civilized ku # 845 ~ the somewhat sorry state-of-the-art
Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 09:04AM 
Hall window ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenYesterday evening's Protect your prints workshop was certainly worth attending. Although I knew much of what was presented, I did come away with a decidedly better understanding of what is possible, re: the # 1 issues with inkjet prints - surface protection and no inherent UV protection.
As many already know, inkjet prints made with pigmented inks on archival substrates are, by far, the most light-fast / long-lasting color prints available. This is true under under any conditions you might choose to mention - every situation from unprotected prints to long term color-safe storage, pigmented ink color prints have up to 2-5x the light-fast permanence of any other readily available color print process.
As an example, in the case of color print safe storage, the traditional C print, which requires cold (refrigerated) storage, will last up to 100 years without any noticeable degradation. A pigmented ink color print, which does not require cold storage, will last up to 200 years without any noticeable degradation.
Under typical display conditions - museum / gallery / home - where prints are framed behind UV glazing (glass, plexi, etc) and sealed on the back of the frame (paper), a C print will last approximately 19 (Kodak Endura prints) - 40 (Fuji Crystal Archive prints) years without any noticeable degradation. A pigmented ink color print, displayed under the same conditions will last approximately 115 years without any noticeable degradation.
While those number may not be important to you and I, it is very important to collectors and museum curators / conservators. That group is extremely interested in protecting / preserving their normally substantial investment in color prints.
In any event, the primary reason I attended this workshop was to learn more about protecting the surface of an inkjet print. That's because I prefer to display my prints without any glazing - fyi, "glazing" is the word conservators use to refer to glass and plexiglass or any like material that is used to protect a piece of art. IMO, glazing interferes with the surface texture / characteristics of a print and, again IMO, many picture makers choose a paper taking into consideration (amongst other considerations) the look imparted by a particular paper surface / finish.
As an example, if you print on a fiber-based fine art matte surface paper because you like the look of the paper finish - an absolutely flat matte finish, displaying the print under glazing really does conspire to dramatically alter the visual (and emotional) perception of the paper and the image itself. To a very significant extent, the visual effect that comes from using a matte paper is strongly negated.
My preferred paper surface is a smooth semi-matte surface. A surface that mimics what I consider to be the best photo paper surface ever - an air-dried (non-ferrotype) smooth glossy paper. That surface is has a satin / luster look and feel that, to my eye and sensibilities, is very luxurious and rich with just a touch of surface reflectivity.
However, as mentioned, such a print, when displayed under glazing, loses much of its surface appeal. Not only is there a visual barrier between the print and the viewer which alters the visual perception of the surface, but there is also a physical barrier as well - a barrier that negates the surface "feel" of the print surface. Not that you are suppose to actually touch the surface of a displayed print but I do like the sensation of wanting to touch it simply because it looks so luxurious / sensuous.
All of that said, what I came away from the workshop with was, if you want to display pigmented ink color prints without glazing, you are basically up shit creek without a paddle.
All of the available non-glazing surface/UV protection techniques have at least some visual surface altering effects. Add to that the fact that most of these techniques are both: 1) very difficult (if not, in some applications, impossible) and labor intensive to apply, and, 2) expensive to have done by an "expert", if you can even find an "expert" at this stage of the print protection state-of-the-art.
In fact, the cost of most of the available techniques - which at this point are effectually limited to, minimal visual effect wise, sprayed on applications - is equal to the cost of good framing with glazing, so there is no cost reason to choose one technique over the other.
After all is said and done, my solution to the un-glazed display of pigmented ink prints is really quite simple - I will continue to display my pictures without any surface protection any any kind. IMO, that's how they look the best.
As for the sale of my pictures, I'll leave the protection / conservation / display / framing issues up to purchaser and/or their framers and/or conservators. Any steps I may take to protect / preserve a print may actually interfere with what a purchaser / framer / conservator might wish to undertake to accomplish the same ends.
BTW, all of the issues concerning digital media print protection / preservation give testament to the BIG Lie which proclaims that the digital domain has made everything from picture making to print making so much easier and accessible than that of the analog domain.
BULLSHIT - everything is much more complex, every step of the way, from making good pictures to making (and displaying) good prints.
gravitas et nugalis
PS I'm still in NYC and am off to Chelsea to see some pictures. reGeneration2: tomorrow's photographers today looks like a good bet. In any event, I'll let you know if I see anything worth seeing.
Reader Comments (2)
definitely check out Philip-Lorca Dicorcia at the David Zwirner Gallery in Chelsea. I love his work.
and maybe Ezra Stoller (gelatin silver prints) @ Yossi Milo
Is everything necessarily more complex or do we just have options at our disposal? Not a criticism of your opinion, just tossing this one up in the air for discussion.