Longevity of inkjet Matte papers?
Bill Tuthill
According to Wilhelm's testing they are more durable against fading
than glossy "Photo" papers. Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.
Whereas Epson Photo Paper with Epson dye-based inks starts to fade in
my kitchen (filtered sunlight) within months, although it lasts about
a year in my office (flourescent lights) before I notice cyan fading.
I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters. Some net.advice
indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
Canon also offers a matte paper.
Joseph Meehan
ink, paper or printer without looking at all three together. A paper that
works well in one printer - ink combination may not work well in another.
Likewise for other combinations of the three factors.
Now for longevity, I would say that the two meaningful factors are ink
and paper, but some combinations of those two with different printers may
give unacceptable quality results.
However for fading, you need to factor in the environment as the third
factor. What combinations work well in dark storage, may do poor in light
for example. Different contaminates in the air can also make a difference.
Having said that, I would not totally ignore the experience or test
results you may see. Just remember that different testing may lead to
different results. It is a complex subject.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Bill Tuthill" <ccre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4548...@news.meer.net...
frederick
brighteners which degrade over time / exposure, causing a yellowing
effect (the paper becomes less "white" looking when the OB effect is
expired. Read the fine print on the Wilhelm reports, and this is explained.
A matte finish art paper without OB (Ultrasmooth Fine Art)may be better
for long term display for that reason, but it's also expensive.
The dye ink fading effect you see in your kitchen is probably gas
fading. Wilhelm are testing for this with many standard paper/ink
combinations now. It's a problem far less likely to affect pigment
inks. Epson now list "gas fading resistance" on their Japanese website
for their new dye inksets. I don't know the test method they use, but
display rating is probably for a much less severe environment than a
kitchen.
Heavyweight Matte is probably okay with Canon Dye inks. HWM wasn't
designed for pigment printers - it was for Epson dye printers. In fact
it doesn't work very well (poor saturation/resolution) with the pigment
printers, even though it's included in the driver paper selection..
But, if longevity is an issue, you are probably better using Canon paper
- if some display permanence test data is available. It will probably
have quite poor gas-fading resistance, so would need to be framed behind
glass.
As a general rule, if you want longevity on true matte papers, you need
to use pigment inks.
rafe b
> I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters. Some net.advice
> indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
> Canon also offers a matte paper.
It does matter. If you're in a position to take fading seriously,
then you should probably be using pigment inks.
The only alternative (such as it is) is to use papers with gelatin
or swellable-polymer substrates. This was Epson's approach
for a while (the 1270/1280 series) and HP's approach on the
DJ-30 and DJ-130 series.
As others have noted, the paper can also degrade longevity
if it's got optical brighteners in it.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Greg "_"
wrote:
Prior to acquiring my R1800 I used a 1280 with dye inks, I have
brochures I made on HWM double sided paper that still look good several
years later. All my Epson HWM prints using dyes still look good. But
many on other paper have varying results. Some would have been terrible
if I had actually sold the prints. Some of the glossy papers displayed
showed signs of out gassing several months after displaying matted
behind glass.
So far using the pigment inks of the R1800 I have been very pleased
with color vibrance.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.
Arthur Entlich
papers. The paper's construction, as well as the ink type are critical
to the fade resistance.
For example, using Epson dye inks I have some Tektronix inkjet paper
that was made probably over 12 years ago. It was designed for their
inkjet plotters. It came in rolls but unfortunately it is rather thin,
but whatever mordants and other technologies they used with it, the
images I printed on it with literally first generation Epson color inks
have stood up to fairly harsh indoor lighting for 8-10 years now with
only moderate loss of yellow and cyan. On the other hand, using the
same inks, an older HP matte paper (designed for the original inkjet
printer/plotter models) faded badly in a matter of months in bright
fluorescent exposure. The older Epson "photo quality" matte paper
didn't fare a heck of a lot better (maybe twice as long), however, the
"heavy weight archival matte" has don't much better. The older Epson
photo a medium gloss paper lost cyans almost completely with exposure to
bright indoor lighting in a matter of a couple of years.
Sadly, other than real or accelerated testing, I don't think one can
make any generalization about any inkjet paper, other than to say that
swellable polymer papers tend to give longer lasting results than
microporous.
Art
Bill Tuthill
>
> Some of the glossy Epson papers ... showed signs of out gassing
> several months after displaying matted behind glass.
Why anybody would go to the trouble of matting and glass-frame mounting
a dye-based Epson inkjet print, is beyond my comprehension. I hope you
don't take that as a personal insult.
Pigment-based Epson prints could be a different matter, but I suspect
they react poorly to being placed in direct sunlight, unlike RA-4 prints
(photo paper) which can survive many years in sunlight without fading.
Note how Wilhelm tests under fluorescent light, the best possible condition
for inkjet longevity, perhaps because he's paid by inkjet manufacturers.
My personal experience says Epson 1280 prints on Photo Paper degrade about
10 times faster in sunlight than under fluorescent light.
Mark˛
> Anybody have words of wisdom about longevity of inkjet Matte papers?
> According to Wilhelm's testing they are more durable against fading
> than glossy "Photo" papers. Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
> on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.
It's always a little curious how users "report many years" when the printer
they are reporting on has only existed for about a year. :)
> Whereas Epson Photo Paper with Epson dye-based inks starts to fade in
> my kitchen (filtered sunlight) within months, although it lasts about
> a year in my office (flourescent lights) before I notice cyan fading.
>
> I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters.
Yes. That matters.
Dye-based inks are simply nowhere near as stable as the pigment-based inks
used by the 2400 and large-format Epson printers.
Some net.advice
> indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
> Canon also offers a matte paper.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
Bill Tuthill
>> Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
>> on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.
>
> It's always a little curious how users "report many years" when the printer
> they are reporting on has only existed for about a year. :)
Sorry, I meant "Epson 1280" but neglected to back-correct my post.
>> I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters.
>
> Yes. That matters.
> Dye-based inks are simply nowhere near as stable as the pigment-based inks
> used by the 2400 and large-format Epson printers.
Right. I'm not about to buy another Epson product, I just wanted to know
which Matte paper might offer the best longevity with Canon inks.
Skip
the length of time before fading, I really don't have any prints that
haven't been stored in boxes, in plastic sleeve and in a portfolio or matted
and framed behind glass. I have one printed on Lumiquest Master Canvas that
hasn't faded in over a year. We use Epson Matte Heavyweight for proof
books, but those aren't exposed to much sunlight, either. Works well, as
far as we can tell with our Canon S9000.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
David J. Littleboy
"Bill Tuthill" <ccre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right. I'm not about to buy another Epson product, I just wanted to know
which Matte paper might offer the best longevity with Canon inks.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Canon makes a 13x19" pigment-ink inkjet. Unlike the Epson 2400, it doesn't
require a cartridge change to switch between matte and glossy. (In exchange
for which, it only has one gray ink (i.e. gray + black) as opposed to the
2400's two grays (light gray, gray, black).
HP is also making pigment-ink printers as well.
If you care about fading, using dye inks is a bad idea.
I wonder what Wilhelm found to be the worst-case pigment ink + paper
combination was???
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IS&T_2006_09_HW.pdf
The answer is that the worst pigment ink + paper combination (61 years) is
better than the best wet-photographic process print _under UV-cut glass_ (49
years).
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
rafe b
>Right. I'm not about to buy another Epson product, I just wanted to know
>which Matte paper might offer the best longevity with Canon inks.
----
Heh. I've owned the following inkjet printers in the following order.
I've been all over the map... and right back to Epson.
1. Epson 600 (ca. 1998)
* finally tossed it about a year ago
2. Epson 750 (~1999)
* a friend owns it now. still works, AFAIK
3. Epson 1160, new (~2001)
4. another Epson 1160, store demo
* One of these died after heavy use w/ MIS pigment inks
in a CIS. The other was given up for dead, but sold to
someone who managed to restore it. There was a while
when both were active, side by side.
5. Canon S9000 (~2002)
* Died after about 1.5 years of use with MIS dye inks
in a CIS. Micro-banding even on the best days.
6. HP DesignJet 30 (~2004)
* Sold on eBay after 1 year. Basically worked OK,
but longevity happens only on HP media, which sucks.
Shoddy paper handlig. HP service sucks.
7. Epson 7000
* bought on eBay, still working fine with Epson dye inks
It was ~3 years old when I bought it in 2004.
8. Epson R1800
* first pigment-ink Epson I've owned. I love it (so far.)
Epson still owns the fine-art/photographic inkjet market.
All the others are playing catch-up. Not to say Epson
hasn't made its share of mistakes or acted arrogantly.
Canon and HP have some interesting products, and
it's great that they're in the market -- if only to keep
Epson on their toes.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Arthur Entlich
Firstly, an extra glass layer (window glass is the first one in most
cases, can significantly cut UV levels contacting the print, whether dye
or pigment, and since UV activation is a considerable environmental
influence, especially on dye inks, it is completely logical to place dye
ink prints under glass.
Secondly, as far as outgassing goes, the Epson (can't speak for others)
Ultrachrome pigment colorant inks have more glycols in them than the
dye versions, to slow drying and prevent clogging, and they therefore
tend to outglass more and longer than dye ink prints do.
Finally, direct sunlight is not considered by anyone as a legitimate
test for fading of fine art images. It may be for housepaint or outdoor
banners, but it is not the way prints are supposed to be displayed.
Fluorescent lighting is a very logical light source because it is very
typical indoor lighting, and it is much more antagonistic than
incandescent light which contains almost no UV.
Art
Arthur Entlich
about 10 years ago. I have many prints I made with those very first
models, which all used dye inks. I have prints displayed on my walls
(mainly under glass, but some not, which have been in medium household
lighting for at least 8 years, and with the right paper (in this case
the Tektronix I wrote about earlier) the ones under glass have shown
minimal fading. The ones without glass has shown moderate fading.
Using the same inks with other papers, I have had considerably poorer
results. The paper is critical to fading issues. I still have no idea
what Tektronix did with this paper that makes it so resistant to fading
with those inks.
Art
Arthur Entlich
I agree that people seem to think that wet color process is some magical
permanent media that doesn't fade. Some wet prints have under a decade
before major fading using Wilhelm's testing, and as you say, others last
upward of 40+ years with glass.
Fuji does claim their newer wet lab media are more fade resistance, and
they may be, but pigment inks can still probably surpass them.
Art
David J. Littleboy
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Printers/Bubble_Jet/Pixma_Pro9500/index.asp
Oops. Not till next year. 10 colors. And it may be expensive.
> I agree that people seem to think that wet color process is some magical
> permanent media that doesn't fade. Some wet prints have under a decade
> before major fading using Wilhelm's testing, and as you say, others last
> upward of 40+ years with glass.
>
> Fuji does claim their newer wet lab media are more fade resistance, and
> they may be, but pigment inks can still probably surpass them.
Lots of people (myself included) have had nasty problems with clogging
Epsons, so I can understand the hesitancy to get an Epson. (Actually, I've
not had any serious problems with either the R800 or the 2400.) There's a
dye-ink print on my wall that's grossly faded; I'll never buy another
dye-ink inkjet.
Mark˛
> I have owned Epson color inkjet printers almost since they came out
> about 10 years ago. I have many prints I made with those very first
> models, which all used dye inks. I have prints displayed on my walls
> (mainly under glass, but some not, which have been in medium household
> lighting for at least 8 years, and with the right paper (in this case
> the Tektronix I wrote about earlier) the ones under glass have shown
> minimal fading. The ones without glass has shown moderate fading.
>
> Using the same inks with other papers, I have had considerably poorer
> results. The paper is critical to fading issues. I still have no
> idea what Tektronix did with this paper that makes it so resistant to
> fading with those inks.
A lot of the problem at one time (with the Epson 1270/1280 ink set) had to
do with elements in the air, which vary by area and by the elements within a
given building. I've found this to be true in the past, with the dreaded
"orange shift" mess Epson had with the introduction of the 1270...and the
prematurely lofty claims of longevity Epson made with its release.
I had prints turn to total crap in literally two weeks by merely being left
in the open air...but indoors and completely out of sunlight. Others that
were kept under glass (or sealed from the air) remain quite nice to this
day. I think part of the paper factor lies in the degree to which the ink
"sinks" below the top-most surface, where it is nearly "sealed"...compared
to paper that is too porous, or which prevents the ink from sinking a bit.
I wish I still had the full-page print that led me to discover just how bad
the orange shift was. -I left a sheet (by accident) on my shelf for about
two weeks...partially covered by another paper. The covered part of
perfect, while the uncovered portion was an absolute disaster of orange.
They later linked it to varying levels of ozone (no, not some greenie
claim...rather the ozone that is naturally present to varying degrees, also
ozone that can be created on a small scale my air conditioners within a
particular building, etc.).
Mark²
Raphael Bustin
number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>A lot of the problem at one time (with the Epson 1270/1280 ink set) had to
>do with elements in the air, which vary by area and by the elements within a
>given building. I've found this to be true in the past, with the dreaded
>"orange shift" mess Epson had with the introduction of the 1270...and the
>prematurely lofty claims of longevity Epson made with its release.
>
>I had prints turn to total crap in literally two weeks by merely being left
>in the open air...but indoors and completely out of sunlight. Others that
>were kept under glass (or sealed from the air) remain quite nice to this
>day. I think part of the paper factor lies in the degree to which the ink
>"sinks" below the top-most surface, where it is nearly "sealed"...compared
>to paper that is too porous, or which prevents the ink from sinking a bit.
>
>I wish I still had the full-page print that led me to discover just how bad
>the orange shift was. -I left a sheet (by accident) on my shelf for about
>two weeks...partially covered by another paper. The covered part of
>perfect, while the uncovered portion was an absolute disaster of orange.
>
>They later linked it to varying levels of ozone (no, not some greenie
>claim...rather the ozone that is naturally present to varying degrees, also
>ozone that can be created on a small scale my air conditioners within a
>particular building, etc.).
See Harald Johnson's book, "Mastering Digital Printing"
for a review of this history and *very* thorough coverage
of issues pertaining to print longevity -- including how to
test it yourself. The book is in its 2nd edition (at least)
and worth every penny.
The fact is that airborne oxidants can be just as
damaging to a print as light and heat. And here's
a surprise: airborne oxidants may be *more*
damaging to pigment ink prints than to dye-ink
prints!
Bottom line, for maximum longevity, all prints need
to be framed behind glass or at the very least
coated.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Bill Tuthill
> Is that the new Canon with the 12 cartridges?
The Canon Pro 9500 with pigment inks was announced before PMA 2006
and has 10 cartridges. Available "autumn 2006" but still not at B&H.
> I agree that people seem to think that wet color process is some magical
> permanent media that doesn't fade. Some wet prints have under a decade
> before major fading using Wilhelm's testing, and as you say, others last
> upward of 40+ years with glass.
If by "wet prints" you mean silver halide photo prints -- I own many
that have lasted over 30 years with minimal fading. Perhaps fading
is measurable but it still seems within acceptable limits. Supposedly
RA-4 (photo paper) technology has improved since then. RA-4 prints are
the conservative choice for people like me who shun the bleeding edge.
> Fuji does claim their newer wet lab media are more fade resistance, and
> they may be, but pigment inks can still probably surpass them.
Maybe so, but I really don't see why pigment inks would necessarily
last longer. Silver halide prints resist water droplets, which is more
than I can say for inkjet output.
My mind is open to pigment-based inkjet technology, but my wallet is not
for another 10 years or so.
Meanwhile we're using a dye-based printer/FAX/copier that prints faster
than our Epson (10x as fast?), costs less to run, hasn't clogged yet,
and has standard 300 dpi resolution instead of Epson's weird-ass 144.
As long as the Chrismas-card prints we make for friends last one year
when taped on refrigerators, I'll be satisfied. Note: Epson 780 prints
on Photo Paper didn't last that long. On refrigerators in morning sun,
pictures were nearly unrecognizable after one year, and after two years
there was practially no ink left to see.
frederick
> In rec.photo.digital Arthur Entlich <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote:
>> Is that the new Canon with the 12 cartridges?
>
> The Canon Pro 9500 with pigment inks was announced before PMA 2006
> and has 10 cartridges. Available "autumn 2006" but still not at B&H.
The 12 ink 17" pigment printer (iPF5000) is already shipping.
You can read a short review here:
http://www.inkjetart.com/canon/wide/iPF5000.html#review
>
>> I agree that people seem to think that wet color process is some magical
>> permanent media that doesn't fade. Some wet prints have under a decade
>> before major fading using Wilhelm's testing, and as you say, others last
>> upward of 40+ years with glass.
>
> If by "wet prints" you mean silver halide photo prints -- I own many
> that have lasted over 30 years with minimal fading. Perhaps fading
> is measurable but it still seems within acceptable limits. Supposedly
> RA-4 (photo paper) technology has improved since then. RA-4 prints are
> the conservative choice for people like me who shun the bleeding edge.
>
HP have released new pigment ink printers with display permanence
ratings (by Wilhelm) of >200 years on all media tested.
Model numbers are B9180 (desktop A3+ model)
Z2100 - wide format 8 colour models
Z3100 - wide format 12 colour models (including gloss optimiser - due
for release over the next couple of months)
The wide format models include a built-in spectrophotometer for
simplified/automated production of custom ICC profiles.
>
>> Fuji does claim their newer wet lab media are more fade resistance, and
>> they may be, but pigment inks can still probably surpass them.
>
> Maybe so, but I really don't see why pigment inks would necessarily
> last longer. Silver halide prints resist water droplets, which is more
> than I can say for inkjet output.
>
Pigment ink prints on "RC" type photo papers are extremely water
resistant - effectively waterproof. The printed surface can be wiped
clean with a soft cloth.
Some of the newer dye ink sets from HP and Epson also have reasonable
water resistance and longevity when used on the correct papers.
>
> My mind is open to pigment-based inkjet technology, but my wallet is not
> for another 10 years or so.
>
> Meanwhile we're using a dye-based printer/FAX/copier that prints faster
> than our Epson (10x as fast?), costs less to run, hasn't clogged yet,
> and has standard 300 dpi resolution instead of Epson's weird-ass 144.
>
> As long as the Chrismas-card prints we make for friends last one year
> when taped on refrigerators, I'll be satisfied. Note: Epson 780 prints
> on Photo Paper didn't last that long. On refrigerators in morning sun,
> pictures were nearly unrecognizable after one year, and after two years
> there was practially no ink left to see.
>
You are really missing something. Compared to wet-process prints, the
wider gamut of the newer inkjet prints is very noticeable. The fine
droplet size and drop placement give smooth colour transitions and
dithering patterns not visible to the naked eye. You can choose not to
believe data from Wilhelm, but museums and galleries do accept it.
frederick
Is that an opinion that Harald Johnson stated in his book?
How did he form that opinion?
It doesn't make sense - and as the technology of putting pigment on
paper using a little resin binder is technology that has been used for a
very long time.
>
> Bottom line, for maximum longevity, all prints need
> to be framed behind glass or at the very least
> coated.
>
But longevity of some prints *not* behind glass, and *not* coated can be
more than adequate for many applications.
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
John McWilliams
> Meanwhile we're using a dye-based printer/FAX/copier that prints faster
> than our Epson (10x as fast?), costs less to run, hasn't clogged yet,
> and has standard 300 dpi resolution instead of Epson's weird-ass 144.
Could you expand on what you mean by "dpi resolution"? And why is
Epson's standard a problem?
--
john mcwilliams
David J. Littleboy
"Bill Tuthill" <ccre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Arthur Entlich <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote:
>> Is that the new Canon with the 12 cartridges?
>
> The Canon Pro 9500 with pigment inks was announced before PMA 2006
> and has 10 cartridges. Available "autumn 2006" but still not at B&H.
As per my previous message, it's now 2007.
>> I agree that people seem to think that wet color process is some magical
>> permanent media that doesn't fade. Some wet prints have under a decade
>> before major fading using Wilhelm's testing, and as you say, others last
>> upward of 40+ years with glass.
>
> If by "wet prints" you mean silver halide photo prints -- I own many
> that have lasted over 30 years with minimal fading. Perhaps fading
> is measurable but it still seems within acceptable limits. Supposedly
> RA-4 (photo paper) technology has improved since then. RA-4 prints are
> the conservative choice for people like me who shun the bleeding edge.
This is quite correct (especially the "acceptable limits" bit). But.
(1) In accellerated testing, pigment inkjet prints last longer.
(2) Lots of consumers have faded "drugstore prints".
>> Fuji does claim their newer wet lab media are more fade resistance, and
>> they may be, but pigment inks can still probably surpass them.
>
> Maybe so, but I really don't see why pigment inks would necessarily
> last longer. Silver halide prints resist water droplets, which is more
> than I can say for inkjet output.
Pigment-ink inkjet output also resists water droplets. I had forgotten that;
another reason I'm happy to have moved to pigment inkjet is that my printers
get used for my business labels, which no longer run in the rain.
But water-solubility is a real nasty: if your friends and/or customers
sneeze on their prints, they're going to be unhappy.
> My mind is open to pigment-based inkjet technology, but my wallet is not
> for another 10 years or so.
IMHO, given the availability of pigment inkjet, one would be nuts to use dye
inkjet. (And the R800 and R1800 aren't significantly more expensive than
other quality inkjets.)
> Meanwhile we're using a dye-based printer/FAX/copier that prints faster
> than our Epson (10x as fast?), costs less to run, hasn't clogged yet,
> and has standard 300 dpi resolution instead of Epson's weird-ass 144.
You left off a digit there: Epson's weird-ass 1440. For practical output, I
see a difference as one provides source material up to 350 ppi or so, so 300
is inadequate for quality work.
> As long as the Chrismas-card prints we make for friends last one year
> when taped on refrigerators, I'll be satisfied. Note: Epson 780 prints
> on Photo Paper didn't last that long. On refrigerators in morning sun,
> pictures were nearly unrecognizable after one year, and after two years
> there was practially no ink left to see.
Yep. That's why you want a pigment-ink printer.
John McWilliams
> Pigment-ink inkjet output also resists water droplets. I had forgotten that;
> another reason I'm happy to have moved to pigment inkjet is that my printers
> get used for my business labels, which no longer run in the rain.
>
> But water-solubility is a real nasty: if your friends and/or customers
> sneeze on their prints, they're going to be unhappy.
In messing around with proofs or botched prints I have concluded: Even
with simple 6 cartridge home photo inkjet printers, in this case an
Epson R300, some combo's of paper and [dye based] inks are virtually
waterproof. Other combos are completely stuffed in that department. I
have washed all the color out of some papers, and soaked and rinsed
papers overnight, and dried them, with very little ill effect.
Had I been looking ahead, over the last two years I would have noted
what ink was used, on which papers, but I didn't.
--
john mcwilliams
Raphael Bustin
>Raphael Bustin wrote:
>>
>> See Harald Johnson's book, "Mastering Digital Printing"
>> for a review of this history and *very* thorough coverage
>> of issues pertaining to print longevity -- including how to
>> test it yourself. The book is in its 2nd edition (at least)
>> and worth every penny.
>>
>> The fact is that airborne oxidants can be just as
>> damaging to a print as light and heat. And here's
>> a surprise: airborne oxidants may be *more*
>> damaging to pigment ink prints than to dye-ink
>> prints!
>
>Is that an opinion that Harald Johnson stated in his book?
>How did he form that opinion?
>It doesn't make sense - and as the technology of putting pigment on
>paper using a little resin binder is technology that has been used for a
>very long time.
No, that fact comes from a presentation at a conference
I attended a couple of years ago. It makes some sense
to me -- to the extent that pigment particles sit on the
surface of a page, and essentially are chunks of sold
pigment -- they present a large surface area.
OTOH, the presenter of that data was none other
than DuPont, and of course they were selling a
lamination system for (large) inkjet prints.
Not to drop names or anything, but I did chat for a
moment or two with the good Dr. Wilhelm at that
conference (he was one of the presenters.)
I have the first edition of Johnson's book and yet
am tempted to buy the 2nd ed. as well, because
it really does cover a lot of new ground.
>> Bottom line, for maximum longevity, all prints need
>> to be framed behind glass or at the very least
>> coated.
>>
>But longevity of some prints *not* behind glass, and *not* coated can be
>more than adequate for many applications.
"Some" people smoke two packs of cigarrettes
a day and yet do not die of cancer. That's
about as relevant.
I have some ancient Epson (dye ink) prints that still
look good. But others are now showing obvious
color shifts. The oldest are 8-9 years now.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
frederick
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 10:04:30 +1300, frederick <lo...@sea.com> wrote:
>
>> Raphael Bustin wrote:
>
>>> See Harald Johnson's book, "Mastering Digital Printing"
>>> for a review of this history and *very* thorough coverage
>>> of issues pertaining to print longevity -- including how to
>>> test it yourself. The book is in its 2nd edition (at least)
>>> and worth every penny.
>>>
>>> The fact is that airborne oxidants can be just as
>>> damaging to a print as light and heat. And here's
>>> a surprise: airborne oxidants may be *more*
>>> damaging to pigment ink prints than to dye-ink
>>> prints!
>> Is that an opinion that Harald Johnson stated in his book?
>> How did he form that opinion?
>> It doesn't make sense - and as the technology of putting pigment on
>> paper using a little resin binder is technology that has been used for a
>> very long time.
>
>
> No, that fact comes from a presentation at a conference
> I attended a couple of years ago. It makes some sense
> to me -- to the extent that pigment particles sit on the
> surface of a page, and essentially are chunks of sold
> pigment -- they present a large surface area.
>
pigment particles this is quite low - even though they may be quite
small particles. When I say quite low, then you need to compare with
dyestuff on coated papers.
Dye inks, when printed on "RC" (aka fast-dry) type papers are spread
over the extremely small pore structure typically of zeolites used in
the paper coating. These zeolites have surface areas measured (usually
by adsorbtion of a gas monolayer) of hundreds of square metres per gram.
(yes - this sounds improbable - but check information on zeolites!)
So, with a soluble dyestuff printed on the "wrong" papers, you have
layers of dyestuff only molecules deep "spread" over a surface exposed
to gaseous products that degrade the dyes. Retrospectively, it's easy
to see that there would be problems with testing only for UV light
resistance in accelerated tests.
Print the dye ink on "swellable polymer" papers, and the dyestuff is
protected by being locked in to layers of (AFAIK often polyacrylamide)
resin - protecting the dye from direct exposure to ozone etc.
But the inkjet makers now have some fast drying papers that seem to have
vastly improved gas-fading resistance with new dye inks. I don't know
how they do this, but assume if they include some resin in the ink to
seal the pores in the paper coatings, then that may be a way. In that
case, the claim that they make about the importance of matching ink-set
to paper or longevity may suffer is probably correct.
A further "trick" in the latest pigment inks is to micro-encapsulate
pigment in resin. This seems to have dual function. One may be to
protect the pigment and assist with coalescing of the pigment/resin in
the binder during drying - improving gloss uniformity. The other is
that it overcomes pigment surface electrical charges, so that HP and
Epson now use Carbon Black blended with blue, cyan or violet pigment to
produce neutral black (carbon black on it's own is yellowish-brown) for
monochrome printing.
> OTOH, the presenter of that data was none other
> than DuPont, and of course they were selling a
> lamination system for (large) inkjet prints.
>
> Not to drop names or anything, but I did chat for a
> moment or two with the good Dr. Wilhelm at that
> conference (he was one of the presenters.)
>
> I have the first edition of Johnson's book and yet
> am tempted to buy the 2nd ed. as well, because
> it really does cover a lot of new ground.
>
>
>>> Bottom line, for maximum longevity, all prints need
>>> to be framed behind glass or at the very least
>>> coated.
>>>
>> But longevity of some prints *not* behind glass, and *not* coated can be
>> more than adequate for many applications.
>
>
> "Some" people smoke two packs of cigarrettes
> a day and yet do not die of cancer. That's
> about as relevant.
>
> I have some ancient Epson (dye ink) prints that still
> look good. But others are now showing obvious
> color shifts. The oldest are 8-9 years now.
>
>
The test data from Wilhelm is pretty good IMO as a *comparative*
measure. You can be fairly certain that Epson Ultrachrome Gloss or K3
or HP #38 inks printed on the papers tested will outlast wet-process
colour prints by quite a margin. But reality is that an unframed matte
print displayed in the average home environment will be destroyed by any
number of other things before it fades.
As far as wet-process colour prints go, I know that Cibachrome (now
Ilfochrome) prints don't last more than a few years displayed behind
glass in my home. Yet I hear that old-fashioned galleries still consider
Cibachrome as some kind of great standard. I expect pigment inkjet
prints will fare a lot better.
Arthur Entlich
they had a major issue with the cyan dyes in use. They were sensitive
to ground ozone, and bleached out in a matter of days in some cases. or
less.
Indeed, they had to develop new inks and papers to deal with this.
Epson eventually acknowledged that the prints should be kept under some
clean paper for 24-48 hours prior to allowing them to have full air
convection around them and that this helped to prevent this premature
fading issue. It was definitely a real issue with these inks sets.
Art
Arthur Entlich
ozone) as being more detrimental to pigment over dye colorant sources.
Do you know somewhere I can read more about this? Has Wilhelm revealed
any test results regarding this, or are their other sources. This
somewhat surprises me, but the many variables make pretty much anything
possible.
Art
Arthur Entlich
since WIlhelm started out in this area of analysis it is interesting to
look to him for test on color photo paper (silver halide) fading.
Some inkjet prints, with the right paper are water resistant.
Keep in mind "silver halide" color prints shouldn't have any silver left
in them. It is bleached and then removed in the fixing process. What
is left behind are dye clouds made up of organic dyes, and they aren't
necessarily invulnerable to environmental factors like UV and visible
light, ozone and other reactive substances.
I'm not sure any wet lab color print, other than dye transfer is more
resistant to fading over a reasonable pigment inkjet print, and newer
inks are improving on that.
Art
Arthur Entlich
Art
Arthur Entlich
reasons, and their logic seems flawed.
The smaller the colorant's physical molecule or mass, the more capable
UV or strong oxidizers are in lifting it off the paper. It is true that
swellable polymer paper surfaces can have the dye colorant molecules
imbedded into the surface, which helps to trap it. However, pigment
"grains" are so massive relative to dye molecular structure, that we are
talking several orders of magnitude. Simply put, I would be amazed if
gaseous oxidizers or UV activity could make much of a real dent in a
resin coated adhered pigment particle.
Art
Raphael Bustin
<e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote:
>I was not familiar with the issue of airborne pollutants (such as ground
>ozone) as being more detrimental to pigment over dye colorant sources.
>
>Do you know somewhere I can read more about this? Has Wilhelm revealed
>any test results regarding this, or are their other sources. This
>somewhat surprises me, but the many variables make pretty much anything
>possible.
I should have a CD somewhere with the conference
proceedings. It's a matter of finding that CD and finding
the PDF for that particular presentation. (If it exists -- not
all presentations appear on the CD.) If I can find it, I'll post it.
One silver lining from the Epson 1270/1280 fading fiasco
was the heightened awareness of airborne oxidants both
at Wilhelm's facility and among consumers.
Suffice to say, the problem is real, and the market
brims with solutions to "deal" with the issue in
various ways.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Bill Tuthill
When I prepare a digital image for printing on RA-4 paper at the Longs Drugs
two blocks away, it must be at 300 dpi because that is the resolution of
the Fuji Frontier. It's easier to preview on the Canon than on our Epson
because I don't need to switch resolution (240 or 360).
Also, if I have a document with imported photographs, I can print it on both
the laser printers at work (600 dpi) and on the Canon, without switching
import resolution of all the pictures.
Bill Tuthill
>
> In messing around with proofs or botched prints I have concluded: Even
> with simple 6 cartridge home photo inkjet printers, in this case an
> Epson R300, some combo's of paper and [dye based] inks are virtually
> waterproof. Other combos are completely stuffed in that department. I
> have washed all the color out of some papers, and soaked and rinsed
> papers overnight, and dried them, with very little ill effect.
>
> Had I been looking ahead, over the last two years I would have noted
> what ink was used, on which papers, but I didn't.
I'm a kayaker. One of my buddies printed out topo maps of a river segment
(Jarbidge-Bruneau in Idaho) on Adventure Paper. He wasn't sure whether
he used dye-based or pigment-based inks, because he could not remember
the Epson model number. Anyway, his map was relatively waterproof,
despite all the splashing. The reds ran a bit.
Bill Tuthill
> [summary of conference proceedings etc.]
Thanks for your ultra informative post on pigment particles, gas fading,
zeolites, swellable polymers, polyacrylamide, pigment encapsulate, etc.
> The test data from Wilhelm is pretty good IMO as a *comparative*
> measure. You can be fairly certain that Epson Ultrachrome Gloss or K3
> or HP #38 inks printed on the papers tested will outlast wet-process
> colour prints by quite a margin.
When displayed behind glass under fluorescent light.
I'm still not comprehending the science behind these assertions, however.
What chemistry causes RA-4 paper to fade measurably in 12-40 years,
whereas pigment inks on compatible paper types do not? Is it the light
that causes fading? What would happen in sunlight? Dark storage?
(E.g. Kodachrome outlasts Ektachrome in dark storage by at least 3:1,
but when continuously projected, the reverse is try by at least 2:1.)
Has anybody taken an Epson R800 (or equivalent) print and left it on
the dashboard of your car all summer long?
Raphael Bustin
>Has anybody taken an Epson R800 (or equivalent) print and left it on
>the dashboard of your car all summer long?
Not dashboard of car, but I have one just hanging on
the wall of my cubicle at work, where it occasionally
gets direct sunlight in the afternoons.. It's only been
up for a year or so. The R1800 has a "gloss
enhancer" ink channel that provides a clear coat,
but that's all the protection this print has.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
frederick
shift noticeable.
I don't know that the glop is applied over the entire print surface -
perhaps just over highlight areas where ink density is low. If you
toggle it off in the driver and print on glossy stock, then the printed
areas seem the same as with gloss optimiser on - but you do see gloss
differential between darker areas and highlights - a little more so than
with a R2400, but the R2400 applies light shade inks in light areas
which might explain this. My guess is that the magenta, yellow, cyan,
and black inks for the R1800 and 2400 are the same.
Ockham's Razor
> I've had unframed R1800 prints on my fridge for 18 months with no colour
> shift noticeable.
You may not notice the degredation. Make another print and compare them.
--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.
John McWilliams
> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Meanwhile we're using a dye-based printer/FAX/copier that prints faster
>>> than our Epson (10x as fast?), costs less to run, hasn't clogged yet,
>>> and has standard 300 dpi resolution instead of Epson's weird-ass 144.
>> Could you expand on what you mean by "dpi resolution"? And why is
>> Epson's standard a problem?
>
> When I prepare a digital image for printing on RA-4 paper at the Longs Drugs
> two blocks away, it must be at 300 dpi because that is the resolution of
> the Fuji Frontier. It's easier to preview on the Canon than on our Epson
> because I don't need to switch resolution (240 or 360).
When you prepare an image on your computer, you are working in ppi, not
dpi. The number of dots, or dot equivalent a printer lays down often has
no correlation to ppi you charge it with.
And, yes, there are optimum ppi settings per printer, but at 300 ppi
sent to just about any printer, the differences are either academic or
for the very closely interested.
> Also, if I have a document with imported photographs, I can print it on both
> the laser printers at work (600 dpi) and on the Canon, without switching
> import resolution of all the pictures.
Your own eyes will be your guide, but a 300 ppi image printed on both,
vs. 240 or even 600 ppi printed on both, will be hard to distinguish,
I'll wager.
--
john mcwilliams
frederick
> In article <1162766916.93254@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lo...@sea.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I've had unframed R1800 prints on my fridge for 18 months with no colour
>> shift noticeable.
>
> You may not notice the degredation. Make another print and compare them.
>
Arthur Entlich
The differences between those and 300 dpi is minimal if even visible on
the final print. If you were to use 300 dpi rather than 240 dpi, for
instance, the results would be superior.
The very early Epson drivers did tend to artifact at less than exact
divisors, but that hasn't been the case for years now.
If you were to stick with 300 dpi the results would be quite acceptable,
as good as most other printers at the same resolution.
Art
Pat
Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Anybody have words of wisdom about longevity of inkjet Matte papers?
> According to Wilhelm's testing they are more durable against fading
> than glossy "Photo" papers. Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
> on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.
>
> Whereas Epson Photo Paper with Epson dye-based inks starts to fade in
> my kitchen (filtered sunlight) within months, although it lasts about
> a year in my office (flourescent lights) before I notice cyan fading.
>
> I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters. Some net.advice
> indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
> Canon also offers a matte paper.
I don't own an Epson printer so will not enter into the ink/pigment
debate other than to say the HP Premium Plus Photo Paper is pretty
resistant to fade. Another option is good, cotton paper like a water
color paper cut down to the right size.
You have 2 other option available to you.
First off, if you are doing most 1 or 2 sizes, go to a good glass shop
and get a stack of good glass. It's pretty cheap and won't let much UV
through (.01% ?). It's good insurance and if you swap out pictures,
the glass will stay in place to protect the next one. I think a 5x7 is
about $2.
Second, if you planning to keep them up for a while and they have value
to you, then send them out to a really great print shop. Commercially
printed printed look stunning and are more resistant to fade.
John McWilliams
> There is no "law" that makes you use 240 or 360 dpi with Epson printers.
>
> The differences between those and 300 dpi is minimal if even visible on
> the final print. If you were to use 300 dpi rather than 240 dpi, for
> instance, the results would be superior.
>
> The very early Epson drivers did tend to artifact at less than exact
> divisors, but that hasn't been the case for years now.
>
> If you were to stick with 300 dpi the results would be quite acceptable,
> as good as most other printers at the same resolution.
Er, I know it's plenty early, but don't you mean ppi? Here it's clear in
context, so no misunderstanding, but in the interest of accuracy....
John
rafe b
"Raphael Bustin" <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:pj0sk2hvov4ae323h...@4ax.com...
> I should have a CD somewhere with the conference
> proceedings. It's a matter of finding that CD and finding
> the PDF for that particular presentation.
Here's the PDF. The author is Ed Iracki, who bills
himself (in the PDF) as "Senior Technology
Consultant, DuPont Fluorosurfacing."
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/dupont.pdf
(approx 1.7 Mb)
The first 1/2 or 2/3 of the PDF is pure marketing.
The good stuff (such as it is) is at the end.
This was from a presentation in May of 2003
in Scottsdale, AZ. (http://imi.maine.com/)
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
frederick
I don't see reference in it to gas fading with pigment.
Note the exposure conditions for the "window test" about 9 times the
light intensity, and at higher temperature than normal DPR tests for
inside display. I'm surprised that ultrachrome pigment prints (let
alone the dye ink prints) lasted as long as they did - considering that
the test was designed to be equivalent to outdoor South Florida exposure.
rafe b
"frederick" <lo...@sea.com> wrote in message
news:1162845572.126642@ftpsrv1...
> Interesting article.
> I don't see reference in it to gas fading with pigment.
You're right about that. The reference was to UV
sensitivity, not gas fading.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Bill Tuthill
>>
>> Here's the PDF. The author is Ed Iracki, who bills
>>
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/dupont.pdf
>>
>> This was from a presentation in May of 2003
>> in Scottsdale, AZ. (http://imi.maine.com/)
>> The first 1/2 or 2/3 of the PDF is pure marketing.
>> The good stuff (such as it is) is at the end.
>
> I don't see reference in it to gas fading with pigment.
> Note the exposure conditions for the "window test" about 9 times the
> light intensity, and at higher temperature than normal DPR tests for
> inside display. I'm surprised that ultrachrome pigment prints (let
> alone the dye ink prints) lasted as long as they did - considering that
> the test was designed to be equivalent to outdoor South Florida exposure.
If I'm reading this correctly, Epson Ultrachrome pigment inks
are "surprisingly sensitive to UV" and in Iracki's Window Test
will show yellow fading to 80% of when-new within two years,
and to 0% (!!!) in around 7.5 years.
Yikes. At the end of last week, Arthur was making fun of me
for getting Longs Drugs to make me Frontier RA-4 prints.
frederick
Arthur Entlich
in my quoted message (below).
In this case I was just trying to maintain the O.P. use as to try to
avoid confusion.
So, in the spirit of clarification:
Wherever I indicated dpi, what I really mean with output to printer file
pixels per inch (ppi).
In most cases, dpi refers to the dots produced by the printer (per inch)
and in the case of inkjet printers, many dots are required to correspond
to one pixel on the screen to equate the color and luminosity (density)
of that pixel.
Art
Arthur Entlich
aspects somewhat manipulative.
The first is that the scales used on the bar charts change with
different products. For instance, the Photo Dye inks (window display
test) show the full chart's height as 1 year. The dye inks, without
other protection (what paper isn't indicated) is 1/2 year.
On the Ultrachrome ink bar chart (again, window display test) the chart
is 5 years to the top, and the UIltrachrome inks show about 13-14 months
(a bit over double that of the photo dye inks).
They don't show the bar chart for testing the Ultrachrome inks with the
"standard fluorescent test- bare bulb", however, they do show it for the
PhotoDye inks (2.6 years).
Finally, they mention that their idea of failing can be one of dozens of
possibilities, but do not indicate which failure occurred. The type of
"failure" may differ considerably.
Whenever a company shows selective test results, I am suspect. I
suspect the Ultrachrome inks under standard fluorescent display
conditions probably fared quite well, and that is why they were left out
of the test. Direct sunlight is very hostile and I don't expect a thin
layer of ink to survive it well. I also expect that UV filtration will
make for considerable improvement, since UV is a major cause of fading.
Their display film seems to increase magenta quite a bit with time.
Also, perhaps I missed it, but they indicate six different film types
but I can't find a chart which explains which are which, as they are
only identified A-F.
I do not see where these tests show pigment inks being more susceptible
to UV or Gas than dye inks.
Art
Arthur Entlich
pigment ink versus most silver halide color prints in real life display
settings.
You need to compare apples to apples. What type of fading occurs with a
RA-4 print under similar conditions?
More to the point, who really cares what happens to the prints under
Florida sun and heat (unless you are printing ads that are going to be
outdoors in Florida) - that's just not how prints are displayed. In a
more normal display environment Ultrachrome ink prints on the proper
paper will outlast most, if not all, color silver halide prints,
especially under glass.
As someone, perhaps yourself noted, Kodachrome has great dark keeping
but Ektachrome does much better in light situations (like regular
projection). Each colorant has different environmental factors which
alter it. Subjecting a print to Florida light and heat isn't normal
display. It is somewhat like taking a book and tossing it in a oven at
475 degrees F and when it bursts into flames and chars after a few
minutes, saying that is an accelerated test for paper and proves paper
will become carbon after 100 years at 75 degrees F.
As I stated before, reasonable accelerated testing can give an idea
about performance between media and inks, but taken to extremes it
becomes meaningless.
Art
David J. Littleboy
"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote:
> I've just looked over the Dupont "slide" show, and I find several aspects
> somewhat manipulative.
<Careful analysis ruthlessly snipped>
> Whenever a company shows selective test results, I am suspect. I suspect
> the Ultrachrome inks under standard fluorescent display conditions
> probably fared quite well, and that is why they were left out of the test.
> Direct sunlight is very hostile and I don't expect a thin layer of ink to
> survive it well. I also expect that UV filtration will make for
> considerable improvement, since UV is a major cause of fading. Their
> display film seems to increase magenta quite a bit with time.
I didn't get anywhere near as far along as you did: I noticed the differing
scales being used, and that it reeked of being nothing other than an
extended ad for Teflon. (Hmm. I'd think the patents on Teflon would have all
run out, so I'm surprised to see them doing what looks like desperate
grasping at staws for a new application of the material. Maybe the copyright
on the name is still in force, so they're frantically trying to get some
more milage from it.)
> Also, perhaps I missed it, but they indicate six different film types but
> I can't find a chart which explains which are which, as they are only
> identified A-F.
Presumably those were different versions of the product they are trying to
sell.
> I do not see where these tests show pigment inks being more susceptible to
> UV or Gas than dye inks.
They don't. They do show them being merely twice as resistant to them,
though, which is a bit of a surprise.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Raphael Bustin
>"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote:
The closest I found is this bullet item (on p. 37): "Unlaminated Epson
Ultrachrome Pigment Ink surprsingly sensitive to UV."
My apologies. My memory (of the presentation) is clearly flawed, or
else I mis-attributed my original statement... or simply imagined it.
One thing you learn at these conferences is that *every*
presenter is there to sell something. There's no pure science.
Everyone's got an agenda.
Mine (as a mere attendee) was to visit Sedona, Oak Creek
Canyon, and the Grand Canyon, prior to the conference.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
David J. Littleboy
"Raphael Bustin" <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>>> I do not see where these tests show pigment inks being more susceptible
>>> to
>>> UV or Gas than dye inks.
>>
>>They don't. They do show them being merely twice as resistant to them,
>>though, which is a bit of a surprise.
>
> The closest I found is this bullet item (on p. 37): "Unlaminated Epson
> Ultrachrome Pigment Ink surprsingly sensitive to UV."
If you look at the graphs carefully, there's one for dye ink and one for
pigment ink that claims that (without Teflon(TM)) dye prints last 6 months
and pigment prints last a year. I think that was the test where the prints
were left in full sun.
> My apologies. My memory (of the presentation) is clearly flawed, or
> else I mis-attributed my original statement... or simply imagined it.
My appologies in return: I didn't mean to shoot the messenger<g>. The
presentation might be flawed, but I do think that (a) it's interesting, and
(b) that bullet item comment that you quoted there is actually justified.
Wilhelm has glass-protected pigment prints lasting at least 10 times longer
than dye prints, so "only" lasting twice as long is interesting.
I agree with someone else's comment in this thread that sitting in full
Florida sun for a year is pretty insanely excessive abuse and rather
irrellevant. I remember leaving a textbook on a window ledge (i.e. "behind
glass") for a month or two and finding a partly gray (original color) and
partly bright green ("faded" color) textbook.
But inversely, Wilhelm appears to only test under glass or other protection,
so I don't think Wilhelm is the last word, either. Our CEO thumb tacks
photos to the bookcase, and so I think unprotected performance is also
something that needs to be tested for, for real people in real life.
Arthur Entlich
surprised by the original statement, because, in general, the physics of
pigments is such that they would be expected to survive better than dyes
in most circumstances, so I was intrigued by any data showing otherwise.
The presentation, as you state, is geared to sell the Dupont film
coatings, which may indeed have some value toward increasing fade
resistance. I don't know how much better they are than other (probably
much less costly) laminates. The Teflon, as they imply, is probably
great for graffiti prone areas, since Teflon is amazingly resistant to
most solvents, making it easy to clean.
I do wonder about the manufacturing process in terms of hazardous
output, and even the safety of handling it more than necessary. I think
there have been some suggestions it may have health issues connected
with it.
Also, even the vinyl type laminates are darn slippery to handle once
applied, I can just imagine what Teflon coated prints are like.
However, beautiful country to be able to take some photos in, so, as you
state, no loss ;-)
Art
Arthur Entlich
In most of the results I have read from his website he seemed to have a
column showing UV glass, regular glass and no glass, and sometimes
certain UV or other spray coatings.
I do find the Dupont numbers a bit suspect in terms of the small
differential between the dye and pigment inks (as you stated 6 months
versus about 13-14 months). However, part of this may be that after a
certain level of light intensity, just about any colorant will fade
pretty rapidly.
I have always been a little critical of full sun exposure tests. Indoor
lighting, even in the brightest of setting is usually considerable lower
intensity.
Art
David J. Littleboy
"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote:
> I'm surprised by your statement that Wilhelm doesn't test bare images.
Yes. I should have qualified that: in the stuff that I found in a rather
cursory look. E.g. the link I referenced in a previous note.
> In most of the results I have read from his website he seemed to have a
> column showing UV glass, regular glass and no glass, and sometimes certain
> UV or other spray coatings.
OK. I missed those.
> I do find the Dupont numbers a bit suspect in terms of the small
> differential between the dye and pigment inks (as you stated 6 months
> versus about 13-14 months). However, part of this may be that after a
> certain level of light intensity, just about any colorant will fade pretty
> rapidly.
>
> I have always been a little critical of full sun exposure tests. Indoor
> lighting, even in the brightest of setting is usually considerable lower
> intensity.
Yep.
Bill Tuthill
>
> Bung your Frontier prints in a window test like that, and see how they go.
Done, as already stated. I left an RA-4 print on the dashboard of my car
for two summers, May 2001 to September 2003. I'm in San Jose California.
Afterwards I compared it to a 4x6 double-print produced at the same time.
The photograph was of a Macbeth chart with 18 color and 6 gray patches.
I could not detect any fading whatsoever. This was Agfa Prestige paper,
which in Wilhelm's tests didn't fare as well as Fuji Crystal Archive.
Bill Tuthill
> I suspect the Ultrachrome inks under standard fluorescent display
> conditions probably fared quite well, and that is why they were left out
> of the test. Direct sunlight is very hostile and I don't expect a thin
> layer of ink to survive it well. I also expect that UV filtration will
> make for considerable improvement, since UV is a major cause of fading.
Nonetheless UV exists in the real world. In my kitchen it's filtered
by glass that removes many of its harmful components. E.g. I have never
gotten a sunburn thru glass!
Let me just say that when Wilhelm's testing shows pigment-based inkjets
regularly outperforming RA-4 prints by a 5:1 margin, I would expect them
to perform much better in the window test than they actually did.
Yellow ink lasting two years (if true) is a ***huge*** disappointment,
especially insofar as yellow is critical in a CMYK or CcMmYK device.
Bill Tuthill
>
> If you look at the graphs carefully, there's one for dye ink and one for
> pigment ink that claims that (without Teflon(TM)) dye prints last 6 months
> and pigment prints last a year. I think that was the test where the prints
> were left in full sun.
Full sun behind glass, right? That's very different from sun without glass.
It's a window test, eh. (Sorry I didn't read the whole PDF because its
blue-gradient background took so long to display.)
> I agree with someone else's comment in this thread that sitting in full
> Florida sun for a year is pretty insanely excessive abuse and rather
> irrelevant.
I disagree. Conditions in my kitchen somewhat resemble the Florida test,
if only for several hours per day.
> But inversely, Wilhelm appears to only test under glass or other protection,
> so I don't think Wilhelm is the last word, either. Our CEO thumb tacks
> photos to the bookcase, and so I think unprotected performance is also
> something that needs to be tested for, for real people in real life.
One of the posters on this thread asserted that Wilhelm often tests prints
unprotected by glass, but I've never seen a PDF with those data.
frederick
Arthur Entlich
yellow dye, toner, pigment, whatever, as do most slides and negs. One
exception was the Polaroid instant slide film which used RGB
interference lines to create the color image. There may have been other
exceptions.
Photographs use CMY layers in most cases.
I can only go on my personal experience. I have had fading issues with
dye inks with some papers, and not with others. I've had fading with
color silver halide. Certain Agfa slide films were horrible with
fading, even in the dark (processed by Agfa Germany).
Pigment inks tend, overall to have slower fading, and the newer ones
seem to outlive most photographic (color silver halide) dye images.
However, they all seem to have different sensitivities, and issues like
humidity, light levels, and reducing gases can damage them.
Your experience with RA-4 paper seems to indicate they are very stable
in high levels of sunlight, so perhaps they are more stable than pigment
inkjet. Certain dyes are quite stable, but most can't hold a candle to
quality pigments.
Art
Arthur Entlich
prints
> unprotected by glass, but I've never seen a PDF with those data.
>
Well, since I am that "one of the posters", may I suggest you haven't
read many of Wilhelm's reports. He first started reporting bare bulb
stats at least 10 years ago (I checked my archives and found an article
from 1995) Here are some much more recent links. You will notice, just
as I stated, he supplies three ratings for light exposure, Framed print
using regular glass, Framed print using glass with UV filter, and
Displayed print unframed (bare bulb).
I hope this resolves any doubts you had regarding that statement.
Art
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/3800.html
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep3800_2006_09_25.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/PM280.html
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_EpPM280_2006_10_30.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/PhotosmartProB9180.html
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_B9180_2006_09_10.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/8750.html
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_8750_2005_02_18.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/lexmark/P6250.html
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/lexmark/WIR_Lex_P6250_2005_06_22.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R2400.html
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R1800_2005_02_14.pdf
If those aren't enough, go to www.wilhelm-research.com for many more.
Art
Arthur Entlich
Art
frederick
> Only if San Jose California is in Florida... Ask Jeb, he may know ;-)
>
> Art
Does Jeb know the way to San Jose?
I've been away so long. I may go wrong and lose my way.
:-)
Bill Funk
>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>> Only if San Jose California is in Florida... Ask Jeb, he may know ;-)
>>
>> Art
>
>Does Jeb know the way to San Jose?
>I've been away so long. I may go wrong and lose my way.
>:-)
http://world.std.com/~mkjg/
:-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
frederick
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:18:32 +1300, frederick <lo...@sea.com> wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>> Only if San Jose California is in Florida... Ask Jeb, he may know ;-)
>>>
>>> Art
>> Does Jeb know the way to San Jose?
>> I've been away so long. I may go wrong and lose my way.
>> :-)
>
> http://world.std.com/~mkjg/
> :-)
measekite
looks great.
Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Anybody have words of wisdom about longevity of inkjet Matte papers?
> According to Wilhelm's testing they are more durable against fading
> than glossy "Photo" papers. Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
> on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.
>
> Whereas Epson Photo Paper with Epson dye-based inks starts to fade in
> my kitchen (filtered sunlight) within months, although it lasts about
> a year in my office (flourescent lights) before I notice cyan fading.
>
> I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters. Some net.advice
> indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
> Canon also offers a matte paper.
>
>
measekite
tempted (and still am) to try Ilford Smooth Pearl due to its fast drying
and more water resistance but Ilford states that when using dye based
ink with Smooth the photo is subject to rapid gas fading even if stored
in an album or behind glass. It seems that is the case of many
micropourous papers.
Now Ilford states that the classic, which takes a while to dry and
should not be handled for a few hours (or framed for 24 hours) is far
less subject to gas or other fading but I find it is too fragile. So I
spray it with the new (and relatively expensive) Krylon Preserve It. It
is sold in both matte and glossy. The gloss is about the same amount of
gloss as the pearl so it works out well.
One of the keys to the good results is the use of Canon factory ink.
Skip wrote:
> I've had fairly good luck with Ilford Classic Pearl. I couldn't quantify
> the length of time before fading, I really don't have any prints that
> haven't been stored in boxes, in plastic sleeve and in a portfolio or matted
> and framed behind glass. I have one printed on Lumiquest Master Canvas that
> hasn't faded in over a year. We use Epson Matte Heavyweight for proof
> books, but those aren't exposed to much sunlight, either. Works well, as
> far as we can tell with our Canon S9000.
>
>
measekite
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote:Is that the new Canon with the 12 cartridges?http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Printers/Bubble_Jet/Pixma_Pro9500/index.asp Oops. Not till next year. 10 colors. And it may be expensive.I agree that people seem to think that wet color process is some magical permanent media that doesn't fade. Some wet prints have under a decade before major fading using Wilhelm's testing, and as you say, others last upward of 40+ years with glass. Fuji does claim their newer wet lab media are more fade resistance, and they may be, but pigment inks can still probably surpass them.Lots of people (myself included) have had nasty problems with clogging Epsons, so I can understand the hesitancy to get an Epson. (Actually, I've not had any serious problems with either the R800 or the 2400.) There's a dye-ink print on my wall that's grossly faded; I'll never buy another dye-ink inkjet.
While I have read many postings from various sources that draw the same conclusions I have not had that problem using Canon OEM ink on either Canon, Ilford, or Epson paper. That said, I am torn between dye and pigment on my next wide format printer. I want the greater resistance to fading provided by pigment ink but at the same time I am fearful of giving up the brilliance, punch and ability to achieve better results on glossy and pearl (pearl is considered gloss by most mfg.) produced by dye ink. So I am just sitting on the fence regarding this issue.
David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IS&T_2006_09_HW.pdf The answer is that the worst pigment ink + paper combination (61 years) is better than the best wet-photographic process print _under UV-cut glass_ (49 years). David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
David J. Littleboy
>
> While I have read many postings from various sources that draw the same
> conclusions I have not had that problem using Canon OEM ink on either
> Canon, Ilford, or Epson paper. That said, I am torn between dye and
> pigment on my next wide format printer. I want the greater resistance to
> fading provided by pigment ink but at the same time I am fearful of giving
> up the brilliance, punch and ability to achieve better results on glossy
> and pearl (pearl is considered gloss by most mfg.) produced by dye ink.
> So I am just sitting on the fence regarding this issue.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The R800 and R1800 color glossy prints look very good (especially on the
Epson "Crispia" paper (that's the Japanese market name, I don't know what
it's called elsewhere); I don't think you are giving up much.
Skip
news:2UQ6h.6650$Sw1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>I use both Epson HWM and Ilford Classic Pearl with Canon OEM ink. I was
>tempted (and still am) to try Ilford Smooth Pearl due to its fast drying
>and more water resistance but Ilford states that when using dye based ink
>with Smooth the photo is subject to rapid gas fading even if stored in an
>album or behind glass. It seems that is the case of many micropourous
>papers.
>
> Now Ilford states that the classic, which takes a while to dry and should
> not be handled for a few hours (or framed for 24 hours) is far less
> subject to gas or other fading but I find it is too fragile. So I spray
> it with the new (and relatively expensive) Krylon Preserve It. It is sold
> in both matte and glossy. The gloss is about the same amount of gloss as
> the pearl so it works out well.
>
I just read about a new Moab product called, "Desert Varnish." It's
supposed to enhance water and UV resistance on both dye and pigment inkjet
prints. I'm going to search out some and try it.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
Bill Tuthill
"bare bulb" (fluorescent) last 1/4 to 1/2 as long as those behind glass
or better yet, UV filter.
The footnote says that fluorescent light has significant UV radiation
at 313 nm and 365 nm (maybe in between as well, it's hard to interpret).
Sunlight has significant UV radiation in a wider spectrum, I assume.
Arthur Entlich <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote:
>
> Well, since I am that "one of the posters", may I suggest you haven't
> read many of Wilhelm's reports. He first started reporting bare bulb
> stats at least 10 years ago (I checked my archives and found an article
> from 1995) Here are some much more recent links. You will notice, just
> as I stated, he supplies three ratings for light exposure, Framed print
> using regular glass, Framed print using glass with UV filter, and
> Displayed print unframed (bare bulb).
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/3800.html
Arthur Entlich
that even plain window glass or framing with glass can make a large
difference.
Fluorescent lamps, unfortunately, vary considerably. If you look at the
spectral analysis for most there are a lot of hot spots and more vacant
frequencies. However, no light source mimics daylight on a continual
basis, and sunshine is so variable in quality and quantity it can't be
used in valid testing.