Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lasting Quality of Photo Paper

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that the
paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home market,
and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a really
important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.

However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?

Thanks very much for your advice.

Susan
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No one knows how well prints from say the Epson 2200 will last. All of the
fade tests done have been faked (accelerated) which in my opinion means
nothing. Also, if you look at the foot notes for such tests most clearly
state that the life is based on almost museum storage standards, means you
would have to hang them in a climate controlled room, etc. etc. Again
meaning less.

I think you took the best route for what you want to do. To be honest if I
was interested in purchasing one of your images and I found out that you
printed them on any thing other than a commercial printer I would not buy
it.

If you want something that is going to give you good life that you can print
yourself then look in a dye sub printer. I have about thirty prints from an
old Alps hanging on my wall that gets bright sun most of the day and they
are still perfect with no fading what so ever. However, every print I have
that was done on an inkjet has either turned color or has faded often both
and that includes a couple from the Epson 2200. Also, the Epson 2200 is the
slowest printer I have ever seen.

Just my 4 cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation.)

John


"Susan B" <susanb@susanb.org> wrote in message
news:D 7vjd.323$3U4.33815@news02.tsnz.net...
>I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
> the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home
> market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a
> really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
> papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Susan B wrote:
> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
> the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home
> market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a
> really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
> papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan

No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut corners
by buying third party ink or paper.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Related resources
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Susan B wrote:

> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan
>
>

Canon's latest A3 printer is the i9900 (or i9950 outside the USA).
Canon claim 25 years for print life if you use their most expensive paper called
Canon Photo Paper Pro. This printer uses dye based inks.

I think the Epson printers use pigment based inks and they last a lot longer.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
November 8, 2004 11:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Susan B wrote:

>However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
>printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
>that are as good as those used commercially?

Yes, there are several.

> Are there any A3 sized
>photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
>relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
>paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?

Again yes, but I think you need to consider costs and quality, since
this is for personal gain. I've yet to see any photo printer that can
match or get close to the costs of going to a lab, and still resist
fading over many years.

I've made my own prints at home that rivals lab quality and costs. But
the issue is will they really last?

Using original ink and photo paper, I can get good results that should
last for decades, but the cost is prohibitive - it's much cheaper to
take my digital photos to the lab for development.

So in order to get my costs down to reasonable levels, I needed to
refill my ink cartridges and use third-party photo papers. The quality
is very good, and so far (16 months) the images have not faded or shown
signs of wear. But in another few years the photos may not look as good,
and only time will tell.

Now, if your profit margin is high enough to allow printing at home
using original supplies, then have at it. They should last as long, if
not longer, than lab prints.
:) 
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would suggest visiting www.wilhelm-research.com You will find lots of
good archival information. The Epson papers and pigment inks seem to last a
very long time. Longer than some traditional prints.
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Susan B wrote:


> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
> papers that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan

As far as I know, none of the available home printers use photographic
paper. What home printers use may be called photo paper or photo-quality
paper, but it's still a non-light-sensitive paper designed to receive
sprayed ink droplets, sublimated dyes or heated wax/resin. The commercial
labs often use true photographic paper, i.e. light sensitive papers
designed to be exposed from a light source such as a lamp, lcd screen, or a
computer-controlled laser head, then developed with standard colour
processing chemistry. These materials have very different aging
characteristics from ink-jet, dye-sublimation or wax-thermal papers
available for home printers and are much more waterproof than the ink-jet
papers or dye-sub. I've used all four types of printers (ink-jet, dye-sub,
and wax-thermal at home, and a laser-head photographic printer at work),
and I prefer the quality of the last. Mind you the price of that printer is
about 3 orders of magnitude higher than the average home printer... As far
as the relative keeping qualities are concerned, none of the currently
produced papers have been around long enough to really tell.
I have standard photographic prints from 30+ years ago that look fine and
more recent ones that have faded or changed colour, which tells me the only
real way to know is to wait and see......

Al Preston
November 8, 2004 11:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Try permajet
http://www.permajet.com/html/products_permaflow.html
They use pigment inks and have a continuous flow system so you never run out of ink.


"Susan B" <susanb@susanb.org> wrote in message news:<d7vjd.323$3U4.33815@news02.tsnz.net>...
> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:


> No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
>best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut corners
>by buying third party ink or paper.

On the contrary, good quality third part inks (the ones I use are
Permajet) may be *better* than the Epson inks. It's only the cheap
ones that are worse.

And as for papers, there are a lot of better, and more archival,
papers around than those Epson produces.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:31:03 GMT, "Safetymom123"
<safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:

>I would suggest visiting www.wilhelm-research.com You will find lots of
>good archival information. The Epson papers and pigment inks seem to last a
>very long time. Longer than some traditional prints.
>
And I'd suggest you visit http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
where you'll get more *accurate* information.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:D into01al5hf9ljr6bk0957co3qshj81o0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:31:03 GMT, "Safetymom123"
> <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>I would suggest visiting www.wilhelm-research.com You will find lots of
>>good archival information. The Epson papers and pigment inks seem to last a
>>very long time. Longer than some traditional prints.
>>
> And I'd suggest you visit http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
> where you'll get more *accurate* information.

Henry Wilhelm is a noted researcher in the area of print permanence, having
been doing research in this area for decades. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html. What data do you have to back
up your claims?

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 11:34:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:3cnto0hesscd0stndsl3dnn2jsntc6hfuj@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
>>best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut corners
>>by buying third party ink or paper.
>
> On the contrary, good quality third part inks (the ones I use are
> Permajet) may be *better* than the Epson inks. It's only the cheap
> ones that are worse.

Hear, hear. There are third-party inks that are marketed to the
professional market; their raison d'etre is to be at least as good as the
manufacturer's ink overall, and better in some specific attribute.

There are other third-party inks whose only purpose is to be cheap.

> And as for papers, there are a lot of better, and more archival,
> papers around than those Epson produces.

Could be; I don't know.

> veni, vidi, reliqui

"I came, I saw, I abandoned something?"

Do you mean "veni, vidi, abivi"?

:) 
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 2:39:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Epson 2200/2100 is an A3 printer using Ultrachrome inks which are
pigmented and fade and waterproof (they are tested for at least 80
years). There rae a number of Epson papers that are waterproof, and
with the pigmented inks, will last for many decades.

In this sized printer, most of the other companies are using dye inks
with poorer stability. Epson printers (all inkjet type) can usually
also use 3rd party inks, including a number of archival pigmented types,
so even if you were to buy something like an 1280, which is a less
costly model, it can be fitted with pigmented inks. There are also CIS
(continuous inking systems) available for these printers.

Epson is going to be releasing an 8 color A3 printer with Durabrite
pigmented inks shortly (I believe it is now out in Japan) based upon the
same system used in the R800 which is an A4 model.

Art


Susan B wrote:

> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 2:47:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You make a good many assumptions, all the way across your response, John.

Who knows what materials were used by this commercial printing company.
What inks, what paper? And if it is some other printing method, other
than inkjet, the odds are even less sure.

Secondly, you suggest dye sub. In fact, most dye sub prints are known
to be much more fugitive than pigmented inks. Your ALPS images may be
an exception, but being that the ALPS are no longer made, and I believe
they were slower than the 2200, I wouldn't consider it in the running
(you forgot to mention that only one type of paper could be used in it
for the dye sub output).

Lastly, I am sure Epson would be very interested in knowing of rapidly
fading 2200 prints that were done using OEM inks.

Pretty much all aging tests are done with accelerated aging models,
since most of us can't wait 100 years to find out the results. ;-)

Art


John Doe wrote:

> No one knows how well prints from say the Epson 2200 will last. All of the
> fade tests done have been faked (accelerated) which in my opinion means
> nothing. Also, if you look at the foot notes for such tests most clearly
> state that the life is based on almost museum storage standards, means you
> would have to hang them in a climate controlled room, etc. etc. Again
> meaning less.
>
> I think you took the best route for what you want to do. To be honest if I
> was interested in purchasing one of your images and I found out that you
> printed them on any thing other than a commercial printer I would not buy
> it.
>
> If you want something that is going to give you good life that you can print
> yourself then look in a dye sub printer. I have about thirty prints from an
> old Alps hanging on my wall that gets bright sun most of the day and they
> are still perfect with no fading what so ever. However, every print I have
> that was done on an inkjet has either turned color or has faded often both
> and that includes a couple from the Epson 2200. Also, the Epson 2200 is the
> slowest printer I have ever seen.
>
> Just my 4 cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation.)
>
> John
>
>
> "Susan B" <susanb@susanb.org> wrote in message
> news:D 7vjd.323$3U4.33815@news02.tsnz.net...
>
>>I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
>>15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
>>company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
>>the
>>paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
>>lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home
>>market,
>>and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a
>>really
>>important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>>
>>However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
>>printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
>>papers
>>that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
>>photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
>>relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
>>paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>>
>>Thanks very much for your advice.
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 2:47:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message news:<o1Jjd.132698$9b.80260@edtnps84>...

> Secondly, you suggest dye sub. In fact, most dye sub prints are known
> to be much more fugitive than pigmented inks. Your ALPS images may be
> an exception, but being that the ALPS are no longer made, and I believe
> they were slower than the 2200, I wouldn't consider it in the running
> (you forgot to mention that only one type of paper could be used in it
> for the dye sub output).

Well, actually there were two. You also could use Tektronix dyesub paper
but that usually wasn't economical. :-)

Note that the ALPS dye-sub really was a pigment-sub. An ALPS employee
talked (in chemist lingo) what materials its "ink" was made from quite
some time ago. Point of all that was that it used pigments rather than
dyes (which probably also is why it's gamut wasn't the biggest one might
have seen).

Mike

P.S. - No the ALPS printer wasn't fast, but from times I hear on the 2200,
it may have been faster that that. :-) It actually printed quite
quickly, only problem is that it'd have to do it four times as it
did each "ink" only one at a time.
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 3:16:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hecate wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
>> best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut
>> corners
>> by buying third party ink or paper.
>
> On the contrary, good quality third part inks (the ones I use are
> Permajet) may be *better* than the Epson inks. It's only the cheap
> ones that are worse.

Not only the cheap ones, some of the expensive ones are also no good, or
not as good. I might add that I would not be surprised if some of the cheap
ones were as good, but without standards and knowledge, the only way for
most people to be sure is to stick with those that have been tested and that
are unlikely to have changed formula and that pretty much limits it to the
original inks.

>
> And as for papers, there are a lot of better, and more archival,
> papers around than those Epson produces.

But it is not just the paper quality, but rather it is the combined
quality. The paper and the ink do not stand alone, but rather work together
and interact.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 3:17:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> The Epson 2200/2100 is an A3 printer using Ultrachrome inks which are
> pigmented and fade and waterproof (they are tested for at least 80
> years).

Did they really start testing back in the 1920's? :) 

> There rae a number of Epson papers that are waterproof, and
> with the pigmented inks, will last for many decades.
>
> In this sized printer, most of the other companies are using dye inks
> with poorer stability. Epson printers (all inkjet type) can usually
> also use 3rd party inks, including a number of archival pigmented types,
> so even if you were to buy something like an 1280, which is a less
> costly model, it can be fitted with pigmented inks. There are also CIS
> (continuous inking systems) available for these printers.
>
> Epson is going to be releasing an 8 color A3 printer with Durabrite
> pigmented inks shortly (I believe it is now out in Japan) based upon the
> same system used in the R800 which is an A4 model.
>
> Art
>
>
> Susan B wrote:
>
>> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of
>> about
>> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
>> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
>> the paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far
>> better lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the
>> home market, and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading.
>> This is a really important issue when you are selling photographs to the
>> public. However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a
>> home A3
>> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
>> papers
>> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
>> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
>> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the
>> photographic
>> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>>
>> Thanks very much for your advice.
>>
>> Susan

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 5:58:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SUwjd.4043$_3.46666@typhoon.sonic.net...

> If you want something that is going to give you good life that you can
print
> yourself then look in a dye sub printer. I have about thirty prints from
an
> old Alps hanging on my wall that gets bright sun most of the day and they
> are still perfect with no fading what so ever. However, every print I have
> that was done on an inkjet has either turned color or has faded often both
> and that includes a couple from the Epson 2200. Also, the Epson 2200 is
the
> slowest printer I have ever seen.

If you have a noticeable deterioration in print quality ALREADY from a print
done by an Epson 2200 printer, then have you sent this photo to Epson? Could
it be that there is a fault in your particular printer? I think that Epson
should be given a chance to comment before everyone concludes that this
could happen with UltraChrome pigment inks. This surely would be the
exception rather than the rule after such a short time?

Susan
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 5:58:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I totally agree. This type of fading should not be occurring with the
Ultrachrome inks, regardless of the paper used.

I have made Epson prints using their older dye formulations of an older
Tektronix paper, and although they are not in direct sunlight, some are
a good 8 years old now and show minimal fading, even when not under
glass. Under glass they haven't changes enough to even notice. This
particular paper seems to have very good permanence, but it isn't made
anymore.

Art

Susan B wrote:

> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:SUwjd.4043$_3.46666@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>
>>If you want something that is going to give you good life that you can
>
> print
>
>>yourself then look in a dye sub printer. I have about thirty prints from
>
> an
>
>>old Alps hanging on my wall that gets bright sun most of the day and they
>>are still perfect with no fading what so ever. However, every print I have
>>that was done on an inkjet has either turned color or has faded often both
>>and that includes a couple from the Epson 2200. Also, the Epson 2200 is
>
> the
>
>>slowest printer I have ever seen.
>
>
> If you have a noticeable deterioration in print quality ALREADY from a print
> done by an Epson 2200 printer, then have you sent this photo to Epson? Could
> it be that there is a fault in your particular printer? I think that Epson
> should be given a chance to comment before everyone concludes that this
> could happen with UltraChrome pigment inks. This surely would be the
> exception rather than the rule after such a short time?
>
> Susan
>
>
November 8, 2004 8:37:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Susan B" <susanb@susanb.org> wrote in message
news:D 7vjd.323$3U4.33815@news02.tsnz.net...
> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home
market,

Have you considered having photo prints made from silver halide paper, from
online labs such as OFOTO.COM? They are "real" prints, done up on
doubleweight RC paper. No archival surprises--they last as long as regular
prints, because they ARE real photo prints.

I use them exclusively, and I do not even own an inkjet printer, because of
concerns over fading. And the cost of "real" prints is less than the cost
of those "do-it-yourself" inkjet prints.
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 8:37:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?

Any inkjets that'll match a true photographic print for
waterproofness? Nope, but the closest you'll come for longevity out of
the box may be the Epson wide-body printers with the encapsulated inks.

Other than that, the technologies are different enough (and unproven
since they haven't existed over 15 years) that you won't know until
you've printed and hanged them for years.

Home inkjets certainly won't last more than a few years, so don't bother
with these to start.

www.inkjetmall.com has 3rd archival inks and papers to consider.

Also, FujiFilm Pictrography printers, albeit expensive, do produce photo
prints that will have similar characteristics as regular photo prints,
so that may be the way to go commerically (either get one cheap off
ebay.com or find a local lab where you can send your print jobs).

Longevity of home inkjet printers - forget it!

http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/

http://wilhelm-research.com/ (but with a grain of salt since they
changed all of their testing methods after the orange fading crisis)

Realistically, these tests occur in 'ideal' environments and
conditions, and in real life, I would not bet my life or business on any
inkjet print to last more than 10 years (nor provide a warranty longer
than that either). Although you can keep inkjet prints perfectly fine
in cold-storage w/o light (ie. in a folder in a cabnet where some of my
original HP Paintjet prints from 10+ years ago still look fine), once
the prints are out under light and environmental display conditions, you
can toss the longevity thing out the door.

(which is why even Epson offered a 100% full price buyback of the
Epson 870 during the orange fading crisis just a few years ago; which is
why every year, every inkjet printer maker from Epson to Canon to HP
toots 'even longer print life' than the printer they released just 1
year before. Everyone knows that unless it's pigmented or solid-dye,
most of these non-pigmented dyes will fade fast over time.)

Naturally, time will lead to new developments which will lengthen
print life from inkjets, but don't bet a business on it yet.

For the time being, dye-sub (solid dye) printers or FujiFilm
Pictrography printers are the two best alternatives for long-life prints
that should last a decent amount of time (again, don't bet a business on
their lifespans since they haven't been out in real-life as long as film
prints, so who knows the actual stability over 100 years?).

Here, Fujifilm Pictrography prints are my #1 pick -- feels, looks,
and acts just like a real photo print, nothing that would make a client
look otherwise at the paper/medium itself, and superb prints that look
just like film prints.

Step down from there, going cheaper, look into printers using
pigmented/encapsulated dyes such as the Epson Stylus Pro 4000, Epson
Stylus Photo 2200, Epson PX-G5000 (just released in Japan, coming soon
to USA), etc.

If you're doing B&W prints, the B&W Piezography system is the way to
go: http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/bw-buy.html
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 8, 2004 10:50:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Michael A. Covington wrote:

> Hear, hear. There are third-party inks that are marketed to the
> professional market; their raison d'etre is to be at least as good as the
> manufacturer's ink overall, and better in some specific attribute.
>
> There are other third-party inks whose only purpose is to be cheap.

How do you find out which is which?

I've heard good things about resolution ink and it's not as cheap as some other
non-OEM inks but price is not always a reliable guide.
--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
November 8, 2004 10:50:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

BenOne© wrote:

>Michael A. Covington wrote:
>
>> Hear, hear. There are third-party inks that are marketed to the
>> professional market; their raison d'etre is to be at least as good as the
>> manufacturer's ink overall, and better in some specific attribute.
>>
>> There are other third-party inks whose only purpose is to be cheap.
>
>How do you find out which is which?

You ask around for opinions.
:) 

>I've heard good things about resolution ink and it's not as cheap as some other
>non-OEM inks but price is not always a reliable guide.

Quite right...I've seen some "universal inks" that were more costly than
most others, but they were lousy.

Good recommendations for quality ink seem to come from vendors that use
Formulabs. I have used and recommend AtlanticInkjet in Canada and the
US. Good service and good ink. There are several others recommended here
as well.
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 9, 2004 4:32:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 00:38:58 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
<look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address&gt; wrote:


>> veni, vidi, reliqui
>
>"I came, I saw, I abandoned something?"
>
>Do you mean "veni, vidi, abivi"?
>
LOL! No, it's from an old Latin comedy and means I came, I saw, I went
away again ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 9, 2004 4:35:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:16:52 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hecate wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
>> <sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
>>> best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut
>>> corners
>>> by buying third party ink or paper.
>>
>> On the contrary, good quality third part inks (the ones I use are
>> Permajet) may be *better* than the Epson inks. It's only the cheap
>> ones that are worse.
>
> Not only the cheap ones, some of the expensive ones are also no good, or
>not as good. I might add that I would not be surprised if some of the cheap
>ones were as good, but without standards and knowledge, the only way for
>most people to be sure is to stick with those that have been tested and that
>are unlikely to have changed formula and that pretty much limits it to the
>original inks.

I disagree. There are plenty of reviews, plus "word of mouth".
Personally, I'd recommend Permajet to anyone in preference to the
Epson inks - as long as you can afford the initial outlay for the CIS
system with the 2200. Their Blax system for B&W is exceptional and
their colour system excellent.
>>
>> And as for papers, there are a lot of better, and more archival,
>> papers around than those Epson produces.
>
> But it is not just the paper quality, but rather it is the combined
>quality. The paper and the ink do not stand alone, but rather work together
>and interact.

Yes, they do. But that's true of any ink/paper combination and doesn't
make OEM paper a requirement or even the best solution.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 9, 2004 4:36:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 20:34:22 -0800, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
wrote:

>
>"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:D into01al5hf9ljr6bk0957co3qshj81o0@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:31:03 GMT, "Safetymom123"
>> <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I would suggest visiting www.wilhelm-research.com You will find lots of
>>>good archival information. The Epson papers and pigment inks seem to last a
>>>very long time. Longer than some traditional prints.
>>>
>> And I'd suggest you visit http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
>> where you'll get more *accurate* information.
>
>Henry Wilhelm is a noted researcher in the area of print permanence, having
>been doing research in this area for decades. See
>http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html. What data do you have to back
>up your claims?
>
Read the information on the site and you'll see. The problem with
Wilhelm is the light source amongst other things.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 9, 2004 4:37:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:37:00 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com>
wrote:

>
>"Susan B" <susanb@susanb.org> wrote in message
>news:D 7vjd.323$3U4.33815@news02.tsnz.net...
>> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
>> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
>> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
>the
>> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
>> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home
>market,
>
>Have you considered having photo prints made from silver halide paper, from
>online labs such as OFOTO.COM? They are "real" prints, done up on
>doubleweight RC paper. No archival surprises--they last as long as regular
>prints, because they ARE real photo prints.

And real photo prints have the same problems of fading.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 9, 2004 6:05:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <10ottqfa238l5c4@corp.supernews.com>, bobh@proaxis.com (Bob
Headrick) wrote:

> > And I'd suggest you visit http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
> > where you'll get more *accurate* information.
>
> Henry Wilhelm is a noted researcher in the area of print permanence,
> having been doing research in this area for decades. See
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html. What data do you have
> to back up your claims?

I agree with Hecate. I have far more confidence in the testing method used
by Stephen Livick than in that used by Wilhelm, no matter how long he's
been doing his research or how 'noted' he is.

As a bonus, Stephen Livick has also done tests on coatings which increase
print life. His site is a must for anyone concerned with inkjet print
longevity.

Jon.
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 9, 2004 2:03:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Meehan wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>>The Epson 2200/2100 is an A3 printer using Ultrachrome inks which are
>>pigmented and fade and waterproof (they are tested for at least 80
>>years).
>
>
> Did they really start testing back in the 1920's? :) 
>


Give or take a year or two ;-)

Obviously, all inkjet inks are tested with accelerated aging testing.
It's hardly a perfect science. It's a bit like saying if a piece of
paper bursts into flames and becomes ashes in 2 minutes at 452 degrees
F, that it will do the same thing in 40 years if it is kept at 70
degrees F. The variables aren't equal. Subjecting an ink and paper
combination to very high intensity lighting and equating that to years
of low intensity lighting may not really tell us what we need to know.
However, as a study of comparative qualities of different ink/paper
combinations, it may give us some valuable information.

However, there are issues like oxidation, other radiation, volatiles and
gases, humidity, air movement, and combinations of factors which are
very difficult to measure for.

There are a few knowns. Pigments, in general, tend to be less fugitive
because they are often compounds which have a known history and are
physically larger than dye molecules. Certain mordants in paper
coatings tend to lock dye molecules into the paper surface better than
others. Protection from UV radiation tends to reduce energizing of dye
molecules or pigments which otherwise causes them to fly off the paper
more easily, so glass or UV screening helps. Brighter light sources
accelerate fading. Keeping any type of colored image out of direct
sunlight, and away from ozone tends to lessen fading. Even pigments
will fade over time if exposed to direct unfiltered sunlight.

Mid-day sun is considerably brighter than the light used in most
accelerated fade testing, and also considerably brighter than most
indoor settings. Fluorescent bulbs give off a fair amount of UV.
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 9, 2004 2:34:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, I believe the ALPS printing process was really more of a thermal
transfer process than anything (either wax or pigment). Dye-sub is
short for dye sublimation.

Sublimation is the process of something going from a solid to a gaseous
state without having a liquid state. (Dry ice to CO2 is an example).
True dye sub printing involves the heating of a dye coated mylar sheet
with different levels of heat (usually 128 or 256). The dye is
sublimated into a gas, and that gaseous form reformulates into a solid
on a receptor sheet that is in near contact with the dye sheet.

The process also involves using 3 or 4 different sheets (CMY or CMYK)
and sometimes an additional UV filtering layer to protect the print from
rapid fading. Keep in mind the whole process is using dyes which
sublimate with heat, and they tend to be a bit fugitive.

Dye sub is a costly process overall, because usually, regardless of the
size print you make or how much of the print has color on it, the whole
set of dye sheets is used (each set are one time use only). Also, you
must use the paper designed to receive the dye, and they aren't cheap
either.

In general, inkjet will be more economical and offer more options, and
with pigmented inks, probably provides pretty good permanence, as well.

Art

Anoni Moose wrote:

> Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message news:<o1Jjd.132698$9b.80260@edtnps84>...
>
>
>>Secondly, you suggest dye sub. In fact, most dye sub prints are known
>>to be much more fugitive than pigmented inks. Your ALPS images may be
>>an exception, but being that the ALPS are no longer made, and I believe
>>they were slower than the 2200, I wouldn't consider it in the running
>>(you forgot to mention that only one type of paper could be used in it
>>for the dye sub output).
>
>
> Well, actually there were two. You also could use Tektronix dyesub paper
> but that usually wasn't economical. :-)
>
> Note that the ALPS dye-sub really was a pigment-sub. An ALPS employee
> talked (in chemist lingo) what materials its "ink" was made from quite
> some time ago. Point of all that was that it used pigments rather than
> dyes (which probably also is why it's gamut wasn't the biggest one might
> have seen).
>
> Mike
>
> P.S. - No the ALPS printer wasn't fast, but from times I hear on the 2200,
> it may have been faster that that. :-) It actually printed quite
> quickly, only problem is that it'd have to do it four times as it
> did each "ink" only one at a time.
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 9, 2004 2:34:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message news:<MW1kd.78423$E93.33535@clgrps12>...
> Yes, I believe the ALPS printing process was really more of a thermal
> transfer process than anything (either wax or pigment). Dye-sub is
> short for dye sublimation.

Could be, not sure about that name. The process the ALPS printer
uses follows your description below other than not being dye-based.
I'm not sure one can sublimate pigments, but that seems to be what
was claimed by the ALPS employee.

> Sublimation is the process of something going from a solid to a gaseous
> state without having a liquid state. (Dry ice to CO2 is an example).
> True dye sub printing involves the heating of a dye coated mylar sheet
> with different levels of heat (usually 128 or 256). The dye is
> sublimated into a gas, and that gaseous form reformulates into a solid
> on a receptor sheet that is in near contact with the dye sheet.

The ALPS "head" used a semiconductor "bar" (presumably a trannie array,
but I don't know the details) for the high placement accuracy of it's
thermal "spots" and for control of their heat levels.

> The process also involves using 3 or 4 different sheets (CMY or CMYK)
> and sometimes an additional UV filtering layer to protect the print from
> rapid fading. Keep in mind the whole process is using dyes which
> sublimate with heat, and they tend to be a bit fugitive.

In "dye-sub" mode, it used CMY plus glossy overcoat. A friend of mine
who designs printers at Xerox (former Tek division) noted how good the blacks
were for a CMY printer. I used to be a design engineer at Tek for about
fifteen years (but not in the Printer divsion) so I know a good many people
there who work on Phaser printers (now Xerox).

> Dye sub is a costly process overall, because usually, regardless of the
> size print you make or how much of the print has color on it, the whole
> set of dye sheets is used (each set are one time use only). Also, you

In truth, this isn't totally unlike an inkjet in that you only use
its dyes (in the ink) one time as well. There is more waste in the
dyesub methods, and some printers were really horrible in their
waste of "ink". ALPS' methods were actually pretty good. As I've
mentioned before, it's runtime costs were similar to inkjets at the
time I bought it (compared to an inkjet using top OEM photo paper).
It's capital costs were two or three hundred dollars higher. Even
if the efficiency of "ink-use" by ALPS may have been a lower than
an inkjet, there are sufficent margins in the selling of the cartridges
so that the user's cost can be equivalent even if ALPS' margin ended up
less extremely high as compared to others. I don't think they were
running in "Gilette" mode, which I think was one of their downfalls in
the printer market.

> must use the paper designed to receive the dye, and they aren't cheap
> either.
>
> In general, inkjet will be more economical and offer more options, and
> with pigmented inks, probably provides pretty good permanence, as well.

This certainly is true now that inkjets have improved dramatically.
Back when my ALPS printer was new, it blew away inkjets in terms of
print quality. Wasn't even close. Now, my Canon i9900 prints
better than the ALPS printer.

Mike
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 9, 2004 11:58:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:cmp70p$fdp$1@news.service.uci.edu...

> Also, FujiFilm Pictrography printers, albeit expensive, do produce photo
> prints that will have similar characteristics as regular photo prints,
> so that may be the way to go commerically (either get one cheap off
> ebay.com or find a local lab where you can send your print jobs).
>
> Longevity of home inkjet printers - forget it!
>
> http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/

I looked at this page and it says that if the Epson 2200 printer works as
well as early reports indicate, it may be the current best solution for
someone who needs a moderately priced photo printer capable of high quality
AND long life output.

> For the time being, dye-sub (solid dye) printers or FujiFilm
> Pictrography printers are the two best alternatives for long-life prints
> that should last a decent amount of time (again, don't bet a business on
> their lifespans since they haven't been out in real-life as long as film
> prints, so who knows the actual stability over 100 years?).
>
> Here, Fujifilm Pictrography prints are my #1 pick -- feels, looks,
> and acts just like a real photo print, nothing that would make a client
> look otherwise at the paper/medium itself, and superb prints that look
> just like film prints.
>
> Step down from there, going cheaper, look into printers using
> pigmented/encapsulated dyes such as the Epson Stylus Pro 4000, Epson
> Stylus Photo 2200, Epson PX-G5000 (just released in Japan, coming soon
> to USA), etc.

Although several posters have referred to Fujifilm Pictrography prints, I
haven't seen any information that says these may have better archival
properties than Epson's Ultrachrome pigment based archival inks. Does anyone
have such information? In the Steves Digicams review of the Epson Stylus
Photo 2200 it says that this is the ideal printer for those wanting the same
longevity in their digital prints as conventional film prints.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/epson_2200....

Do you think that the quality of the printed image of a pictrography print
is noticeably better than that from the Epson UltraChrome pigment inks?

On Epson's web site about the Epson Stylus Photo 2200, it claims that Epson
Premium Glossy Photo Paper is light resistant up to 85 years. Even if this
was overstated by 15 years, I think that most buyers of a photograph would
be very happy with a claimed life of 70 years. The archival quality of photo
paper is a very important issue, so I wouldn't think that a major company
such as Epson would grossly exaggerate such a claim? The photos I sell are
professionally framed under glass, so this would be in line with the
expectations of Epson when making their longevity estimates. I think most
purchasers realise that photographs should be kept out of direct sunlight,
but perhaps I could include a notice to this effect with the prints I sell.

I am impressed with the postings of Bill Hilton and his reference to the
Boston Museum of Fine Arts, which settled on the Epsons for their fine art
replications. In addition, I found a review by Michael Reichmann which says
that inkjet printing has now reached a level of maturity that requires no
excuses or apologies. When referring to the Stylus Photo 2200 and
ultrachrome inks, he says that quality archival inkjet printing has truly
arrived!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epso...

After reading the replies to my questions, I think the main problem with
selling inkjet prints, rather than commercial lab prints, is the perhaps
outdated perceptions of the public that inkjet prints are not in the least
waterproof or fadeproof. It would be mainly for this reason that I would
continue to use the photo lab to do my prints. However, there is a huge
convenience factor in doing your own prints, such as being able to reprint
the photo without losing a lot of time if it is not quite what you wanted.
You can also print non-standard shapes and sizes, something that some labs
will not do without a big increase in their normal costs for the standard
photo sizes. Thanks very much to all who have posted replies to my
questions, I have learned a great deal, I think I am almost confident enough
to sell Epson ultrachrome pics!

Regards, Susan
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 10, 2004 12:16:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:4WIjd.132561$9b.105679@edtnps84...
> The Epson 2200/2100 is an A3 printer using Ultrachrome inks which are
> pigmented and fade and waterproof (they are tested for at least 80
> years). There rae a number of Epson papers that are waterproof, and
> with the pigmented inks, will last for many decades.
>
> In this sized printer, most of the other companies are using dye inks
> with poorer stability. Epson printers (all inkjet type) can usually
> also use 3rd party inks, including a number of archival pigmented types,
> so even if you were to buy something like an 1280, which is a less
> costly model, it can be fitted with pigmented inks. There are also CIS
> (continuous inking systems) available for these printers.
>
> Epson is going to be releasing an 8 color A3 printer with Durabrite
> pigmented inks shortly (I believe it is now out in Japan) based upon the
> same system used in the R800 which is an A4 model.
>
> Art

Thanks Art for this information, it is very interesting. Can anyone tell me
what the main differences are between Durabrite pigmented inks, and the
current UltraChrome inks? Do you think it would be worth waiting for the new
A3 Durabrite printer, rather than purchasing the Epson 2200/2100 printer?
Would the Durabrite pigmented inks have better archival / lightfast
qualities than the present inks used on the Epson 2200/2100? I wonder if the
picture quality would be as good with the Durabrite pigmented inks as it
would with the ultra chrome inks?

Regards, Susan
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 10, 2004 12:16:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Susan,

I believe I have mis"spoke" somewhat, as the new R800 wide-carriage
product, like the R800 will be using the Ultrachrome inks, not the
Durabrite inks.

The Ultrachrome inks, as I recall, use a finer pigment particle and they
also changed the ink formulas using different yellows. The problem with
the Durabrite inks were that they suffered from metamorism (where the
color relationships changes under different light sources). To provide
more accurate color and reduced metamorism, Epson developed a new yellow
ink, which, it would appear, is less stable. The original Durabrite ink
set was rated at an anticipated 200 years, while the Ultrachromes are
about 80. The Ultrachrome inks are supposed to be brighter and provide
a broader gamut by not penetrating as deeply into the paper surface, but
this led to a slight surface texture on glossy papers.

The R800 ink set has two main features. One, they added a blue ink, so
it has 8 colors, CcMmYBKk. Secondly, they also added a gloss optimizer.
Due to the nature of pigments, they tend to dull the surface of glossy
papers. The gloss optimizer coats the inks after they are set down to
improve their surface reflective characteristics. The Durabrite inks
have some similar issues, although less so. I imagine all of these
cartridges add to the print costs.

Personally, I don't like mirror gloss prints these days. Although I
used to product Ciba/Ilfo/Chromes I have moved toward more tactile
papers, and I even prefer photo prints with a nice velvety surface.
But, you have a look you are going for and know your market.

The reports I have seen on the R800 prints are pretty gushing. The extra
blue ink helps to tame some of the inherent problems in CMYK printing
with controlling blue/purple color balance, which has always been a bit
tricky on Epson printers.

I would suggest you contact Epson and ask them to send you some sample
prints from both the 2200 and R800. If possible, ask them for similar
subject matter to your own, and on the type of paper surface you plan to
use. They will give you some idea of the differences between the two
printers.

The 2200 has an interchangeable black ink. One is designed for glossy
applications and the other for other paper types (it has more density,
but it is fairly matte).

Art

Susan B wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:4WIjd.132561$9b.105679@edtnps84...
>
>>The Epson 2200/2100 is an A3 printer using Ultrachrome inks which are
>>pigmented and fade and waterproof (they are tested for at least 80
>>years). There rae a number of Epson papers that are waterproof, and
>>with the pigmented inks, will last for many decades.
>>
>>In this sized printer, most of the other companies are using dye inks
>>with poorer stability. Epson printers (all inkjet type) can usually
>>also use 3rd party inks, including a number of archival pigmented types,
>>so even if you were to buy something like an 1280, which is a less
>>costly model, it can be fitted with pigmented inks. There are also CIS
>>(continuous inking systems) available for these printers.
>>
>>Epson is going to be releasing an 8 color A3 printer with Durabrite
>>pigmented inks shortly (I believe it is now out in Japan) based upon the
>>same system used in the R800 which is an A4 model.
>>
>>Art
>
>
> Thanks Art for this information, it is very interesting. Can anyone tell me
> what the main differences are between Durabrite pigmented inks, and the
> current UltraChrome inks? Do you think it would be worth waiting for the new
> A3 Durabrite printer, rather than purchasing the Epson 2200/2100 printer?
> Would the Durabrite pigmented inks have better archival / lightfast
> qualities than the present inks used on the Epson 2200/2100? I wonder if the
> picture quality would be as good with the Durabrite pigmented inks as it
> would with the ultra chrome inks?
>
> Regards, Susan
>
>
November 10, 2004 12:16:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Hi Susan,
>
> I believe I have mis"spoke" somewhat, as the new R800 wide-carriage
> product, like the R800 will be using the Ultrachrome inks, not the
> Durabrite inks.
>
> The Ultrachrome inks, as I recall, use a finer pigment particle and they
> also changed the ink formulas using different yellows. The problem with
> the Durabrite inks were that they suffered from metamorism (where the
> color relationships changes under different light sources). To provide
> more accurate color and reduced metamorism, Epson developed a new yellow
> ink, which, it would appear, is less stable. The original Durabrite ink
> set was rated at an anticipated 200 years, while the Ultrachromes are
> about 80. The Ultrachrome inks are supposed to be brighter and provide
> a broader gamut by not penetrating as deeply into the paper surface, but
> this led to a slight surface texture on glossy papers.
>
> The R800 ink set has two main features. One, they added a blue ink, so
> it has 8 colors, CcMmYBKk. Secondly, they also added a gloss optimizer.
> Due to the nature of pigments, they tend to dull the surface of glossy
> papers. The gloss optimizer coats the inks after they are set down to
> improve their surface reflective characteristics. The Durabrite inks
> have some similar issues, although less so. I imagine all of these
> cartridges add to the print costs.
>
> Personally, I don't like mirror gloss prints these days. Although I
> used to product Ciba/Ilfo/Chromes I have moved toward more tactile
> papers, and I even prefer photo prints with a nice velvety surface.
> But, you have a look you are going for and know your market.
>
> The reports I have seen on the R800 prints are pretty gushing. The extra
> blue ink helps to tame some of the inherent problems in CMYK printing
> with controlling blue/purple color balance, which has always been a bit
> tricky on Epson printers.
>
> I would suggest you contact Epson and ask them to send you some sample
> prints from both the 2200 and R800. If possible, ask them for similar
> subject matter to your own, and on the type of paper surface you plan to
> use. They will give you some idea of the differences between the two
> printers.
>
> The 2200 has an interchangeable black ink. One is designed for glossy
> applications and the other for other paper types (it has more density,
> but it is fairly matte).
>
> Art
>

You need to check your facts out better. I'm not talking about your
facts on longevity; although they certainly need checking too.

The Epson R800 adds a red ink as well as the blue ink. The extra black
isn't a light black or even used at the same time as the other black.
One black is "Matte Black" for plain paper and matte papers. The other
is "Gloss Black" for glossy papers. It seems to be used on semi-gloss too.

The "Gloss Optimizer" only kicks in on glossy papers. It is an option in
the driver to turn off on glossy papers. You can't turn it on for matte
papers though. BTW, this really doesn't add to the glossiness of the
print. What it does is make the glossiness even. If you print without it
you will see that the different amounts of ink makes an uneven
glossiness in the right light. "Gloss Optimizer" makes it all the same.

BTW, the R800 is NOT wide-carriage either. It will only print 8.5" wide
paper.

OK, on your longevity facts... Do you have any better science for
testing the longevity of prints? If so, kindly share it. Don't tell me
that I have to wait 30-100 years either. That isn't practical. None of
the paper formulations will last for years, let alone decades. I need to
know what to print on today.

BTW, do you have any color "C" type prints from the 1970s? Have any of
those faded? If you do, they have. Heck I have lots of faded Ektachrome
slides from the 70s too. (Plenty of unfaded Kodachrome from the 40s and
50s though.) Photographic (light sensitive) color products have NOT had
a good history of fade resistance. Ilfochrome has been the best, but
never widely used. The odds are that my R800 prints will last way longer
than those did. I suppose we could all resurrect true Dye Transfer
printing and get real longevity, but that died for a reason.

Clyde
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 10, 2004 5:54:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:37:28 -0800, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu>
wrote:

>> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
>> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
>> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
>> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
>> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
>> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Any inkjets that'll match a true photographic print for
>waterproofness? Nope, but the closest you'll come for longevity out of
>the box may be the Epson wide-body printers with the encapsulated inks.

Try putting a dry Epson 2100/2200 print in a bowl of water. You'll
find it doesn't run. Leave it in there for a week, It still won't have
run.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 10, 2004 8:17:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No guarantee that a printer that is in Japan will come to the US market
either. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a replacement for the 2200.
Anonymous
a b α HP
November 11, 2004 7:11:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Even using some Epson standard dye inks, with the right Epson papers
will make a waterproof image.

The photo quality matte, and the heavy weight matte fall into that category.

This has nothing to do with fading... those papers will fade with dye
inks over time.

Art

Hecate wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:37:28 -0800, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
>>>printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
>>>that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
>>>photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
>>>relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
>>>paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>>
>> Any inkjets that'll match a true photographic print for
>>waterproofness? Nope, but the closest you'll come for longevity out of
>>the box may be the Epson wide-body printers with the encapsulated inks.
>
>
> Try putting a dry Epson 2100/2200 print in a bowl of water. You'll
> find it doesn't run. Leave it in there for a week, It still won't have
> run.
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> veni, vidi, reliqui
!