Yes, it's absolutely correct not to trust wet lab prints and negs. If you do it yourself, you can control the quality and process to archival standards. Many labs rush their prints through the process without good washing and rinsing techniques. Some of my early prints, which were not carefully processed, have suffered, but not to the extent you've described. All my negs are just fine. You're right, it's absolutely a mater of quality control. However, the process of conventional prints has been around long enough, and there's enough information available, that anyone can make negs and prints that are long-lived. The inkjet process and papers have been around a very short time, and with each generation we - the consumer and the manufacturers - learn more. It's not unreasonable to think that archival quality will be assured at some point vs possibly being available now.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > A couple of my B&W prints from the 1960s have turned yellow, faded to > nothing, or cracked to the point of garbage. Many of my negatives from > that era are also faded, cruddy or impregnated with dirt and dust and > thereby unusable - lost. Yeah, I know: basically poor process and/or > poor storage. But by your same logic above, is it right not to trust > wet lab prints and negatives? Of course not. > > The same is true for digital images and prints. Mismatched printing > inks/paper will cause them to deteriorate quickly, as will improper > storage. Even professionals have made poor quality prints due to both > inadequate technology and/or improper use of the technology that > existed at the time.
