how long will inkjet prints last?
-h-
how long will inkjet photo prints last? 1 year? 2 or 3 years? I was
thinking of getting an Epson 750 to make prints and want to know the
faqs of inkjet printing prepurchase. Thanks all!
-henry-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
BHilton665
>how long will inkjet photo prints last? 1 year? 2 or 3 years? I was
>thinking of getting an Epson 750 to make prints and want to know the
>faqs of inkjet printing prepurchase.
Henry Wilhelm is the guru for print archive studies and he is currently doing
tests on inkjets, with some info already available at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ The site states he is testing Epson, HP,
Canon and Lexmark printers, inks and papers so it should be pretty thorough
when he's done.
The current 6-color Epson inks fade in a couple of years, unfortunately (I'm a
happy Epson EX owner myself). Third party inks from suppliers like Lyson last
much longer but may not match the Epson color gamut. These are similar to the
Lyson inks used with the Iris inkjets.
Also a lot depends on paper type and, especially, how much light hits the
prints when they are displayed.
Bill
MarvD
manuf. are coming out with other more durable bases. If left out (indoors)
where the sun was able to shine on it regularly I have seen significant
fading in several weeks. I'm sure humidity comes into play also. Being water
based might lead you to suspect the colors would wash away like a grade
school child's picture when wet. You'd be absolutely correct. I have always
wanted to try to "fog" a color picture with spray gloss polyurethane to see
if that would help longevity, but never got around to try.
Regards
-h- <dance...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81c3l5$ci1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> couldn't find the answer in a search
>
> thinking of getting an Epson 750 to make prints and want to know the
R/L Davis
I've painted a UV acrylic varnish over an ink jet print (from an older model,
600 I think) as well as two photographs, one Fuji one Kodak. The varnish had
not affect what so ever except that it kept the Kodak print from turning quite
so yellow quite so quickly.
Richard
exile
> My only experience is with the older HP water based inks and I believe all
> manuf. are coming out with other more durable bases. If left out (indoors)
> where the sun was able to shine on it regularly I have seen significant
> fading in several weeks. I'm sure humidity comes into play also. Being water
> based might lead you to suspect the colors would wash away like a grade
> school child's picture when wet. You'd be absolutely correct. I have always
> wanted to try to "fog" a color picture with spray gloss polyurethane to see
> if that would help longevity, but never got around to try.
You mileage and mine vary considerably.
At any rate... chech HP's C series printers with pigment based inks.
--
{exile} - http://www.freespeech.org/apophysis {v6.1} - ICQ# 47439354
"Throw me the shadows of your life."
B. Mackenzie
exile
Tom Miller
old Kodak DC40 prints (Summer '97? Certainly over 2 years old) have not
faded perceptibly, whether in an album or tacked to the universal easel (the
fridge... two south-facing kitchen windows provide sunlight, plus 4
hi-intensity overhead tracklights). These old shots were all printed on
Kodak photo stock using an HP890C and a similar predecessor whose model
number I've long since forgotten - HP6-something?
I've never bothered exposing them to direct, outdoor sunlight - but what's
the point, conventional photos wouldn't tolerate such abuse in any case.
TMM
Ger B
Tha's the state of play with only black ink recently released and
claimed to last 100 years. But not the colours.
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:56:40 GMT, -h- <dance...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>couldn't find the answer in a search
>
>how long will inkjet photo prints last? 1 year? 2 or 3 years? I was
>thinking of getting an Epson 750 to make prints and want to know the
>faqs of inkjet printing prepurchase. Thanks all!
>
>-henry-
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
We know there is a better way,
but we don't know where!
Dick
stayed unchanged over about 18 months so far.
exile <ex...@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
news:m31z9iw...@21stcentury.net...
> "MarvD" <debev...@bright.net> writes:
>
> > My only experience is with the older HP water based inks and I believe
all
> > manuf. are coming out with other more durable bases. If left out
(indoors)
> > where the sun was able to shine on it regularly I have seen significant
> > fading in several weeks. I'm sure humidity comes into play also. Being
water
> > based might lead you to suspect the colors would wash away like a grade
> > school child's picture when wet. You'd be absolutely correct. I have
always
> > wanted to try to "fog" a color picture with spray gloss polyurethane to
see
> > if that would help longevity, but never got around to try.
>
> You mileage and mine vary considerably.
>
> At any rate... chech HP's C series printers with pigment based inks.
exile
> I suspect the "fugitive color" worries have been exaggerated. I notice my
Personally, I think it's a line of crap that the traditional world has come
up with to keep folk from doing their own enlargements at home and digitally.
:} It's about the only argument they got.
> old Kodak DC40 prints (Summer '97? Certainly over 2 years old) have not
> faded perceptibly, whether in an album or tacked to the universal easel (the
> fridge... two south-facing kitchen windows provide sunlight, plus 4
> hi-intensity overhead tracklights). These old shots were all printed on
> Kodak photo stock using an HP890C and a similar predecessor whose model
> number I've long since forgotten - HP6-something?
>
> I've never bothered exposing them to direct, outdoor sunlight - but what's
> the point, conventional photos wouldn't tolerate such abuse in any case.
Neither would half of the traditional artist's materials on the shelves of
any supply store. You should read the permanency ratings for half the
watercolours produced. Even standard issue drawing paper will yellow in a
few months if you abuse it.
exile
> HP says their Photosmart prints have a lifespan of 8 years...mine have
> stayed unchanged over about 18 months so far.
C series. ...Their permanence is better than some black and white prints.
I don't do stuff at photo resolutions... I prefer the "graphicy" look of
prints on fine art papers like Rives BFK or cold press watercolor... it's
100% rag and permanent in and of itself and just plain gorgeous paper {I've
gotten some excellent results on oriental papers as well... tho' I don't
think many of those are 100% rag.} Hp's pigmented inks are rated at 100+
years {at least... last time I looked which was last year some time.}
That's good enough for me. Check a comparison chart sometime... that 8
years for your color prints isn't too bad.
I've got a couple of boxes of prints that are done with an older printer and
standard inks. There's no degradation after about 2 years. That's in the box
though.
R/L Davis
> {exile} - http://www.freespeech.org/apophysis {v6.1} - ICQ# 47439354
>
> "Throw me the shadows of your life."
Well that's not true. The "traditional" art materials you can find in art supply
stores are very permanent. Most fine art pigments will not fade at all for tens
of years even when placed in the bright sun all day. "Traditional" fine art
water-colour paper, made with pure rag fibre, will not yellow but will bleach
slightly when exposed to light. It is true, however, that there are many lesser
"student" grades of art materials that will not last in the same way. Most
professional artist know this and will buy and use only the best materials. The
same is true with with most professional photographer.
It depends on where you are coming from as to how important this issue is to you.
If you want the snaps of the kids and dog to last while stuck to the fridge Tom
is undoubtedly right, but if you are concerned that the images you are making
(perhaps selling?) will last without fading for many years, then it is an issue.
Also, I really don't think anyone is trying to stop you from making your own
prints at home. Be my guest. :-)
Richard
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
I couldn't care less how long they last. They're on my computer and I can
reprint at any time.
As printers improve in the future, I'll be reprinting them anyway.
MarvD
Regards
<TheCentralSc...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrn83o4ln.h7p.TheCe...@edison.chisp.net...
BHilton665
>I couldn't care less how long they last. They're on my computer and I can
>reprint at any time.
>
>As printers improve in the future, I'll be reprinting them anyway.
Good points, I feel the same. However if you are trying to sell prints then it
matters a lot.
Ted Felix
> how long will inkjet photo prints last?
Depends on how much fading you can tolerate, and how much light you
expose them to. I do know for a fact that different papers affect
lifespan considerably. Check out my fade tests:
http://www.fred.net/tfelix/Photography/FadeHome.html
--
Ted Felix
http://www.fred.net/tfelix
Colin Work
Depending on the circumstances/price you could consider providing a
copy of the file on CD. I doubt there is a simple answer to this - I
have photos which have faded very rapidly. Much depends on preparation,
storage, climate etc. regardless of media. Currently I have a test
cluster of 3 "real" photographs and 3 inkjets (Epson film and ink) on my
living room wall with copies filed away in the dark. They have been
hanging behind glass in "normal" lighting (no direct sunlight) for 2
years. Neither type of print shows any sign of deterioration yet.
On the other hand I have seen an inkjet print in direct light suffer
badly in a few months.
--
******************************************************************
writing as myself and not an employee ...
Colin K. Work Email:c...@soton.ac.uk
University of Southampton Computing Services
exile
> I couldn't care less how long they last. They're on my computer and I can
> reprint at any time.
>
> As printers improve in the future, I'll be reprinting them anyway.
If you want to sell them... you probably should care. Unless you want to
include a floppy with each print.
--
{exile} - http://www.freespeech.org/apophysis {v6.1} - ICQ# 47439354
"Throw me the shadows of your life."
B. Mackenzie
exile
> exile wrote:
>
> > "Tom Miller" <tmi...@diacon.com> writes:
> >
> > > I suspect the "fugitive color" worries have been exaggerated. I notice my
> >
> > Personally, I think it's a line of crap that the traditional world has come
> > up with to keep folk from doing their own enlargements at home and digitally.
>
> >
> > :} It's about the only argument they got.
> >
> > > old Kodak DC40 prints (Summer '97? Certainly over 2 years old) have not
> > > faded perceptibly, whether in an album or tacked to the universal easel (the
> > > fridge... two south-facing kitchen windows provide sunlight, plus 4
> > > hi-intensity overhead tracklights). These old shots were all printed on
> > > Kodak photo stock using an HP890C and a similar predecessor whose model
> > > number I've long since forgotten - HP6-something?
> > >
> > > I've never bothered exposing them to direct, outdoor sunlight - but what's
> > > the point, conventional photos wouldn't tolerate such abuse in any case.
> >
> > Neither would half of the traditional artist's materials on the shelves of
> > any supply store. You should read the permanency ratings for half the
> > watercolours produced. Even standard issue drawing paper will yellow in a
> > few months if you abuse it.
>
Yes it is... check a lot of the papers behind the counter, all of the papers
in front of the counter, a *good* portion of watercolours and a large chunk
of your more pricey oils. Forget markers, artists colours, a large number of
inks, gouaches and so forth.
> stores are very permanent. Most fine art pigments will not fade at all for tens
> of years even when placed in the bright sun all day. "Traditional" fine art
> water-colour paper, made with pure rag fibre, will not yellow but will bleach
> slightly when exposed to light. It is true, however, that there are many lesser
> "student" grades of art materials that will not last in the same way. Most
> professional artist know this and will buy and use only the best materials. The
> same is true with with most professional photographer.
A lot of artists are picky about it... a lot of them could care less. Work
retail for a while... A lot of people {professionals included} will use stuff
like Crescent mat board, drawing paper from the shelves, etc. I've actually
had arguments with folk that thought the whole idea was funny. I've seen
pieces in shows done on newsprint or already yellowing cheaper grades of
paper... to say nothing of the materials used in "avant garde" stuff...
Besides... since when has art ever depended on tradition? How fucking boring.
> It depends on where you are coming from as to how important this issue is to you.
> If you want the snaps of the kids and dog to last while stuck to the fridge Tom
> is undoubtedly right, but if you are concerned that the images you are making
> (perhaps selling?) will last without fading for many years, then it is an issue.
>
> Also, I really don't think anyone is trying to stop you from making your own
> prints at home. Be my guest. :-)
Why would I bother... I've got more prints than I can count... {at about 4
bucks a shot} I prefer the computer as a means of storage and filing anyway.
If I intend to sell them... I feel responsible for their permanence {to an
extent... if someone hangs them in a window I could care less.} I figure the
question's pretty much moot anyway with the newer inks and so forth...
R/L Davis
> R/L Davis <dav...@tallships.ca> writes:
> > Well that's not true. The "traditional" art materials you can find in art supply
>
> Yes it is... check a lot of the papers behind the counter, all of the papers
> in front of the counter, a *good* portion of watercolours and a large chunk
> of your more pricey oils...
You're nor reading me correctly. "Traditional" artists materials, you used that word,
are permanent. All the inferior grades of materials you are listing are cheep
imitations. I don't wish to belabour the point but I am just pointing out that there
are materials out there that artists have been using for hundreds of years (traditional
materials) that _will_ stand the test of time. I believe lot's of folks don't even
realize that there are pigments that are unaffected by light and will not fade.
> > stores are very permanent. Most fine art pigments will not fade at all for tens
> > of years even when placed in the bright sun all day. "Traditional" fine art
> > water-colour paper, made with pure rag fibre, will not yellow but will bleach
> > slightly when exposed to light. It is true, however, that there are many lesser
> > "student" grades of art materials that will not last in the same way. Most
> > professional artist know this and will buy and use only the best materials. The
> > same is true with with most professional photographer.
>
> A lot of artists are picky about it... a lot of them could care less. Work
> retail for a while... A lot of people {professionals included} will use stuff
> like Crescent mat board, drawing paper from the shelves, etc. I've actually
> had arguments with folk that thought the whole idea was funny. I've seen
> pieces in shows done on newsprint or already yellowing cheaper grades of
> paper... to say nothing of the materials used in "avant garde" stuff...
Again that's not my point. We both obviously know that many artists don't care about
their materials. And now many digital artists have the same lack of concern.
> Besides... since when has art ever depended on tradition? How fucking boring.
Ever? Your kidding right?
Richard
Kirk
bel...@tampabay.rr.com said...
> I'm not sure that having them on your computer or saving them to a zip disc
> will be a big help five or ten years from now.
>
The paradigm is changing whether we old fuddies like it or not.
Nowadays, everyone's most critical data is stored digitally (certainly
stuff more critical than snaps of the dog). Sooner or later, finding a
cheap and easy way to keep it updated or make a single copy adequately
permanent will become a matter of simple course. Right now, it's a back
burner issue, but it will come to the fore and be solved.
Not that what we've got right now is that good. Yes, black and white
lasts a century--if it's well processed. Practically EVERYTHING ELSE we
commonly do today has a shelf life no longer than current CD ROMs because
they are not produced with archival care. Things have gotten a lot
cheaper in the last few years.
--
Kirk
"Start with what is right, not what is acceptable."
<Delete "notathome" from the displayed email address to reply>
Brian Ellis
dictaphone tape lately? Played any 8 track tapes? Been able to find a
replacement for your Betamax player? The information is all there but
accessing it is next to impossible. In the computer field, which moves at
the speed of light compared to analog, the hardware availability likely will
be an even bigger problem quicker. Just my thoughts.
BHilton665 wrote in message
<19991124151608...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
>>From: TheCentralSc...@pobox.com ()
>
>>I couldn't care less how long they last. They're on my computer and I can
>>reprint at any time.
>>
>>As printers improve in the future, I'll be reprinting them anyway.
>
Stanton
the Lambda printer and they're the best kept secret in the industry. You can
send your digital files to be printed on ANALOG paper...directly from your
file!!! The Lambda is VERY efficient. I've blown 24mb files up to 36x48
with such incredible sharpness that you can see the FIBERS in the clothing.
To be fair, the file started with a 2 1/4 negative scanned on a Fuji 4050
scanner. However, a digital file is a digital file. You can get permanent
output RIGHT NOW on REAL photographic that will cost only slightly more than
enlargements from your negatives. Again, it depends on the quality/sharpness
of your file. I'm in the process of testing right now from consumer grade
digital cameras.
Stay tuned....
Stanton
----------
In article <MPG.12c629b78...@news.mindspring.com>, Kirk
Pam Niedermayer
never having seen digital paper used in an inkjet. :) For
that matter, the only paper that could even remotely be
called digital would be the old heat sensitive stuff, even
that would be a stretch.
Pam
Stanton wrote:
>
> Though few people know about it, the problem is already solved. Its called
> the Lambda printer and they're the best kept secret in the industry. You can
> send your digital files to be printed on ANALOG paper...directly from your
> file!!! The Lambda is VERY efficient. I've blown 24mb files up to 36x48
> with such incredible sharpness that you can see the FIBERS in the clothing.
> To be fair, the file started with a 2 1/4 negative scanned on a Fuji 4050
> scanner. However, a digital file is a digital file. You can get permanent
> output RIGHT NOW on REAL photographic that will cost only slightly more than
> enlargements from your negatives. Again, it depends on the quality/sharpness
> of your file. I'm in the process of testing right now from consumer grade
> digital cameras.
>
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225
Austin, TX 78704
512-416-1141
512-416-1440 fax
http://www.pinehill.com
Jim Williams
>never having seen digital paper used in an inkjet. :) For
>that matter, the only paper that could even remotely be
>called digital would be the old heat sensitive stuff, even
>that would be a stretch.
I think he means conventional, continuous tone photographic paper. (It
reminds me of a guitarist friend of mine -- this was a long time ago --
who, out of habit, referred to his old Remington portable as an "acoustic"
typewriter... as opposed to an electric typewriter, of course!)
Anyway, contrary to the "best-kept secret" hype, several manufacturers are
now offering the photo lab industry printers which can output digital files
onto conventional chemically-processed photo paper. I believe the Lightjet
enlarger was the first, but minilab-equipment manufacturers such as Konica
and Fuji now have gotten into the act, and their printers are getting down
into high-volume photo labs. The minilab at my local photo store added on a
few weeks ago, and I've been having prints output on it with very
impressive results. They really do look, and last, just like conventional
color prints (which, actually, don't have such a great lifespan compared to
black-and-white, but are still a big improvement over inkjet.)
AV
>
> Though few people know about it, the problem is already solved. Its called
> the Lambda printer and they're the best kept secret in the industry. You can
> send your digital files to be printed on ANALOG paper...directly from your
> file!!!
Does anyone think we can nip this "analog" adjective in the bud? It
doesn't describe anything other than an inferred arrogance towards
anything that doesn't have a CPU inside of it.
Paper is paper.
You otherwise might as well be adding "analog" to nearly every
non-electronic noun you can think of.
av
Don Stauffer
Lambda, but the film recorder in general is just a CRT, a lens, exposure control
and photographic film. Now, admittedly the CRT is being driven with a D/A
converter, so the system is hybrid, not truly analog. However, the recording
process itself, the film, is analog, so it can be looked at both ways.
Film recorder prints will have exactly the same longevity as normal photographic
prints (assuming the machine 'washes' the prints properly).
AV wrote:
--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
stau...@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/
Richard Kunert
can transfer your files from the old formats and media to whatever
replaces them. Expecting to save your files once and be done with it is
probably unrealistic.
In article <XRZ64.1775$AK3....@typhoon1.tampabay.rr.com>, "Brian
Ellis" <bel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure that having them on your computer or saving them to a zip
>disc
>will be a big help five or ten years from now. Tried listening to a
>dictaphone tape lately? Played any 8 track tapes? Been able to find a
>replacement for your Betamax player? The information is all there but
>accessing it is next to impossible. In the computer field, which moves at
>the speed of light compared to analog, the hardware availability likely
>will
>be an even bigger problem quicker. Just my thoughts.
--
Richard Kunert (rku...@facstaff.wisc.edu)