The best dye and pigment ink prints are already beyond the analogue color paper fade resistance results, Fuji's Crystal and Ilfo/Cibachrome included. The pigment inks way beyond them. If you have them printed ask at least for Crystal paper otherwise you have no guarantee on the fade resistance, archivability, etc. Big Yellow isn't known to have print longevity high on its agenda, it was like that in the seventies and hasn't changed much since. Wilhelm's reputation is founded on his battle with Kodak.
Genuine analogue B&W prints processed carefully will survive a very long time but the monochrome pigment (carbon) inkjet inks on suitable papers are getting closer to similar numbers in years. Few shops will print a true analogue B&W these days and chromogenic processing is probably the worst method to get long lasting B&W prints, not to mention their look.

There's another thing you have to think about. More and more minilab manufacturers have an inkjet model in the range. The advantage is that less chemicals have to be used which makes it easier for shops in relation to local  environmental legislation. Epson, Fuji, Noritsu (all Epson technology), HP and more companies. Long lasting dye + compatible papers. On the Photokina of 2008 it was quite a trend. The Fuji  prints were very good in image quality.

http://www.google.nl/search?q=Inkjet+minilab&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls

Whether you like it or not, inkjet technology will play an important role if you like to have your images printed.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

The current "quality" pigment inks and papers (not the Staples, etc. knock-offs) exceed a silver gelatin/type-C print expectance already.  On the B&W side they are up to 100-300 years, depending on whether they are on display or in archival storage.  Again, it depends on whose system you believe.

Kodak is off on their on tangent but I expect they will come around to realistic values since nobody accepts their methods much any more.

Currently, they only have results for 6 printers.  Not a very good sample population if you are trying to determine how reliable their results are.

Mike

Hmm.. I'm counting approximately 25 different printer models and over 100 tests already in progress in the AaI&A lightfade database. Another 25 unique printer/ink/paper combinations will be added next week.  But I agree with your basic premise, AaI&A still has much to prove in order to claim any mantle of authority. That said, one can also apply this specific criticism to all of the other published data as well. Many of the test scores available today are repurposed data from just one tested printer model, and we are not told how many trials were conducted nor even what specific image appearance criteria were used to rate the "end of life" of the product.

Moreover, the 100, 200, 300+ year claims of longevity now being cited with authority in various forum discussions and marketing literature are also misleading but, perhaps ironically, not because they are wildly optimistic. On the contrary, any competent curator or conservator can pretty much ensure that images printed with very fugitive inks on the most lignin-filled, acid-choked newspaper pulp will last 100+ years by making only modest efforts to preserve them. The devil is in the details.  Hence, although it sounds intuitively logical, the time scale is actually a rather poor differentiator for print durability and resistance to change. Also, systems don't always fade or change linearly, so a single predicted endpoint to reach "noticeable fade" does not always tell the whole story. Printmakers dedicated to art of the fine print where even small changes in print appearance will be of concern to the curator or collector, are especially not being served by today's photo consumer-oriented testing methods and longevity rating criteria.

I started the AaI&A digital print research program about two years ago after years of intensive research on better print testing methodologies. My goal is to empower my fellow photographers and printmakers with our own research program where participants can freely contribute materials for test and where we can publish more comprehensive and therefore hopefully more meaningful results. Mike, I take your criticism constructively to heart.  I also encourage serious printmakers get involved.

kind regards,
Mark McCormick-Goodhart
Director, Aardenburg Imaging & Archives

Hmmm, you have to be a member to see all results and to submit tests.  I am a member so I have seen many more.