Cibachrome - archive quality?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Set me straight if I'm wrong here. I want to produce
an archive quality color print from a digital picture file.
I understood that a cibachrome print can lay in the
sun indefinitely and never fade. Where can I have
one of these made, and if it isn't cibachrome, what is
the technology? Where can I have an archive quality color
print made?
Thanks
17 answers Last reply
More about cibachrome archive quality
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    hfs2@yahoo.com wrote:
    > Set me straight if I'm wrong here. I want to produce
    > an archive quality color print from a digital picture file.
    > I understood that a cibachrome print can lay in the
    > sun indefinitely and never fade. Where can I have
    > one of these made, and if it isn't cibachrome, what is
    > the technology? Where can I have an archive quality color
    > print made?
    > Thanks
    >

    I doubt seriously that Cibachrome can remain in direct sunlight
    indefinitely without fading.
    The state of the art technology for archival inkjet prints is the use of
    pignent based inks. Epson R800, 2200 and their PRO line of printers have
    this capability. They claim 100-200 year life.
    Should be adequate for most archival purposes.
    Bob Williams
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > I want to produce
    > an archive quality color print from a digital picture file.

    I would suggest printing on a top end laser printer like the LightJet
    or Chromira, or a top end inkjet like the Epson 9600/7600 since you
    have a digital file.

    > I understood that a cibachrome print can lay in the
    > sun indefinitely and never fade.

    Ciba-Geigy used to claim Ciba (now called Ilfochrome) prints would last
    "forever" but when tested by Henry Wilhelm using accelerated test
    methods he figured about 29 years under typical viewing conditions (and
    almost forever if left in the dark). Yellow was the weak link, the
    color patch that fades first. Since this process has been around since
    the 1970's Henry was able to test it using non-accelerated tests and
    got around 18-19 years. So "forever" in Ciba-Geigy lingo apparently
    meant "longer than Kodacolor".

    Most of the Ilfochromes are made from slides, by the way, not digital
    files.

    > Where can I have one of these made

    Do a Google search on 'Ilfochrome' and you'll probably find several
    labs still doing these from slides. Many top labs have quit doing
    Ilfochromes (the lab I used for 12 years quit, for example) since the
    prints are contrasty unless you use contrast masks, making it a
    labor-intensive process (read, expensive if you do it right). The
    LightJets pretty much killed them off, I think.

    > if it isn't cibachrome, what is the technology? Where can I
    > have an archive quality color print made?

    I would suggest Calypso or West Coast Images in California, two
    high-end digital labs favored by the big-name professionals ... neither
    does Ilfochromes any more but both do Epson 9600 prints, Calypso has a
    LightJet and WCI has a Chromira laser. There's some good info on their
    sites about longevity, etc.

    Bill
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > Someone who does not know what Cibachrome is?

    The named changed to Ilfochrome several years ago (probably when
    Ciba-Geigy sold it to Ilford), which may explain the name confusion.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Bill Hilton wrote:

    >>I want to produce
    >>an archive quality color print from a digital picture file.
    >
    >
    > I would suggest printing on a top end laser printer like the LightJet
    > or Chromira, or a top end inkjet like the Epson 9600/7600 since you
    > have a digital file.
    >
    >
    >>I understood that a cibachrome print can lay in the
    >>sun indefinitely and never fade.
    >
    >
    > Ciba-Geigy used to claim Ciba (now called Ilfochrome) prints would last
    > "forever" but when tested by Henry Wilhelm using accelerated test
    > methods he figured about 29 years under typical viewing conditions (and
    > almost forever if left in the dark). Yellow was the weak link, the
    > color patch that fades first. Since this process has been around since
    > the 1970's Henry was able to test it using non-accelerated tests and
    > got around 18-19 years. So "forever" in Ciba-Geigy lingo apparently
    > meant "longer than Kodacolor".
    >
    > Most of the Ilfochromes are made from slides, by the way, not digital
    > files.
    >
    >
    >>Where can I have one of these made
    >
    >
    > Do a Google search on 'Ilfochrome' and you'll probably find several
    > labs still doing these from slides. Many top labs have quit doing
    > Ilfochromes (the lab I used for 12 years quit, for example) since the
    > prints are contrasty unless you use contrast masks, making it a
    > labor-intensive process (read, expensive if you do it right). The
    > LightJets pretty much killed them off, I think.
    >
    >
    >>if it isn't cibachrome, what is the technology? Where can I
    >>have an archive quality color print made?
    >
    >
    > I would suggest Calypso or West Coast Images in California, two
    > high-end digital labs favored by the big-name professionals ... neither
    > does Ilfochromes any more but both do Epson 9600 prints, Calypso has a
    > LightJet and WCI has a Chromira laser. There's some good info on their
    > sites about longevity, etc.
    >
    > Bill
    >

    Hi Bill,
    I agree, most labs have stopped using Ilfochrome because of
    the high cost, and difficulty in maintaining color accuracy.
    The lab I use (Reed Photo, Denver) offers many options
    on their Lightjets. They dropped Cibachrome (Ilfochrome)
    several years ago. Now I get Fuji Crystal Archive prints
    made. The Fuji Crystal Archive is a wet chemistry photo
    paper developed in the traditional methods, but I have
    my photos written by a Lightjet. The prints are the next
    closest thing to Cibachrome prints (a little less contrasty,
    and colors not quite as good, but close, and supposedly
    better archive quality). In photo papers, I believe
    Fuji Crystal Archive has the longest longevity, but I have
    not checked what's new in the last couple of years.

    I do not think there is any normal photo paper
    process that will withstand direct sunlight for long.
    There is a special process for outdoor displays,
    like signs you would see in National Parks, but the
    process is MANY times more expensive than photo paper,
    and it too is not permanent. I forget the name.

    Roger
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    <hfs2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1108240362.637127.209070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Set me straight if I'm wrong here. I want to produce
    > an archive quality color print from a digital picture file.
    > I understood that a cibachrome print can lay in the
    > sun indefinitely and never fade. Where can I have
    > one of these made, and if it isn't cibachrome, what is
    > the technology? Where can I have an archive quality color
    > print made?
    > Thanks
    >

    I really must be getting old.

    Someone who does not know what Cibachrome is? Children grow up far too
    fast.

    Cibachrome is a wet darkroom Colour Paper for making Prints from slides. It
    is, or was, almost a Legend. Made by Ciba-Geigy (Ilford).

    People used to ask me - in the way you ask someone with very limited
    intelligence - why I did not use it for making my Colour Prints. They could
    not understand any-one not loving Cibachrome. Talk about Brainwashing. The
    fact that I preferred using Colour Negative Film, seemed to be irrelevant.

    You have obviously been hearing from one of its acolytes, "Cibachrome can do
    no Wrong and is Perfect in every Way".

    It was very good, and had good keeping properties, but no photographic
    paper, or Inkjet paper, is immune to the ravages of time, oxidation and
    sunlight.

    Try some of the real professional labs, (they do NOT advertise in Amateur
    Magazines), who can print from a Digital file onto real Photograhic Paper,
    probably not Cibachrome, but do ask the price first. The results CAN, but
    not always, be considerably better than most Inkjet prints.

    I do hope I have put in enough caveats to protect me from getting ridiculed.

    Roy
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    What is "archival quality"? Oil paintings fade and change color in direct
    sunlight.
    All color materials need intelligent handling. One of the great advantages
    of inkjet color printing is that is infinitely reproducible if done
    correctly. So what if your inkjet masterpiece fades? If you know what you
    are doing it should be no problem to crank out another.
    Cibachrome is the reason digital photography and inkjet printing with color
    management are in the ascendent and there is no turning back except for
    special purposes.
    Wet printing from color slides has been a nightmare since the 1930's with
    internegatives almost being de rigeur. You should read about the history of
    color photography and color printing. Better: try to print color in a
    traditional wet darkroom.
    Wet printing color prints of any sort is nothing less than a nightmare
    compred to digital processes if one is seeking high quality, not Walmart or
    drugstore minilab quality.
    It is unfortunate that so many people now interested in photography have
    never experienced the frustration of wet color processes, particularly
    printing, so they can appreciate the absolute wonder of digital color
    photography and inkjet printing.
    Whatever problems one has with color management in digital processes the
    problems are a laugher compared to traditional photochemical processes.
    With wet color printing processes, whether from transparencies or negatives,
    there are no reliable ways to control regional color balances, contrast and
    saturation like one can do with Photoshop and high end inkjet printing. In
    particular contrast, forgetting for a moment accurate color reproduction, is
    the biggest difficulty in wet printing directly from color transparencies.
    Considering the cost and difficulty of producing a high quality Cibachrome
    print only the clinically insane would leave a Cibachrome print exposed to
    sunlight. If you have ever seem a high quality large Cibachrome print you
    would protect it as you would a Daugerreotype.

    I can't believe I am so old I know this stuff from first hand experience . .
    ..
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    For a really archival print, do a little research on the tri-color Carbro
    process. One of the people who's name is often mentioned in conjunction
    with this process is Tod Gangler, of Art and Soul Studio in Seattle, WA.

    A quick search dug up a couple of thousand URLs ... just a few of them are
    presented here. One of the processes that has been used in the last couple
    of decades is named (trademarked?) EVERCOLOR, which might be a good search
    term to try.

    http://www.artfacts.org/artinfo/articals/evercolor.html

    http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/498928.html

    http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg/photo/faq.html#Carbro

    http://www.treeo.com/out-opts/evercolor.html

    http://yakitalia.com/eng/ever_desc.html


    <hfs2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1108240362.637127.209070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Set me straight if I'm wrong here. I want to produce
    > an archive quality color print from a digital picture file.
    > I understood that a cibachrome print can lay in the
    > sun indefinitely and never fade. Where can I have
    > one of these made, and if it isn't cibachrome, what is
    > the technology? Where can I have an archive quality color
    > print made?
    > Thanks
    >
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    You've been given a line of complete nonsense. Properly processed and
    washed Cibachromes have a life expectancy of 30-60 years with PROPER care.
    Out in the sun they would last a month or less - like any other photograph
    or print.
    Currently some inkjets are leading in the archivality sweepstakes with
    70-100 year projected life - but again, that is only with PROPER care.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ZhvPd.3045$GW4.1125@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
    >
    > <hfs2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1108240362.637127.209070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > Set me straight if I'm wrong here. I want to produce
    > > an archive quality color print from a digital picture file.
    > > I understood that a cibachrome print can lay in the
    > > sun indefinitely and never fade. Where can I have
    > > one of these made, and if it isn't cibachrome, what is
    > > the technology? Where can I have an archive quality color
    > > print made?
    > > Thanks
    > >
    >
    > I really must be getting old.
    >
    > Someone who does not know what Cibachrome is? Children grow up far too
    > fast.
    >
    > Cibachrome is a wet darkroom Colour Paper for making Prints from slides.
    It
    > is, or was, almost a Legend. Made by Ciba-Geigy (Ilford).
    >
    > People used to ask me - in the way you ask someone with very limited
    > intelligence - why I did not use it for making my Colour Prints. They
    could
    > not understand any-one not loving Cibachrome. Talk about Brainwashing. The
    > fact that I preferred using Colour Negative Film, seemed to be irrelevant.
    >
    > You have obviously been hearing from one of its acolytes, "Cibachrome can
    do
    > no Wrong and is Perfect in every Way".
    >
    > It was very good, and had good keeping properties, but no photographic
    > paper, or Inkjet paper, is immune to the ravages of time, oxidation and
    > sunlight.
    >
    > Try some of the real professional labs, (they do NOT advertise in Amateur
    > Magazines), who can print from a Digital file onto real Photograhic Paper,
    > probably not Cibachrome, but do ask the price first. The results CAN, but
    > not always, be considerably better than most Inkjet prints.
    >
    > I do hope I have put in enough caveats to protect me from getting
    ridiculed.
    >
    > Roy
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > For a really archival print, do a little research on the tri-color
    Carbro
    > process.

    These, and dye-transfer prints, do indeed last a very long time, but
    with a severely reduced gamut. Dye transfers used to take a full day
    for each print (dunno about Carbro, I think it was similar) and Kodak
    finally dropped the process a couple of years ago, IIRC.

    > One of the processes that has been used in the last couple of decades
    is named
    > (trademarked?) EVERCOLOR, which might be a good search
    > term to try.

    Ah yes, Evercolor ... I have a couple of those prints myself and they
    are just too damn dull, with a limited color gamut. The guy who
    basically invented Evercolor and ran the lab is Bill Nordstrom, who now
    runs Laser Light in Santa Cruz, printing mostly with a Chromira laser
    printer on Fuji Crystal Archive paper :) There's some good info on his
    site about why he switched to digital prints from the Evercolor
    process.

    Bill
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    very interesting. thanks

    RSD99 wrote:
    > For a really archival print, do a little research on the tri-color
    Carbro
    > process. One of the people who's name is often mentioned in
    conjunction
    > with this process is Tod Gangler, of Art and Soul Studio in Seattle,
    WA.
    >
    > A quick search dug up a couple of thousand URLs ... just a few of
    them are
    > presented here. One of the processes that has been used in the last
    couple
    > of decades is named (trademarked?) EVERCOLOR, which might be a good
    search
    > term to try.
    >
    > http://www.artfacts.org/artinfo/articals/evercolor.html
    >
    > http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/498928.html
    >
    > http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg/photo/faq.html#Carbro
    >
    > http://www.treeo.com/out-opts/evercolor.html
    >
    > http://yakitalia.com/eng/ever_desc.html
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <hfs2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1108240362.637127.209070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > Set me straight if I'm wrong here. I want to produce
    > > an archive quality color print from a digital picture file.
    > > I understood that a cibachrome print can lay in the
    > > sun indefinitely and never fade. Where can I have
    > > one of these made, and if it isn't cibachrome, what is
    > > the technology? Where can I have an archive quality color
    > > print made?
    > > Thanks
    > >
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Bill Hilton" posted:
    "...
    Dye transfers used to take a full day
    for each print (dunno about Carbro, I think it was similar) and Kodak
    finally dropped the process a couple of years ago, IIRC.
    ...."

    First:
    You are correct, "Dye Transfer" prints, especially those made by Kodak, did
    take a whole day to make. Trouble is, they were nowhere near as "good" a
    print as a Carbro, and had a lifetime nowhere near as long. IMHO: The world
    has not really lost a lot by their being discontinued.

    Second:
    The Carbro process was somewhat more complex than Dye Transfer. My father
    made them for several of the major "Studios" when I was 'bout knee-high to
    the average grasshopper, and as I remember it, the process *was* roughly
    one picture on a good day. BUT ... IIRC ... it was the *only* way to get "a
    really good color print" at that time ... and (also IIRC) he got something
    like the cost of a new car for each 16" x 20". IMHO: The "Carbro" print has
    a certain feel to it that is *very* nice. Actually, I think that it is sad
    that the process has all but disappeared, and wish that the advances Epson
    has made in pigmented ink technology could be transferred to the Carbro
    process. However, it is soooooo labor intensive, that will probably never
    happen.

    Third:
    Yes ... the reduced gamut was (is) a problem ... especially now that
    Epson's Ultrachrome inks and their seven-eight color printers have evolved.
    However, I have some samples ... actually made in the mid-to-late 1940s ...
    that will severely "open your eyes." And, yes, they have ***NOT*** faded or
    color shifted in those 60 years.


    "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1108316634.091518.208050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > For a really archival print, do a little research on the tri-color
    > Carbro
    > > process.
    >
    > These, and dye-transfer prints, do indeed last a very long time, but
    > with a severely reduced gamut. Dye transfers used to take a full day
    > for each print (dunno about Carbro, I think it was similar) and Kodak
    > finally dropped the process a couple of years ago, IIRC.
    >
    > > One of the processes that has been used in the last couple of decades
    > is named
    > > (trademarked?) EVERCOLOR, which might be a good search
    > > term to try.
    >
    > Ah yes, Evercolor ... I have a couple of those prints myself and they
    > are just too damn dull, with a limited color gamut. The guy who
    > basically invented Evercolor and ran the lab is Bill Nordstrom, who now
    > runs Laser Light in Santa Cruz, printing mostly with a Chromira laser
    > printer on Fuji Crystal Archive paper :) There's some good info on his
    > site about why he switched to digital prints from the Evercolor
    > process.
    >
    > Bill
    >
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <muAPd.2662$VI1.595315@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
    tspadaro@nc.rr.com says...
    > You've been given a line of complete nonsense. Properly processed and
    > washed Cibachromes have a life expectancy of 30-60 years with PROPER care.
    > Out in the sun they would last a month or less - like any other photograph
    > or print.


    BS. I have had a Ciba display film print of two little girls hanging in
    my window for nearly thirty years. It faces West and probably averages
    about one hour a day of direct sun at latitude 37S. My little girl is
    thirty now.

    As I recall the display films were the same technology, but had twice as
    much dye because the light made just one pass through, rather than the
    two passes on a white backed print, so it needed double quantity of
    developer.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    I've seen Cibas that got two hours of direct sunlight a day faded to magenta
    in six months. If anyone is giving off BS it is you.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c7b2138fd8e566498981b@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > In article <muAPd.2662$VI1.595315@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
    > tspadaro@nc.rr.com says...
    > > You've been given a line of complete nonsense. Properly processed and
    > > washed Cibachromes have a life expectancy of 30-60 years with PROPER
    care.
    > > Out in the sun they would last a month or less - like any other
    photograph
    > > or print.
    >
    >
    > BS. I have had a Ciba display film print of two little girls hanging in
    > my window for nearly thirty years. It faces West and probably averages
    > about one hour a day of direct sun at latitude 37S. My little girl is
    > thirty now.
    >
    > As I recall the display films were the same technology, but had twice as
    > much dye because the light made just one pass through, rather than the
    > two passes on a white backed print, so it needed double quantity of
    > developer.
    >
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <zr5Qd.68407$dt3.7211903@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
    tspadaro@nc.rr.com says...
    > I've seen Cibas that got two hours of direct sunlight a day faded to magenta
    > in six months. If anyone is giving off BS it is you.
    >
    Well I hear you and other people say that it fades and after googling
    around I accept that. Maybe my old Ciba display film was better stuff
    than the print stock? Also, my example is behind the glass window and is
    sandwiched between two glass sheets all providing some UV filtering. I
    just checked the yellows/greens and they are fine. The little girl has a
    yellow bathing suit and they are standing in a green fern glade still.
    We have been in the same house the whole time and this picture has always
    hung in this west window since I printed it in about 1983. The window is
    under a six foot eve, which is why I estimated about one hour of direct
    sun per day. The exposure was more than that early on but is less than
    this now because the garden has grown a lot over the years and now
    mottles the late afternoon sun.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    It doesn't sound unreasonable to me. A lot depends on the strength of
    the sun too - time of day etc. I would scan that picture (or the slide it
    was from) anyway. If nothing else you would have a back-up.
    I've got a couple Cibachromes that have always been hung on inside
    walls. They have to be around 30 years old now and they look fine to me --
    I've also got the remains of a few machine prints from the same era that
    turned into magenta garbage while in an album.


    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c7bdfa792cbc6c998981e@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > In article <zr5Qd.68407$dt3.7211903@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
    > tspadaro@nc.rr.com says...
    > > I've seen Cibas that got two hours of direct sunlight a day faded to
    magenta
    > > in six months. If anyone is giving off BS it is you.
    > >
    > Well I hear you and other people say that it fades and after googling
    > around I accept that. Maybe my old Ciba display film was better stuff
    > than the print stock? Also, my example is behind the glass window and is
    > sandwiched between two glass sheets all providing some UV filtering. I
    > just checked the yellows/greens and they are fine. The little girl has a
    > yellow bathing suit and they are standing in a green fern glade still.
    > We have been in the same house the whole time and this picture has always
    > hung in this west window since I printed it in about 1983. The window is
    > under a six foot eve, which is why I estimated about one hour of direct
    > sun per day. The exposure was more than that early on but is less than
    > this now because the garden has grown a lot over the years and now
    > mottles the late afternoon sun.
    >
    >
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <XphQd.4813$VI1.1125258@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
    tspadaro@nc.rr.com says...
    > It doesn't sound unreasonable to me. A lot depends on the strength of
    > the sun too - time of day etc. I would scan that picture (or the slide it
    > was from) anyway. If nothing else you would have a back-up.
    > I've got a couple Cibachromes that have always been hung on inside
    > walls. They have to be around 30 years old now and they look fine to me --
    > I've also got the remains of a few machine prints from the same era that
    > turned into magenta garbage while in an album.
    >
    I think this display Ciba will last as long as me. I don't have a
    scanner for 8 x 10 transparencies anyway. Also, most of my favourite old
    Kodachromes have faded from projection, the rubbish I only looked at once
    or twice are fine!
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    My flatbed will scan up to about 4x5 (although the light top is bigger
    than 8x10. I would imagine the equipment for home 8x10 transparency scanning
    will be along in a couple years.
    The problems of projected Kodachrome were the reason I mostly shot with
    Ektachrome in the 60s and 70s - needless to say the problems with Ektachrome
    have made most of those pictures pretty useless too.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c7d414696002ef8989820@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > In article <XphQd.4813$VI1.1125258@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
    > tspadaro@nc.rr.com says...
    > > It doesn't sound unreasonable to me. A lot depends on the strength of
    > > the sun too - time of day etc. I would scan that picture (or the slide
    it
    > > was from) anyway. If nothing else you would have a back-up.
    > > I've got a couple Cibachromes that have always been hung on inside
    > > walls. They have to be around 30 years old now and they look fine to
    me --
    > > I've also got the remains of a few machine prints from the same era that
    > > turned into magenta garbage while in an album.
    > >
    > I think this display Ciba will last as long as me. I don't have a
    > scanner for 8 x 10 transparencies anyway. Also, most of my favourite old
    > Kodachromes have faded from projection, the rubbish I only looked at once
    > or twice are fine!
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Cameras