Who says the Polaroid concept is dead.

So back to Polaroids (that is what we were talking about wasn't it?? lol). I did get an Impossible Project image to go redscale, accidently. Now to see if I can do it on purpose... I shoot integral film images more for fun and for experimental results.

The peel apart film lasts at least 10 years in the fridge (although I found some blue had shifted but the sepia was fine - last of the Polaroid films, Giambarba edition). I don't know how long the images will last, but I had one accepted into a juried exhibit and displayed so if you know how to use the technology, you can get good results.
 
B&W silver images and the negatives last indefinitely it seems. Now color, not so much, there must have been some funky things going on with film and chemistry in the '80s.

But anything done digitally, I don't think we can really know yet. They can say the ink will last a hundred years or more but of course we won't find out will we? And if the technology changes, then what exists now won't exist unless it's transferred to any new technology that develops. The thing is, it doesn't exist in a physical way unless you make prints. So if the technology is gone, so are the pictures in the existing format.

We know early B&W photos and tintypes etc. are still around from at least the civil war. Very early in photography, some images weren't stable and those that survived have to be protected now. The only example that comes to mind offhand is the Niepce taken of his roof that's in a museum in Texas and on display on a limited basis then is stored in darkness. But I don't think photos need any more protection than anything does from long exposure to sunlight (fabric can fade, it just depends on how lightfast dyes are, etc.). I think there are a number of variables to consider with any process.
This is only true if you think science and testing is all bogus, in which case nothing is possible.

If you are not willing to accept scientific test results that have proven accurate on predicting the life of other already known methods including silver halide then that is your prerogative however you are letting emotion get in the way and keep you insulated from all the data that can help make your prints better and last longer.

Some people still think a camera will steal the soul of the subject and some have learned from science and testing.
 
I didn't yet anyway look at all the links or know how they test dyes etc. I know with fabrics there were some years that fabrics had color washing out, etc. I think since then there have been advances so that fabrics are colorfast and still safer ecologically.

I'm thinking too of the entire process, that at least inkjet prints are ink squirted on paper, that it's just on the surface. The photo paper has the image actually exposed into the paper then run thru developer etc. (the silver grains, I don't know exactly how to explain it). Then the gloss acts as a protective layer. I know I've splattered some drops of water on a print and was able to run it back thru fixer (which is basically the layer of hardened gloss once it dries) and couldn't see where water droplets had gotten on it and I had a nice new shiny layer of gloss.

I remember when there was flooding on the east coast a few years ago and reading about art galleries affected that lost all the digital prints. They were unsalvageable. The wet prints were able to be restored (at least some, maybe not everything). Of course that's an extreme example but that media seems so far to have held up for decades. We do have archival papers now that should hold up better than some papers that haven't fared so well which should be a benefit using inks on paper.
 
It seems from this conversation that what I can teach, some people can't learn.

I don't know how you put up with us! It must be very trying for a person of your superior intellect.
 
Last edited:
If you bothered reading it was stated that If stored in the dark, with low humidity, traditional silver halide prints may last from 50 to more than 100 years. If exposed to light, the colors will deteriorate at a more rapid pace. This deterioration will vary widely between manufacturers’ products and the levels of illumination and ultraviolet light to which a print has been exposed.

It was also stated that Epson has designed a pigmented dye and paper combination that can last up to 200 years.

Last time I checked, 200 > 100.

So, to paraphrase your own (ridiculous) question, How many of your prints have lasted for 100 years so far?

Silly isn't it?

It seems from this conversation that what I can teach, some people can't learn.
hmmm... new signature idea :)

I think I might place you on ignore. Not just because of your arrogant attitude, but the advert in your signature smacks of spam every time I see you post. Makes me doubt every word you say because the more you post, the more you are advertising.
 
If you bothered reading it was stated that If stored in the dark, with low humidity, traditional silver halide prints may last from 50 to more than 100 years. If exposed to light, the colors will deteriorate at a more rapid pace. This deterioration will vary widely between manufacturers’ products and the levels of illumination and ultraviolet light to which a print has been exposed.

It was also stated that Epson has designed a pigmented dye and paper combination that can last up to 200 years.

Last time I checked, 200 > 100.

So, to paraphrase your own (ridiculous) question, How many of your prints have lasted for 100 years so far?

Silly isn't it?

It seems from this conversation that what I can teach, some people can't learn.
hmmm... new signature idea :)

I think I might place you on ignore. Not just because of your arrogant attitude, but the advert in your signature smacks of spam every time I see you post. Makes me doubt every word you say because the more you post, the more you are advertising.
That's fine, thank you. :)


Oh, and thanks for the ad in your siggy too. :)
My Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/singingsnapper/

Pentax 645Z + several Pentax medium format lenses

Sony A7RII
 
Last edited:
I didn't yet anyway look at all the links or know how they test dyes etc. I know with fabrics there were some years that fabrics had color washing out, etc. I think since then there have been advances so that fabrics are colorfast and still safer ecologically.

I'm thinking too of the entire process, that at least inkjet prints are ink squirted on paper, that it's just on the surface. The photo paper has the image actually exposed into the paper then run thru developer etc. (the silver grains, I don't know exactly how to explain it). Then the gloss acts as a protective layer. I know I've splattered some drops of water on a print and was able to run it back thru fixer (which is basically the layer of hardened gloss once it dries) and couldn't see where water droplets had gotten on it and I had a nice new shiny layer of gloss.

I remember when there was flooding on the east coast a few years ago and reading about art galleries affected that lost all the digital prints. They were unsalvageable. The wet prints were able to be restored (at least some, maybe not everything). Of course that's an extreme example but that media seems so far to have held up for decades. We do have archival papers now that should hold up better than some papers that haven't fared so well which should be a benefit using inks on paper.
Inkjet is not just on the surface, that is a common misconception.

As for the rest, the paper and inks combination is very critical to a good long lasting print, you cannot just use and ink and any paper and get a good result. If the prints you are talking about were easily ruined, they were not properly made prints and most likely a mis match of inks and paper, maybe not even good inks.

Not all digital prints are created equal.
 
They were in museums and art galleries in NYC, I imagine that's going to be better quality than most.

So now we're into 5 pages on Polaroids, and how many of you actually shoot Polaroids? lol I wouldn't think people would care all that much.

Gryph, what did you start? lol I had to go back and look to see it was about the new camera that basically takes and records the picture digitally onto Impossible Project film. So I'm back to where I was, I'll just use an old Polaroid camera that I already have! Although I wonder if the quality is different, I get sharper results with the SX-70 being an SLR than my old 600 series camera (an oldie but a goodie).
 
They were in museums and art galleries in NYC, I imagine that's going to be better quality than most.

So now we're into 5 pages on Polaroids, and how many of you actually shoot Polaroids? lol I wouldn't think people would care all that much.

Gryph, what did you start? lol I had to go back and look to see it was about the new camera that basically takes and records the picture digitally onto Impossible Project film. So I'm back to where I was, I'll just use an old Polaroid camera that I already have! Although I wonder if the quality is different, I get sharper results with the SX-70 being an SLR than my old 600 series camera (an oldie but a goodie).
I see. The important hing is not where they were displayed, but how and when they were printed and using what type of materials. Not all photographers know all there is to know about making prints, for that, a printer is a better person to talk to.
I had an SX70, it was the one with the brown leatherette case on it. It was good for what it was, but it's been in a drawer for so many years unused since the tech improvements have left it in the dust.
Good in it's day though.
 
They were in museums and art galleries in NYC, I imagine that's going to be better quality than most.

So now we're into 5 pages on Polaroids, and how many of you actually shoot Polaroids? lol I wouldn't think people would care all that much.

Gryph, what did you start? lol I had to go back and look to see it was about the new camera that basically takes and records the picture digitally onto Impossible Project film. So I'm back to where I was, I'll just use an old Polaroid camera that I already have! Although I wonder if the quality is different, I get sharper results with the SX-70 being an SLR than my old 600 series camera (an oldie but a goodie).
I see. The important hing is not where they were displayed, but how and when they were printed and using what type of materials. Not all photographers know all there is to know about making prints, for that, a printer is a better person to talk to.
I had an SX70, it was the one with the brown leatherette case on it. It was good for what it was, but it's been in a drawer for so many years unused since the tech improvements have left it in the dust.
Good in it's day though.
For me digital was to clinical so I went back to film 100% mostly b+w, digital can't beat film for b+w

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
If you bothered reading it was stated that If stored in the dark, with low humidity, traditional silver halide prints may last from 50 to more than 100 years. If exposed to light, the colors will deteriorate at a more rapid pace. This deterioration will vary widely between manufacturers’ products and the levels of illumination and ultraviolet light to which a print has been exposed.

It was also stated that Epson has designed a pigmented dye and paper combination that can last up to 200 years.

Last time I checked, 200 > 100.

So, to paraphrase your own (ridiculous) question, How many of your prints have lasted for 100 years so far?

Silly isn't it?

It seems from this conversation that what I can teach, some people can't learn.
hmmm... new signature idea :)

I think I might place you on ignore. Not just because of your arrogant attitude, but the advert in your signature smacks of spam every time I see you post. Makes me doubt every word you say because the more you post, the more you are advertising.
That's fine, thank you. :)


Oh, and thanks for the ad in your siggy too. :)
My Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/singingsnapper/

Pentax 645Z + several Pentax medium format lenses

Sony A7RII

Mine isn't a hyperlinked ad like yours. Mine is simply a URL to my Flickr page nothing more because I haven't figured out to hyperlink. Yours is a hyperlinked advertising logo and one might argue that you post simply to get your ad in front of people.

Quit your attitude and you might learn something yourself.
 
If you bothered reading it was stated that If stored in the dark, with low humidity, traditional silver halide prints may last from 50 to more than 100 years. If exposed to light, the colors will deteriorate at a more rapid pace. This deterioration will vary widely between manufacturers’ products and the levels of illumination and ultraviolet light to which a print has been exposed.

It was also stated that Epson has designed a pigmented dye and paper combination that can last up to 200 years.

Last time I checked, 200 > 100.

So, to paraphrase your own (ridiculous) question, How many of your prints have lasted for 100 years so far?

Silly isn't it?

It seems from this conversation that what I can teach, some people can't learn.
hmmm... new signature idea :)

I think I might place you on ignore. Not just because of your arrogant attitude, but the advert in your signature smacks of spam every time I see you post. Makes me doubt every word you say because the more you post, the more you are advertising.
That's fine, thank you. :)


Oh, and thanks for the ad in your siggy too. :)
My Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/singingsnapper/

Pentax 645Z + several Pentax medium format lenses

Sony A7RII

Mine isn't a hyperlinked ad like yours. Mine is simply a URL to my Flickr page nothing more because I haven't figured out to hyperlink. Yours is a hyperlinked advertising logo and one might argue that you post simply to get your ad in front of people.

Quit your attitude and you might learn something yourself.
Sorry, it's just an email link to me. :) Hope you aren't disappointed. ;)
 
They were in museums and art galleries in NYC, I imagine that's going to be better quality than most.

So now we're into 5 pages on Polaroids, and how many of you actually shoot Polaroids? lol I wouldn't think people would care all that much.

Gryph, what did you start? lol I had to go back and look to see it was about the new camera that basically takes and records the picture digitally onto Impossible Project film. So I'm back to where I was, I'll just use an old Polaroid camera that I already have! Although I wonder if the quality is different, I get sharper results with the SX-70 being an SLR than my old 600 series camera (an oldie but a goodie).
I see. The important hing is not where they were displayed, but how and when they were printed and using what type of materials. Not all photographers know all there is to know about making prints, for that, a printer is a better person to talk to.
I had an SX70, it was the one with the brown leatherette case on it. It was good for what it was, but it's been in a drawer for so many years unused since the tech improvements have left it in the dust.
Good in it's day though.
For me digital was to clinical so I went back to film 100% mostly b+w, digital can't beat film for b+w

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
I agree, film is not a bad thing. I shoot movies on film and not digital. This thread is about instant film though and that's another animal.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top