some of you overstate film merits.

Photographers in general are misinformed about digital. Cameras like the D3 and like are as good or better than MF film.

Digital prints, with pigment inks have longevity that exceed by far photographic "wet" print. the only exception is Lutti's prints that have a longevity of 1000 years.
 
Joe Lavee said:
Dennis' intuition is correct. English isn't my mother tongue and I
must admit that I havn't proof -read it.
Non of my clients commented about it or was bothered by it.
Saying that, I'm sure that the issue would have not come up, if I had
not sugested that some photographers overstate film merits.
writing the above, I had in mind the likes of David Luttmann that
constantly keeps exaggerating. He charges $4000-$5000 per wedding, he
has more work than he can handle, he has to turn away work, and yet
he has plenty of time to lurk in this forum.
Or his claims that clients demand spesificly film (B&W)
Why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if he engages in
exaggeration here, he would not do the same with his clients?
Film work flow is slower than digital, and lacks the safeguards of
verification that digital offers, unless you shoot it together with
Polaroid, which is impractical for every shot.
Film lovers, I know I touched a very sensitive and raw issue and to
clarify, I,m referring to WEDDING and EVENT photography.
All the well wishers that tried to discredit me because they found
some grammatical errors on my web page, would have not done so had I
not hinted that some of you overstate film merits.
Photographers in general are misinformed about digital. Cameras like
the D3 and like are as good or better than MF film.
Digital prints, with pigment inks have longevity that exceed by far
photographic "wet" print. the only exception is Lutti's prints that
have a longevity of 1000 years.
Click to expand...
You posed a question as to "lying" and "integrity." Even though I gave up on film over ten years ago, film, and especially B&W film have advantages for the client. There are NO disadvantages to the client, only to the photographer.

Questions about print longevity are meaningless, since either film or digital can be printed on the same paper. Digital cameras, contrary to what you claim cannot match Medium format. This has been proved so many times as to need no serious rebutal.

But what really annoys me, and why I posted on this thread, is your framing of this question. How dare you accuse people of lying because they disagree with your MINORITY position? You and only a few others hold the above claims as true, as yet you frame this as a question of integrity?

Very, very shameful...

Dave
 
It’s really nothing more than veiled pathetic attempt at attacking me and others that like using film for some work. I really don’t care if he believes what I charge for work or if he believes that clients sometimes do indeed ask for film. I know what is true…and the fact that I can eliminate this part of the business and free up my weekends to spend more time with my family and on landscape work is what is important to me….not what this delusional person thinks of others.

I burst out laughing at the D3 equalling medium format. While I agree that on prints smaller than 16x20, most non-discerning people won’t tell a difference, when scanned properly and viewed on a 24x30 print….then the D3 file falls apart while the medium format (at least 6x7) hold together beautifully. That said, I wouldn’t use 6x7 MF as my primary wedding tool!

I think it has become obvious in Joe’s delusional posts (heck, he even has to make silly changes to my name) that no matter what any film user says….he’ll argue to the contrary and even fabricate information.

If that fails, he then changes topic (note the printing methods). I laughed as I solely print inkjet ….and have for nearly 5 years!

He has some serious anger management issues. I notice he is just now toning down a bit to try and paint himself as being the calm and collected person in this thread…..fortunately, we can all see him for what he really is.
 
Joe Lavee said:
All the well wishers that tried to discredit me because they found
some grammatical errors on my web page, would have not done so had I
not hinted that some of you overstate film merits.
Click to expand...
Joe, you have misunderstood. The point I made a while ago is that, as a potential customer, I couldn't care less what tools you use to get your results - film, digital, or a pinhole camera, as long as the results are good. As a potential customer, I possibly would be concerned by sloppy presentation of a web site, which is the outward face of your professional business: it suggests a lack of care which may, possibly, translate into other areas. Someone who can't be bothered to fix simple typos on their web site might be someone who can't be bothered to backup their data. Who knows? Anyone who doesn't know you only has your web site, and the impression it gives, to go on.

Yes, of course, a few typos are unimportant and we all make them. But the issue you keep banging on about is even LESS important to a potential customer who just wants good results.

--
Mike
 
i figure i may as well chirp in this little bit as well;

i used to sell the machines all of you use to print your photographs.

i will tell you there is no digital "35 mm format" slr on the market at the moment that will equal the output of a large format file. medium format is hit and miss depending on the size of the film, the quality of the lens and a million other things. but large format is still out of the realm of nikon and canon.

don't tell me you know better than me on things like that - i've made prints of photographs that cover half a baseball stadium. i know damn well what provides the best files and you sure as hell will not find a dslr photograph being printed in 16 foot wide strips on a gandi or roland aj1000, at least not for any client that cares for quality. maybe a gigapixel stitch job which is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. i'd take a good quality drum scan over an enormous stitched file any day. hell, may as well stitch a bunch of 4x5's together if you're going to stitch files. why not?
 
paradoxbox said:
i figure i may as well chirp in this little bit as well;

i used to sell the machines all of you use to print your photographs.

i will tell you there is no digital "35 mm format" slr on the market
at the moment that will equal the output of a large format file.
medium format is hit and miss depending on the size of the film, the
quality of the lens and a million other things. but large format is
still out of the realm of nikon and canon.

don't tell me you know better than me on things like that - i've made
prints of photographs that cover half a baseball stadium. i know damn
well what provides the best files and you sure as hell will not find
a dslr photograph being printed in 16 foot wide strips on a gandi or
roland aj1000, at least not for any client that cares for quality.
maybe a gigapixel stitch job which is a huge pain in the ass for
everyone involved. i'd take a good quality drum scan over an enormous
stitched file any day. hell, may as well stitch a bunch of 4x5's
together if you're going to stitch files. why not?
Click to expand...
Paradox,

I’ve already been through this with Joe. He claimed his DSLR was better than large format. I challenged him to a landscape print contest….his DSLR vs my 4x5 Shen Hao….winner takes all the gear of the other. Prints to be judged by the public in various camera shops in Canada.

He accepted.

Then (I guess he read a bit on the web real quick) he came back…backed out….and launched off on a tirade of insults, personal attacks, and simply bizarre comments. They are on DPReview for everyone to read. He commented on Leica and Schneider XL glass being garbage and door stops and other silly rubbish.

Since then, he has been on a personal crusade to attack me and any other film user. I guess he didn’t like losing the challenge before a print as even made ;-)
 
paradoxbox said:
i figure i may as well chirp in this little bit as well;

i used to sell the machines all of you use to print your photographs.

i will tell you there is no digital "35 mm format" slr on the market
at the moment that will equal the output of a large format file.
medium format is hit and miss depending on the size of the film, the
quality of the lens and a million other things. but large format is
still out of the realm of nikon and canon.

don't tell me you know better than me on things like that - i've made
prints of photographs that cover half a baseball stadium. i know damn
well what provides the best files and you sure as hell will not find
a dslr photograph being printed in 16 foot wide strips on a gandi or
roland aj1000, at least not for any client that cares for quality.
maybe a gigapixel stitch job which is a huge pain in the ass for
everyone involved. i'd take a good quality drum scan over an enormous
stitched file any day. hell, may as well stitch a bunch of 4x5's
together if you're going to stitch files. why not?
Click to expand...
Very valid points. In the context of wedding photography though, there are some very specific major issues (cost, flexibility) around LF cameras that dont apply to DSLR's and MF which realistically limit their use in this context. Pity, nothing quite like a good LF image as you say.

--
Shay son of Che
 
Dave Luttmann said:
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
TaoMaas said:
Is it unethical to not tell your clients that there's a chance that
the state-of-the-art digital camera you're using to shoot their
wedding may be near obsolete within the next 10 years? Or that
you're pretty sure their great-grandkids will be able to enjoy the
prints of this wedding a few decades from now, but you don't know
that for sure because digital prints haven't been around that long?
Click to expand...
That is something that hasn't even come up yet. I've got Kodachromes
from my dad's collection shot in the late 50's that are just fine.
Got a drive for that 8" floppy....or maybe a tape frive for that C
Vic 20?
Click to expand...
Ignorance is not a bliss.
Go to: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and at least try to
understand what you are talking about.
Photographic paper does not have the same longevity as pigment ink
prints (which have 100 years to 300 if kept in an album)
Read before you make statements.
The Davinator said:
My silver negs will last hundreds of years. Selenium toned prints
can make it many hundreds....platinum/palladium for many centuries.
Wanna guess how long a color carbon print will last ;-)

Regards,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Selenium toned silver fibre based prints can, with the same storage
as pigment prints last 150 to 300 years. Platinum prints 500 years
+....Carbon prints in excess of 1000 years.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to back it???
Lutti, kodak Fuji and the rest have data of print longevity. Color
25-30 years B&W longer. show your data.
Click to expand...
Fuji Crystal Archive is rated at 50+ years displayed under UV
glass....and in excess of 100+ years in an album....which is where a
lot of wedding print purchases end up.

Selenium toned fibre based prints last into the hundreds of years as
the selenium coats the silver particles with silver selenide which is
less reactive that pure silver. These prints are capable of a
lifetime second only to that of carbon prints and platinum/palladium
prints.

A well prepared platinum/palladium print can easily last many
hundreds if not even a thousand years. This permanence is unique in
archivability and is attributable to the chemical inertness of the
platinum/palladium metals and the purity and archival quality of the
paper used in the printing process.

Common knowledge in the printing industry.
Click to expand...
Don't give me the bull of " common knowledge"

Can you show me the data to back your claim that you can produce prints that last 1000 YEARS?
The Davinator said:
By the way, the figures for Fuji Crystal Archive are from Wilhelm
Click to expand...
Your reading or understanding is questionable.
Go to http://www.wilhelm-research.com/isj/WIR_Japan_Hardcopy_2003.pdf

You will see that Fuji Crystal Archive is the worst performing paper, yellowing starts after 6 years (in dark storage). Better performing papers are the Kodak Edge 7 and Kodak Edge 5. Do you know the definition of LONGEVITY ??????
The Davinator said:
Research themselves. They contradict you figures (which you claim
Click to expand...
I just proved you wrong.
The Davinator said:
come from Wilhelm) of 25 to 30 years.
Click to expand...
No, show me where I said so.
I said that regular wet prints last 25-30 years.

I'm still awaiting to have you back the claim that you have prints that last 1000 YEARS.
The Davinator said:
Might I suggest that if you are going to attack someone with figures
and tests, you actually have a knowledge of the topic. It makes you
look less foolish when people respond to your post having to correct
you.
Click to expand...
I'm pointing you to the data, you are unable to back your claims.
This time the egg is on your face.
The Davinator said:
Below is Wilhelms figures for Crystal Archive. As I'm not you
photography teacher, I'm not going to bother with details on the
other processes.....those results are well known in the photographic
community.

By the way, as I print primarily using pigment inks on the Epson 7800
and 3800, and carbon pigment on the Epson 7600 for B&W, I'm well
aware of the archival ability of pigment prints.....that is why I use
them over standard chromogenic and cibachrome processes.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IST_2007_03_HW.pdf
Click to expand...
What is wrong with you? You are pointing me to "
“A survey of print permanence in 4x6 inch
Consumer Digital Print Market 200—2007”
which covers INK JET PRINTING and the only paper of Fuji mentioned is

Fuji Xerox 7/11 that have longevity of 23 years framed under glass and is INK JET PAPER.
Luti, this time you have a pie on your face.
 
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
TaoMaas said:
Is it unethical to not tell your clients that there's a chance that
the state-of-the-art digital camera you're using to shoot their
wedding may be near obsolete within the next 10 years? Or that
you're pretty sure their great-grandkids will be able to enjoy the
prints of this wedding a few decades from now, but you don't know
that for sure because digital prints haven't been around that long?
Click to expand...
That is something that hasn't even come up yet. I've got Kodachromes
from my dad's collection shot in the late 50's that are just fine.
Got a drive for that 8" floppy....or maybe a tape frive for that C
Vic 20?
Click to expand...
Ignorance is not a bliss.
Go to: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and at least try to
understand what you are talking about.
Photographic paper does not have the same longevity as pigment ink
prints (which have 100 years to 300 if kept in an album)
Read before you make statements.
Joe Lavee said:
My silver negs will last hundreds of years. Selenium toned prints
can make it many hundreds....platinum/palladium for many centuries.
Wanna guess how long a color carbon print will last ;-)

Regards,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Selenium toned silver fibre based prints can, with the same storage
as pigment prints last 150 to 300 years. Platinum prints 500 years
+....Carbon prints in excess of 1000 years.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to back it???
Lutti, kodak Fuji and the rest have data of print longevity. Color
25-30 years B&W longer. show your data.
Click to expand...
Fuji Crystal Archive is rated at 50+ years displayed under UV
glass....and in excess of 100+ years in an album....which is where a
lot of wedding print purchases end up.

Selenium toned fibre based prints last into the hundreds of years as
the selenium coats the silver particles with silver selenide which is
less reactive that pure silver. These prints are capable of a
lifetime second only to that of carbon prints and platinum/palladium
prints.

A well prepared platinum/palladium print can easily last many
hundreds if not even a thousand years. This permanence is unique in
archivability and is attributable to the chemical inertness of the
platinum/palladium metals and the purity and archival quality of the
paper used in the printing process.

Common knowledge in the printing industry.
Click to expand...
Don't give me the bull of " common knowledge"
Can you show me the data to back your claim that you can produce
prints that last 1000 YEARS?
Joe Lavee said:
By the way, the figures for Fuji Crystal Archive are from Wilhelm
Click to expand...
Your reading or understanding is questionable.
Go to http://www.wilhelm-research.com/isj/WIR_Japan_Hardcopy_2003.pdf
You will see that Fuji Crystal Archive is the worst performing
paper, yellowing starts after 6 years (in dark storage). Better
performing papers are the Kodak Edge 7 and Kodak Edge 5. Do you know
the definition of LONGEVITY ??????
Joe Lavee said:
Research themselves. They contradict you figures (which you claim
Click to expand...
I just proved you wrong.
Joe Lavee said:
come from Wilhelm) of 25 to 30 years.
Click to expand...
No, show me where I said so.
I said that regular wet prints last 25-30 years.
I'm still awaiting to have you back the claim that you have prints
that last 1000 YEARS.
Joe Lavee said:
Might I suggest that if you are going to attack someone with figures
and tests, you actually have a knowledge of the topic. It makes you
look less foolish when people respond to your post having to correct
you.
Click to expand...
I'm pointing you to the data, you are unable to back your claims.
This time the egg is on your face.
Joe Lavee said:
Below is Wilhelms figures for Crystal Archive. As I'm not you
photography teacher, I'm not going to bother with details on the
other processes.....those results are well known in the photographic
community.

By the way, as I print primarily using pigment inks on the Epson 7800
and 3800, and carbon pigment on the Epson 7600 for B&W, I'm well
aware of the archival ability of pigment prints.....that is why I use
them over standard chromogenic and cibachrome processes.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IST_2007_03_HW.pdf
Click to expand...
What is wrong with you? You are pointing me to "
“A survey of print permanence in 4x6 inch
Consumer Digital Print Market 200—2007”
which covers INK JET PRINTING and the only paper of Fuji mentioned is
Fuji Xerox 7/11 that have longevity of 23 years framed under glass
and is INK JET PAPER.
Luti, this time you have a pie on your face.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected there is also Fuji Crystal Archive, how ever framed under glass life longevity is only 40 years while the Epson 3800 longevity (framed under glass) lasts from 75 years up to 118. (depends on the media)
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/3800.html
Still almost double the longevity of Fuji Crystal Archive prints.
What will you say know, Lotti?
 
Joe Lavee said:
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
Joe Lavee said:
Dave Luttmann said:
TaoMaas said:
Is it unethical to not tell your clients that there's a chance that
the state-of-the-art digital camera you're using to shoot their
wedding may be near obsolete within the next 10 years? Or that
you're pretty sure their great-grandkids will be able to enjoy the
prints of this wedding a few decades from now, but you don't know
that for sure because digital prints haven't been around that long?
Click to expand...
That is something that hasn't even come up yet. I've got Kodachromes
from my dad's collection shot in the late 50's that are just fine.
Got a drive for that 8" floppy....or maybe a tape frive for that C
Vic 20?
Click to expand...
Ignorance is not a bliss.
Go to: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and at least try to
understand what you are talking about.
Photographic paper does not have the same longevity as pigment ink
prints (which have 100 years to 300 if kept in an album)
Read before you make statements.
Joe Lavee said:
My silver negs will last hundreds of years. Selenium toned prints
can make it many hundreds....platinum/palladium for many centuries.
Wanna guess how long a color carbon print will last ;-)

Regards,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Selenium toned silver fibre based prints can, with the same storage
as pigment prints last 150 to 300 years. Platinum prints 500 years
+....Carbon prints in excess of 1000 years.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to back it???
Lutti, kodak Fuji and the rest have data of print longevity. Color
25-30 years B&W longer. show your data.
Click to expand...
Fuji Crystal Archive is rated at 50+ years displayed under UV
glass....and in excess of 100+ years in an album....which is where a
lot of wedding print purchases end up.

Selenium toned fibre based prints last into the hundreds of years as
the selenium coats the silver particles with silver selenide which is
less reactive that pure silver. These prints are capable of a
lifetime second only to that of carbon prints and platinum/palladium
prints.

A well prepared platinum/palladium print can easily last many
hundreds if not even a thousand years. This permanence is unique in
archivability and is attributable to the chemical inertness of the
platinum/palladium metals and the purity and archival quality of the
paper used in the printing process.

Common knowledge in the printing industry.
Click to expand...
Don't give me the bull of " common knowledge"
Can you show me the data to back your claim that you can produce
prints that last 1000 YEARS?
Joe Lavee said:
By the way, the figures for Fuji Crystal Archive are from Wilhelm
Click to expand...
Your reading or understanding is questionable.
Go to http://www.wilhelm-research.com/isj/WIR_Japan_Hardcopy_2003.pdf
You will see that Fuji Crystal Archive is the worst performing
paper, yellowing starts after 6 years (in dark storage). Better
performing papers are the Kodak Edge 7 and Kodak Edge 5. Do you know
the definition of LONGEVITY ??????
Joe Lavee said:
Research themselves. They contradict you figures (which you claim
Click to expand...
I just proved you wrong.
Joe Lavee said:
come from Wilhelm) of 25 to 30 years.
Click to expand...
No, show me where I said so.
I said that regular wet prints last 25-30 years.
I'm still awaiting to have you back the claim that you have prints
that last 1000 YEARS.
Joe Lavee said:
Might I suggest that if you are going to attack someone with figures
and tests, you actually have a knowledge of the topic. It makes you
look less foolish when people respond to your post having to correct
you.
Click to expand...
I'm pointing you to the data, you are unable to back your claims.
This time the egg is on your face.
Joe Lavee said:
Below is Wilhelms figures for Crystal Archive. As I'm not you
photography teacher, I'm not going to bother with details on the
other processes.....those results are well known in the photographic
community.

By the way, as I print primarily using pigment inks on the Epson 7800
and 3800, and carbon pigment on the Epson 7600 for B&W, I'm well
aware of the archival ability of pigment prints.....that is why I use
them over standard chromogenic and cibachrome processes.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IST_2007_03_HW.pdf
Click to expand...
What is wrong with you? You are pointing me to "
“A survey of print permanence in 4x6 inch
Consumer Digital Print Market 200—2007”
which covers INK JET PRINTING and the only paper of Fuji mentioned is
Fuji Xerox 7/11 that have longevity of 23 years framed under glass
and is INK JET PAPER.
Luti, this time you have a pie on your face.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected there is also Fuji Crystal Archive, how ever framed
under glass life longevity is only 40 years while the Epson 3800
longevity (framed under glass) lasts from 75 years up to 118.
(depends on the media)
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/3800.html
Still almost double the longevity of Fuji Crystal Archive prints.
What will you say know, Lotti?
Click to expand...
Lutti, I underrated the Epson 3800 Longevity, it is up to 200 years, framed under glass for Water Color Paper almost three times the longevity of Fuji Chrystal Archive.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/3800.html
 
Joe Lavee said:
Still almost double the longevity of Fuji Crystal Archive prints.
What will you say know, Lotti?
Click to expand...
I say that my information for Crystal Archive was correct....yours wasn't. The issue with that is that you proclaimed those figures as an authority....and were proven wrong.

Finally, until you can stop the schoolyard name calling, I won't bother replying to anything else. My name is easy to spell....and it's not Lotti any more than you're Joe Lavatory
 
RedFox88 said:
Joe Lavee said:
RedFox88 said:
Part of the argrument is that digital prints, namely inkjets, haven't
been around long enough to prove themselves especially since digital
papers and inks keep evolving so our period of actual results is
very, very small compared to film prints.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you. there are companies that specialize in longevity
studies.
One of them is http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ and if I'm not
mistaken, they are the one that advised The American Library Of
Congress, how to maintain their material.
It is well established that Pigment based inks offer longevity
between 100 years to 300 years when images are stored in albums. It
by far exceed wet prints longevity.
Click to expand...
but how long have these inkjet pigment inks been around? Simulated
testing is great, but simulated time lapse testing actual results are
often not what is initially predicted. If you remember, when CDs
first came out it was thought that a burned CD would last for 75
years and now that figure is at around 10 years.

If I tell you this paint will last for 50 years and you won't need to
repaint your house again, will you be likely to buy and use the
paint? ;)
Click to expand...
You dispute scientific method to test prints longevity.
Yes, the only way to prove that they are right is to wait 300 years.

However, it is already proven that the outperform wet print, which last 25-30 years. (You can compare deterioration in relatively short time span)

Saying that, we already know that Fuji Chrystal Archive paper start to deteriorate after 6 years. http://www.wilhelm-research.com/isj/WIR_Japan_Hardcopy_2003.pdf

By the way, why don't you ask Lutti to back his claim that he has prints that last 1000 YEARS?
 
....when you leave Joe. None of us feel like playing your delusional game any longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top