Odd inkjet paper problem -- Gradually increasing blur!
Michael A. Covington
printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper (glossy).
Over a period of days after making the print, the stars disappear!
Apparently, the inks continue to migrate within the glossy coating. The
effect is noticeable only when the star images are relatively small and are
on a very dark background.
I'm doing some experiments to see what happens with other types of paper and
with various printer settings. Has anyone encountered this before?
--
Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com <><
I do not answer e-mail sent to me with a false return address (e.g.
"nospam").
pj
Your blur is obviously rapid; mine became noticable after a year or so and
seems to be progressive. Prints behind glass and out of direct sun.
They claim to have sorted this stuff now...
Chris
Are you using "refill" ink cartridges? If so, sometimes the ink is too
diluted, and will cause the problem you mention. If you are using the
regulation Epson photo-ink cartridge, then I'd suggest that you get in touch
with Epson. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance.
Chris
Michael A. Covington <See http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com for address>
wrote in message news:8r7r6j$34n$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Michael A. Covington
news:8r7s30$2aj$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
What do they say we should do about it? Buy a new printer?
TheCentral...@abcnopamdef.pobox.com
>I've encountered a bizarre problem with astronomical photographs that are
>printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper (glossy).
>
>Over a period of days after making the print, the stars disappear!
>Apparently, the inks continue to migrate within the glossy coating. The
>effect is noticeable only when the star images are relatively small and are
>on a very dark background.
>
>I'm doing some experiments to see what happens with other types of paper and
>with various printer settings. Has anyone encountered this before?
Have you tried printing them as negatives? (black on a white background)
Michael A. Covington
> Hi Michael,
> Are you using "refill" ink cartridges? If so, sometimes the ink is too
> diluted, and will cause the problem you mention. If you are using the
> regulation Epson photo-ink cartridge, then I'd suggest that you get in
touch
> with Epson. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance.
> Chris
Epson's cartridge, Kodak's paper.
Michael A. Covington
> Have you tried printing them as negatives? (black on a white background)
That would rather miss the point -- it's not too satisfactory as a way of
making positive prints :)
Paul Rubin
> I think I read that both are rated to last forever
> (which the US Supreme Court, incidentally, defines as 125 years)
When did the USSC say that?! Got a cite?! Wow.
Norman Frank
glossy inkjet paper (particularly Kodak, but also other brands) when I was
working in a photo lab doing computer restorations. After a period of days
to months many images seemed to get darker as well as redder. We did not
have luck controlling the problem with computer settings; it seems to be an
"inkjet on glossy" phenomenon. We eventually had to go to a non-glossy,
matte type finish for our final prints....Norman
Norman Frank
Miami FL
ngf...@bellsouth.net
Michael A. Covington <See http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com for address>
wrote in message news:8r7r6j$34n$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> I've encountered a bizarre problem with astronomical photographs that are
> printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper
(glossy).
>
> Over a period of days after making the print, the stars disappear!
> Apparently, the inks continue to migrate within the glossy coating. The
> effect is noticeable only when the star images are relatively small and
are
> on a very dark background.
>
> I'm doing some experiments to see what happens with other types of paper
and
> with various printer settings. Has anyone encountered this before?
>
Steve
This is a known problem with some of the recent Epson inks and glossy
paper. You might find something on it on the Epson site but I do remember it
creating quite a furor on various Mac sites about a month or so ago. I believe
it turned out to be a problem with ozone exposure and the suggested answer with
those inks was to keep the print under glass. IIRC the latest version of the
inks is supposed to have solve the problem butI might be wrong.
Clear skies
Steve
Martin Brown
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:
> I've encountered a bizarre problem with astronomical photographs that are
> printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper (glossy).
>
> Over a period of days after making the print, the stars disappear!
> Apparently, the inks continue to migrate within the glossy coating. The
> effect is noticeable only when the star images are relatively small and are
> on a very dark background.
I have seen something like you describe, but only in conditions of high humidity
that allow the dyes to diffuse. The high end Epson glossy photo paper has a
drying trick to try and limit this problem, and seems to work slightly better
for me. YMMV
> I'm doing some experiments to see what happens with other types of paper and
> with various printer settings. Has anyone encountered this before?
Upto a point it can be OK as it hides the print dot pattern, but beyond that the
dyes bleed into lighter areas at different speeds. Small white dots on hard
black must be about the worst case.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Michael A. Covington
--
Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com <><
I do not answer e-mail sent to me with a false return address (e.g.
"nospam").
"Norman Frank" <ngf...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mwMB5.619$DF2....@news3.mia...
> Michael....I had the problem of photo image degeneration when using
> glossy inkjet paper (particularly Kodak, but also other brands) when I was
> working in a photo lab doing computer restorations. After a period of days
> to months many images seemed to get darker as well as redder. We did not
> have luck controlling the problem with computer settings; it seems to be
an
> "inkjet on glossy" phenomenon. We eventually had to go to a non-glossy,
> matte type finish for our final prints....Norman
>
> Norman Frank
> Miami FL
> ngf...@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
> Michael A. Covington <See http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com for address>
> wrote in message news:8r7r6j$34n$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > I've encountered a bizarre problem with astronomical photographs that
are
> > printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper
> (glossy).
> >
> > Over a period of days after making the print, the stars disappear!
> > Apparently, the inks continue to migrate within the glossy coating. The
> > effect is noticeable only when the star images are relatively small and
> are
> > on a very dark background.
> >
> > I'm doing some experiments to see what happens with other types of paper
> and
> > with various printer settings. Has anyone encountered this before?
> >
Gary Irwin
my solution was to buy a laser printer. One of the best decisions I've ever
made! :o)
Gary
Chris <29190...@home.com> wrote in message
news:aFKB5.19950$P5.4...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
Norman Frank
edges that worked very well for us. But really, IME, most multi-purpose,
white, 20lb.stock holds an ink jet B&W or color image well. Examples would
be: H.P. Bright White, and Great White MultiPurpose 20.....Norman
Michael A. Covington <See http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com for address>
wrote in message news:8r857b$3i9$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> What paper did you end up using?
>
> --
> Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
> http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com <><
> I do not answer e-mail sent to me with a false return address (e.g.
> "nospam").
>
> "Norman Frank" <ngf...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mwMB5.619$DF2....@news3.mia...
> > Michael....I had the problem of photo image degeneration when using
> > glossy inkjet paper (particularly Kodak, but also other brands) when I
was
> > working in a photo lab doing computer restorations. After a period of
days
> > to months many images seemed to get darker as well as redder. We did not
> > have luck controlling the problem with computer settings; it seems to be
> an
> > "inkjet on glossy" phenomenon. We eventually had to go to a non-glossy,
> > matte type finish for our final prints....Norman
> >
> > Norman Frank
> > Miami FL
> > ngf...@bellsouth.net
> >
> >
> >
reagans5
For what it's worth, I have found that using Epson Matte Paper -
Heavyweight gives much better stability from fading and diffusion than
Epson premium glossy photo paper. I use an Epson Photo 870 mainly for
printing non-astronomical photos with Epson inks. The heavyweight matte
paper is also considerably less expensive than most photo papers.
David
Mike Long
those back if the consumer wants to sell it back to them. This is due
to an orange shift. Printers earlier than this simply weren't
archival. I can get prints from my old EX to fade in an hour if I want
to put them in light or high humidity areas.
Also, Kodak's paper is known to be fugitive as shown on Wilhelm's
longevity site.
I jumped fromt he EX to the new 2000P and I can't tell you how happy I
am. Initially, I used the semi-gloss paper because it looks like a
photograph. However, after a few uses and framing,matting, glassing
their archival matte paper, I'm certain it's the best way to go. Life
is 200 years. The semi-gloss life is 140+ years.
Oh, the other possible explanation is that those are variable stars.
Mike
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:41:58 -0400, "Michael A. Covington" <See
http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com for address> wrote:
>@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>> Hi Michael,
>> Are you using "refill" ink cartridges? If so, sometimes the ink is too
>> diluted, and will cause the problem you mention. If you are using the
>> regulation Epson photo-ink cartridge, then I'd suggest that you get in
>touch
>> with Epson. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance.
>> Chris
>
Michael A. Covington
news:v3NB5.67243$dZ2.23...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> After THROWING OUT two supposedly high quality brand name inkjet printers,
> my solution was to buy a laser printer. One of the best decisions I've
ever
> made! :o)
Given that my wife is in the graphic design business, we just *might* be
able to justify that. The main fear would be that if we bought one, we'd be
kicking ourselves for spending the money too soon -- a much better one would
be available later.
What did you get and how well does it work for astrophotos?
Jonathan Murray
700 then a 1200 and I have a 9000 for large format production but the 2000
is by far my favorite. The new 2000 is the first "Archival" printer Epson
has produced and uses pigmented inks instead of dye based inks as in all
previous models.
The archival results (100+ years) are only guaranteed when you use an Epson
ink and paper combination. The papers and inks are formulated together. The
new inks together with the new semi-gloss paper turn out stunning results.
You might also try the Epson archival matte paper which has a brilliant flat
surface to it. Depends what you like.
Jonathan
in article 8r7r6j$34n$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Michael A. Covington at
See http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com for address wrote on 10/1/00 10:10:
Jonathan Murray
in article v3NB5.67243$dZ2.23...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com, Gary Irwin at
ga...@home.com wrote on 10/1/00 13:23:
> After THROWING OUT two supposedly high quality brand name inkjet printers,
> my solution was to buy a laser printer. One of the best decisions I've ever
> made! :o)
>
> Gary
>
> Chris <29190...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:aFKB5.19950$P5.4...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>> Hi Michael,
>> Are you using "refill" ink cartridges? If so, sometimes the ink is too
>> diluted, and will cause the problem you mention. If you are using the
>> regulation Epson photo-ink cartridge, then I'd suggest that you get in
> touch
>> with Epson. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Michael A. Covington <See http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com for address>
>> wrote in message news:8r7r6j$34n$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
JMc
magnetic and optical storage media <g>. We're entering an age of
fantastic imaging capabilities, but the sad fact is that most of these
images won't survive as long as the old B&W prints pasted in my
grandmother's albums. In 50 years we'll have fond memories and
unreadable/obsolete disks unless we somehow continually transfer the
data to newer media. I suppose it all depends on what we mean by
"archival". The Pyramids and stone tablets represent archival storage,
everything else is just wishful thinking.
Jim McSheehy
Jonathan Murray
just so the inland revenue could get our accounting records for 15 years :-)
Small OT but if you haven't read it already I can recommend a great read on
this topic called "Deep Time" by Gregory Benford which eloquently discusses
the challenges of communicating into the distant future e.g to identify the
location of nuclear waste sites for future generations.
Jonathan
in article 39D8AFA9...@my-deja.com, JMc at tri...@my-deja.com wrote on
10/2/00 08:54:
JMc
Thanks for the tip on "Deep Time" - I'll have to dig up a copy. The name
Benford sounded familiar, and then I remembered reading his novel "Cosm"
some years ago.
On the relevant subject of printers, do you know of anyone who tried the
Alps dry-transfer machines for astro images? We bought one two years ago
to make labels, but it was too slow and we sold it. These printers use
four color film ribbons, and the saturation and durability were
excellent. They sell a white ribbon, so theoretically, you could even
print star fields on shiny-black stock. Talk about saving ink... ;-)
Eddie Trimarchi
cartridge and high-gloss film. Here are some observations with various
storage methods of prints all printed at the same time, about 12 months ago.
- Kept in an unsealed plastic binder kept in a drawer and looked at
ocassionally, now look absolutely terrible after 12 months. Totally faded
with no detail.
- Plastic laminated. Kept in the same binder as above. Very minor
degredation after 12 months. Still looks very good.
- Framed behind glass with regular morning sunlight the prints faded
gradually and now look absolutely terrible after 12 months.
- Framed with no glass, on a wall in a dimly-lit room, no noticeable
degredation after 12 months. Still looks great!
- Sealed with clear contact and kept in unsealed plastic binder, still looks
great after 12 months.
I also printed some on Canon thick gloss card and these have lasted very
well with no visible degredation over the last 12 months in the same plastic
binder as mentioned above. It looks like when using the high-gloss film, the
print cannot be confined within a layer of air or the ink will blur.
Of course, I could be wrong........
Eddie Trimarchi
~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.fan.net.au/~eddiet
Odysseus
post.to.newsgroup wrote:
> Mike,
> This is a known problem with some of the recent Epson inks and glossy
> paper. You might find something on it on the Epson site but I do remember it
> creating quite a furor on various Mac sites about a month or so ago. I believe
> it turned out to be a problem with ozone exposure and the suggested answer with
> those inks was to keep the print under glass. IIRC the latest version of the
> inks is supposed to have solve the problem butI might be wrong.
>
If the problem is due to exposure to airborne substances like ozone or
humidity, an alternative to glass or lamination might be a coat or two of
spray-fixative such as those used for treating pastel or coloured-pencil
drawings to prevent smudging. A good art-supply store should have a few
choices of such products. They might "craze" the finish of the glossy coated
papers, though, depending on the solvents or propellants used:
experimentation advised.
__________
--Odysseus
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lars Ekdahl
Below you will find some URL:s covering this problem
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=14403&a=779457
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
Lars Ekdahl at http://www.ekdahl.org/digital2.htm#printers
jfriskney0
printing? Or put the paper under an angle poise lamp to warm it for a minute
or two?
I found this works when running photo paper back through the printer to
print 4 photos on a sheet one by one.
Mark Hanning-Lee
Consider reposting to comp.periphs.printers .
Mark
Michael A. Covington
"Mark Hanning-Lee" <mar...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:39DF85...@prodigy.net...
> Consider reposting to comp.periphs.printers .
> Michael A. Covington wrote:
> >
> > I've encountered a bizarre problem with astronomical photographs that
are
> > printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper
(glossy).
> >
> > Over a period of days after making the print, the stars disappear!
> > Apparently, the inks continue to migrate within the glossy coating. The
> > effect is noticeable only when the star images are relatively small and
are
> > on a very dark background.
> >
> > I'm doing some experiments to see what happens with other types of paper
and
> > with various printer settings. Has anyone encountered this before?
Followup:
The migration may be humidity-dependent; I'm not sure. It apparently
proceeds gradually for weeks.
Epson heavy matte paper works fine and does not have the problem; it seems
to be confined to glossy-coated paper.
Kodak is sending me a sample of an improved paper that will supposedly not
have the problem, but for now, I'm sticking with matte paper.
I have prints hanging on my door made on a lot of papers and will know more
about how they hold up in a few months.
Stephen Pitt
> I've encountered a bizarre problem with astronomical photographs that
are
> printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper
(glossy).
>
> Over a period of days after making the print, the stars disappear!
> Apparently, the inks continue to migrate within the glossy coating.
The
> effect is noticeable only when the star images are relatively small
and are
> on a very dark background.
>
> I'm doing some experiments to see what happens with other types of
paper and
> with various printer settings. Has anyone encountered this before?
>
> Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
> http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com <><
> I do not answer e-mail sent to me with a false return address (e.g.
> "nospam").
>
>
I avoid all Kodak inkjet papers. You might as well print on the fender
of a car.
After experimenting with many (read: $$$) papers, which are quickly and
happily provided by many vendors, I have a recommendation:
Olmec Optimum 260gsm glossy provided by Digital Art Supplies,
reorder # IC260S6-030. URL:
http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/
This paper has more than "feel." And, unless DAS has come up with
anything better, it is light years beyond any other glossy I have tried.
I do not use pigmented inks, and though I refill occasionally, I tend to
use Epson's inks for best results in my Photo EX and 700.
Best wishes,
:Stephen
Stephen Pitt
martin...@pandora.be wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Covington" wrote:
>
> > I've encountered a bizarre problem with astronomical photographs
that are
> > printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper
(glossy).
> >
> > Over a period of days after making the print, the stars disappear!
> > Apparently, the inks continue to migrate within the glossy coating.
The
> > effect is noticeable only when the star images are relatively small
and are
> > on a very dark background.
>
high humidity
> that allow the dyes to diffuse. The high end Epson glossy photo paper
has a
> drying trick to try and limit this problem, and seems to work slightly
better
> for me. YMMV
>
paper and
> > with various printer settings. Has anyone encountered this before?
>
beyond that the
> dyes bleed into lighter areas at different speeds. Small white dots on
hard
> black must be about the worst case.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>
Hi. Please see my post below, and, if you try the stuff, please let me
know what you think. My clients seem to like it, with no complaints
logged.
Michael A. Covington
Stephen Pitt
>
>
then checked and found an inactive Deja email. I have now activated it.
If that doesn't work, my regular email is:
Best regards,
David Bishop
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:
>
> I've encountered a bizarre problem with astronomical photographs that are
> printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper (glossy).
There is a know problem with the Blue ink in the Epson printers. It fades
when exposed to Ozone.
--
NAME: David W. Bishop INTERNET: dbi...@vhdl.org
Michael A. Covington
are
> > printed with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 on Kodak Inkjet Photo Paper
(glossy).
>
> There is a know problem with the Blue ink in the Epson printers. It fades
> when exposed to Ozone.
Yes -- this wasn't that. My problem was not fading. The black ink spread
and encroached on everything else.
With matte paper it doesn't seem to happen. Kodak sent me a newer kind of
glossy paper on which it may not happen -- we'll see.
--
Clear skies,
Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
Author, ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY FOR THE AMATEUR
http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com/astro <><