Re: [Leica] Re: Re: Piezography - real print or not?

["Ted Grant" <tedgrant@home.com>]

B.D. wrote:
>>>>>> Which, of course, can set one to wondering about what all this worry
> about "archival" lifespan is really all about - could it simply be a way
> for the "traditionalists" to sew false doubts about the value of the new
> print technologies? ;-)<<<<<

Hi B.D.
I've always wondered why some folks get all het up at how long their prints
will last. Like some of them,... "I want my archival prints to last 200
years!"

So like, why? Hey folks you are all going to be a long time horizontal and
cold before your prints turn to dust! So why the big concern as to how long
the prints are going to last, particularly when you refer to 100 or 200
years!

Well Ok, I've survived at the moment a short few weeks of  72 years and I
have been involved in photography since 27 May 1950 and published since 17
September 1951 and yes it's kind of neat to have a neg in hand you shot 40 +
years ago and making a print.      Note: having the neg in hand!  Pay
attention!

Now if I were dead it wouldn't make a whit of difference, but you guys and
gals who are in angst wondering if your printer prints are going to survive
25, 50 or 200 years not to worry. But, I suppose it depends how old you are.
If you're on the short side of 50 you might have some concern at the print
surviving only 25 years, but if you're on the high side of 50 I'd not give
it a mind at all.

Besides how long they last is sort of theory anyway and the only true test
is to live 200 years to find out exactly how long they did last, 25? 50?
100? or the big 200!;-)

And what do you do at the end of the 200 years and all yer damn prints have
become nothing more than crumpled dust? Aren't you going to be royally
pissed off waiting 200 years and now your sitting there with nothing more
than a handful of dust! And those who are the main inhabitants of the day
don't give a hoot about you, your Leica and least of all your handful of
blank dust!

 Man I'd raise hell! ;-) I mean waiting all that time and having nothing,
almost make a guy turn over in his grave!;-)

So you see folks all this wordsmithing over the "archival aspects of the
print" isn't worth the screen your writing on,  as you should be far more
concerned "how well you processed the film~!" As that is how you make all
kinds of  "new prints" in the 200th year!   Think about that for a moment!

The long lasting print is fine, but it's the film that is the secret of your
photography living forever! Not a print that can be zipped off in seconds on
a new printer, besides the printers of the future are going to make those of
today appear as though we are writing in stone with a hammer and chisel!

So from old YODA ;-) relax, put the archival thing to rest for prints and
put a greater degree of effort into making sure you process your films to
the enth degree of perfection for the archives of your nation! And the
colour stuff? yer on yer own! ;-)
ted

Ted Grant Photography Limited
www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant