IP4000-longevity of photos???

[Guest]

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

We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.

We like it.

I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?

Mel

 

[Guest]

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

Let me add to this: I am printing on Kodak Premium Picture Paper (high
gloss) and I intend to keep the photos in an album.

Mel
"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:UhDBd.47304$ro3.38023@fe06.lga...
> We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>
> We like it.
>
> I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>
> Mel
>

 

[Guest]

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

I use Generic Gloosy 4x6 Paper from the New Zealand Equivulent Of Tandy
Store.."Dick Smith Electronics" and they cost about $15NZ For 50 Sheets..
They claim a life of Fifty Years Plus!!
"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:hvDBd.47312$GM3.4750@fe06.lga...
> Let me add to this: I am printing on Kodak Premium Picture Paper (high
> gloss) and I intend to keep the photos in an album.
>
> Mel
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:UhDBd.47304$ro3.38023@fe06.lga...
> > We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
> >
> > We like it.
> >
> > I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
> >
> > Mel
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

>>
>> I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>>
>>

This may help although it does not mention your printer it does give an idea
of lasting quality of various types of printers.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html

Steve

 

[Guest]

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

The ink is more of an issue than the paper though. Any decent quality paper
will probably last 50 years. I intend to print at least some of my photos
commercially, as I have experienced the sad effect of faded prints - most
of my childhood was recorded on Polaroid film in the 70's - most of it now
faded into shadowy haze.

I don't believe that the Canon, though I think it's a great printer, has
inks suitable for long term archiving. Your best option in that case is
still commercial print laboratories. There may be some more expensive photo
printers around that offer more stable ink technology, I'm guessing at a
much higher price. The Canon, and most standard inkjet printers no matter
how good the photo quality, don't claim to produce permanent photos. I don't
know what actual length of time they will last though.

"fay10" <faye10@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1104617384.896337@ftpsrv1...
>I use Generic Gloosy 4x6 Paper from the New Zealand Equivulent Of Tandy
> Store.."Dick Smith Electronics" and they cost about $15NZ For 50 Sheets..
> They claim a life of Fifty Years Plus!!
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:hvDBd.47312$GM3.4750@fe06.lga...
>> Let me add to this: I am printing on Kodak Premium Picture Paper (high
>> gloss) and I intend to keep the photos in an album.
>>
>> Mel
>> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
>> news:UhDBd.47304$ro3.38023@fe06.lga...
>> > We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>> >
>> > We like it.
>> >
>> > I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to
>> > last?
>> >
>> > Mel
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Caitlin wrote:
> The ink is more of an issue than the paper though. Any decent quality
> paper will probably last 50 years. I intend to print at least some of
> my photos commercially, as I have experienced the sad effect of
> faded prints - most of my childhood was recorded on Polaroid film in
> the 70's - most of it now faded into shadowy haze.
>
> I don't believe that the Canon, though I think it's a great printer,
> has inks suitable for long term archiving. Your best option in that
> case is still commercial print laboratories. There may be some more
> expensive photo printers around that offer more stable ink
> technology, I'm guessing at a much higher price. The Canon, and most
> standard inkjet printers no matter how good the photo quality, don't
> claim to produce permanent photos. I don't know what actual length of
> time they will last though.

Canon claims their Photo paper Pro (PR-101) is supposely to last over 100
years with their original ink.
But, then again, we discussed this in looong thread "Epson beats them
all"....
read it and make your opinion...

 

[Richard]

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

"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:

>We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>
>We like it.
>
>I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>
>Mel
>

While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
great.
The best Wilhelm-Research reference I could find was for the Canon
S900 6 cartridge printer. Using Canons longest lasting paper and
Canon ink, the lifespan was 27 years. Another site,
http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm , lists the following
paper tests:

Printer Model: Canon S9000

Canon OEM Inks

Canon Photo Paper Pro, Rated At 2 Years

Kodak Premium Picture Paper, Rated At 4.5 Years

Epson Colorlife Paper, Rated At 11.5 Years

Epson Heavyweight Matte, Rated At 3.75 Years

Office Depot Premium Glossy, Rated At 4.25 Years

Red River Polar Satin, Rated At 5 Years

Red River Polar Gloss #66, Rated At 8 Years

Red River Ultra Pro Glossy, Rated At 2 Years

Red River Ultra Pro Satin, Rated At 2.75 years

Red River Premium Gloss, Rated At 2.5 Years

Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, Rated At 10.5 Years

Ilford Galerie Classic Gloss, Rated At 12.2 Years

 

[Richard]

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

"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:

>We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>
>We like it.
>
>I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>
>Mel
>
Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. I
inadvertently sent before editing.

While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
great.
The only Wilhelm-Research reference I could find was an old report for
the Canon S900 6 cartridge printer. Using Canons longest lasting
paper and Canon ink, the lifespan was estimated at 27 years. After
the "gas fade" debacle of a few years ago, these tests were redone
with added tests including gas fade. These tests produced much more
modest results with some die based prints fading within a few days to
months. I could not find these on his site.

Another site, http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm , lists the
Canon S9000 with various paper tests below. To be fair, none of the
Dye based printers do as well as pigment based printers for any
manufacturer. Fortunately, Epson has several long lasting printer
choices at different price points for those serious about longevity.

Printer Model: Canon S9000

Canon OEM Inks

Canon Photo Paper Pro, Rated At 2 Years

Kodak Premium Picture Paper, Rated At 4.5 Years

Epson Colorlife Paper, Rated At 11.5 Years

Epson Heavyweight Matte, Rated At 3.75 Years

Office Depot Premium Glossy, Rated At 4.25 Years

Red River Polar Satin, Rated At 5 Years

Red River Polar Gloss #66, Rated At 8 Years

Red River Ultra Pro Glossy, Rated At 2 Years

Red River Ultra Pro Satin, Rated At 2.75 years

Red River Premium Gloss, Rated At 2.5 Years

Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, Rated At 10.5 Years

Ilford Galerie Classic Gloss, Rated At 12.2 Years

 

[Guest]

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

Richard wrote:
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>>
>> We like it.
>>
>> I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to
>> last?
>>
>> Mel
>>
> Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. I
> inadvertently sent before editing.
>
> While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
> great.
> The only Wilhelm-Research reference I could find was an old report for
> the Canon S900 6 cartridge printer. Using Canons longest lasting
> paper and Canon ink, the lifespan was estimated at 27 years. After
> the "gas fade" debacle of a few years ago, these tests were redone
> with added tests including gas fade. These tests produced much more
> modest results with some die based prints fading within a few days to
> months. I could not find these on his site.
>
> Another site, http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm , lists the
> Canon S9000 with various paper tests below. To be fair, none of the
> Dye based printers do as well as pigment based printers for any
> manufacturer. Fortunately, Epson has several long lasting printer
> choices at different price points for those serious about longevity.
>
> Printer Model: Canon S9000
>
> Canon OEM Inks
>
> Canon Photo Paper Pro, Rated At 2 Years
>
> Kodak Premium Picture Paper, Rated At 4.5 Years
>
> Epson Colorlife Paper, Rated At 11.5 Years
>
> Epson Heavyweight Matte, Rated At 3.75 Years
>
> Office Depot Premium Glossy, Rated At 4.25 Years
>
> Red River Polar Satin, Rated At 5 Years
>
> Red River Polar Gloss #66, Rated At 8 Years
>
> Red River Ultra Pro Glossy, Rated At 2 Years
>
> Red River Ultra Pro Satin, Rated At 2.75 years
>
> Red River Premium Gloss, Rated At 2.5 Years
>
> Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, Rated At 10.5 Years
>
> Ilford Galerie Classic Gloss, Rated At 12.2 Years

That's more intense info...
BUT
someone is lying...either livick site or Canon...since livick says 2 years
with photo pro, while Canon says 100 years with same paper and same their
inks.
Now, i do believe that canon lies somewhat (it figures, right?) , but i just
DON'T believe that they lie for 98 years...nope...even if they use different
test methods, results whould be the same, if not, whole test procedure is
just a bi gwaste of time.
BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper pro...bastards!

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:07:26 GMT, Richard <rstaples312@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
>>
>>We like it.
>>
>>I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
>>
>>Mel
>>
>Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. I
>inadvertently sent before editing.
>
>While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
>great.


Yes. I just r4ead a couple of articles from separate sources, which
did ink fade tests over a 3-6 month period. They found the Canon inks
were the least stable.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:


>That's more intense info...
>BUT
>someone is lying...either livick site or Canon...since livick says 2 years
>with photo pro, while Canon says 100 years with same paper and same their
>inks.
>Now, i do believe that canon lies somewhat (it figures, right?) , but i just
>DON'T believe that they lie for 98 years...nope...even if they use different
>test methods, results whould be the same, if not, whole test procedure is
>just a bi gwaste of time.
>BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper pro...bastards!
>
What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
tests in "real world" conditions.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

 

[Matthias]

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

"Stevie Boy" <zen20140@zen.co.uk> writes:

> This may help although it does not mention your printer it does give an idea
> of lasting quality of various types of printers.
>
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html

This paper from the same site does mention the BCI-6 inks from Canon:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/is_t/WIR_ISTpaper_2002_02_HW.pdf
(result: between 6 and 27 years when framed and under glass).

 

[Guest]

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

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:5n8ht0lt0kk4qhoingcigm55l64p9477m5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>>That's more intense info...
>>BUT
>>someone is lying...either livick site or Canon...since livick says 2
>>years
>>with photo pro, while Canon says 100 years with same paper and same their
>>inks.
>>Now, i do believe that canon lies somewhat (it figures, right?) , but i
>>just
>>DON'T believe that they lie for 98 years...nope...even if they use
>>different
>>test methods, results whould be the same, if not, whole test procedure is
>>just a bi gwaste of time.
>>BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
>>pro...bastards!
>>
> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
> tests in "real world" conditions.
>

I'm afraid I'd agree. Not that Canon are lying necessarily - but it all
depends what they were testing for... I don't know enough about pigment
based inks to know how much better these are, but I'd probably still use a
lab printer to print my most precious prints (I say this - but haven't
actually done it yet!) Digital photography and the use of home printers is
a grave risk to personal photographic history I think that may see a lot of
family photos lost in decades to come.

 

[Guest]

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

>Digital photography and the use of home printers is a grave risk to
personal photographic history I think that may see a lot >of family photos
lost in decades to come.
>

Surely the advantage of Digital photography is that you do not need to worry
about the prints as you will always have a *perfect* copy backed up either
on a memory card, hard drive, cd or some other future storage device for
reference which can in future times be printed of once again and likely due
to advancement be actually a better print than the lovingly saved original
you worry about fading.

Today is not the time for Digital photography to take over, this will take
years like any shift in direction for technology until it does I don't see
photo labs disappearing.

Steve

 

[Guest]

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

Hecate wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>> That's more intense info...
>> BUT
>> someone is lying...either livick site or Canon...since livick says
>> 2 years with photo pro, while Canon says 100 years with same paper
>> and same their inks.
>> Now, i do believe that canon lies somewhat (it figures, right?) ,
>> but i just DON'T believe that they lie for 98 years...nope...even if
>> they use different test methods, results whould be the same, if not,
>> whole test procedure is just a bi gwaste of time.
>> BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
>> pro...bastards!
>>
> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
> tests in "real world" conditions.

But this is what i was taoling about...first of all, there is no ideal
condition, since in ideal conditions prints would last forever. All testers
test exposing to UV, light etc.... and all then calculate appr. life in real
world. BUT, as i said, there is NOT important HOW they test, results should
be about the same. If not, then all testers doesn't have a clue and they
just test to fool all of us.
It's like you can get from Texas to Ohio directly, or via Europe (around the
world) . At the end, there is not important where yougo, as long you get
there.
All thise just means the noone can even approximately calculate hoe long
prints will last in real world by using test results.

BTW...as Stevie said...i really wonder why all this fuzz abour lifetime, as
you ALWAYS have a perfect backup copy...and that's why i don't really care
too much about life...

 

[Matthias]

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> writes:
> Hecate wrote:
> > What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
> > tests in "real world" conditions.
>
> But this is what i was taoling about...first of all, there is no ideal
> condition, since in ideal conditions prints would last forever. All testers
> test exposing to UV, light etc.... and all then calculate appr. life in real
> world. BUT, as i said, there is NOT important HOW they test, results should
> be about the same. If not, then all testers doesn't have a clue and they
> just test to fool all of us.

Sorry, but your logic is wrong. The fact that somebody does a test
wrong (under overly optimistic conditions) does not imply that a
realistic test cannot be done.

> It's like you can get from Texas to Ohio directly, or via Europe (around the
> world) . At the end, there is not important where yougo, as long you get
> there.

If you want to measure the distance between Texas and Ohio it very
much depends on if you go directly or via Europe. In one case you'll
get an approximately correct result, in the other case your result
will be wrong. The fact that some stupid person chooses to go via
Europe does not imply that the distance between Texas and Ohio cannot
be measured.

 

[Guest]

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

SleeperMan wrote:
> Caitlin wrote:
>
>>The ink is more of an issue than the paper though. Any decent quality
>>paper will probably last 50 years. I intend to print at least some of
>>my photos commercially, as I have experienced the sad effect of
>>faded prints - most of my childhood was recorded on Polaroid film in
>>the 70's - most of it now faded into shadowy haze.
>>
>>I don't believe that the Canon, though I think it's a great printer,
>>has inks suitable for long term archiving. Your best option in that
>>case is still commercial print laboratories. There may be some more
>>expensive photo printers around that offer more stable ink
>>technology, I'm guessing at a much higher price. The Canon, and most
>>standard inkjet printers no matter how good the photo quality, don't
>>claim to produce permanent photos. I don't know what actual length of
>>time they will last though.
>
>
> Canon claims their Photo paper Pro (PR-101) is supposely to last over 100
> years with their original ink.
> But, then again, we discussed this in looong thread "Epson beats them
> all"....
> read it and make your opinion...
>
>

They told me the only claim 25 years.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

 

[Guest]

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

"Stevie Boy" <zen20140@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:33sn40F43buokU1@individual.net...
>
> >Digital photography and the use of home printers is a grave risk to
> personal photographic history I think that may see a lot >of family photos
> lost in decades to come.
>>
>
> Surely the advantage of Digital photography is that you do not need to
> worry about the prints as you will always have a *perfect* copy backed up
> either on a memory card, hard drive, cd or some other future storage
> device for reference which can in future times be printed of once again
> and likely due to advancement be actually a better print than the lovingly
> saved original you worry about fading.
>

I agree that that is true in theory, but there are a couple of risk factors:

* Changes of technology - will the CD-R format or whatever be readable in 50
years? If you stick some disks in a cupboard for 50 years , I think the
chances of them being hard to access will be much higher than an old
fashioned neg. Think of 5.25" floppies, and the storage formats that
predated that. Of course file formats change too. JPG is fairly universal,
but how many computer file formats in use 15 years ago are still used today?

* Peoples laziness - simply because of the ease of use of Digital cameras, a
lot of people do not have the discipline to carefully file their images on
CD etc.

Don't get me wrong - I love digital photography, and the freedom it affords.
I just fear that the average photographer who is not aware of some of the
risk factors may not have the foresight to store those images safely so they
will definitely be accessible to the next generation.

 

[Guest]

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

Caitlin wrote:
>
> I agree that that is true in theory, but there are a couple of risk factors:
>
> * Changes of technology - will the CD-R format or whatever be readable in 50
> years? If you stick some disks in a cupboard for 50 years , I think the
> chances of them being hard to access will be much higher than an old
> fashioned neg. Think of 5.25" floppies, and the storage formats that
> predated that. Of course file formats change too. JPG is fairly universal,
> but how many computer file formats in use 15 years ago are still used today?
>
> * Peoples laziness - simply because of the ease of use of Digital cameras, a
> lot of people do not have the discipline to carefully file their images on
> CD etc.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I love digital photography, and the freedom it affords.
> I just fear that the average photographer who is not aware of some of the
> risk factors may not have the foresight to store those images safely so they
> will definitely be accessible to the next generation.
>
>
Fear not. The risks for the average unaware digital Joe are probably
less than for his predecessor who stored his negatives next to the furnace.

As to formats, yes, there are some who today have info on floppy disks,
and yes, in 20 years people may not know what CDs are or were. But even
today, for info you really want, you can go get your 78 rpm record disks
converted to mp4s, AIFFs, mp3s and/or WAVs.

--
John McWilliams

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:29:56 +1100, "Caitlin"
<caitlin_online_spamtrap@hotmail.com> wrote:


>> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
>> tests in "real world" conditions.
>>
>
>I'm afraid I'd agree. Not that Canon are lying necessarily - but it all
>depends what they were testing for... I don't know enough about pigment
>based inks to know how much better these are, but I'd probably still use a
>lab printer to print my most precious prints (I say this - but haven't
>actually done it yet!) Digital photography and the use of home printers is
>a grave risk to personal photographic history I think that may see a lot of
>family photos lost in decades to come.
>
Hi Caitlin,

I don't know where you are, but a UK magazine recently did some
"destruction" tests and found that Epson inks in particular, and the
new HP inks almost as good, lasted very well. And these tests were
under non-ideal conditions (in a window that received sunshine for at
least part of the day, half under glass, half not. The results were
very surprising. These same results showed that even the new Lexmark
(yuk!) pigment inks lasted way better than the Canon inks. Canon
print quality was excellent, but longevity was bad to appalling.

For anyone in the UK interested in the article it's in PC Pro Issue
124 Feb 2005.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

 

[Guest]

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

SleeperMan wrote:
> There is WAY bigger risk in having analog negative film stored than digital
> CDR. You can't have 10 negatives (originals - there's only one original. If
> you copy it, copies won't be as good), while you can have 10 CDR's - all
> equal originals.
> Now which system has bigger risk? Note that printing a photo is not meant
> for last ages, but simply to show people your shots. You can always make
> another one from intact original, while you can't make equally good one from
> 50 years old negative.
>
>

That is a vey good point, SleeperMan.
There's is only ONE original negative film.
The chances of been lost or destroyed are more than a lot of
digital copies.

We must not worry about longevity.
You do your bit by creating copies, and transferring to
new media, and just hope that your descendants will do the same.

Mike.

 

[Guest]

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

Mike Tsakiris wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> There is WAY bigger risk in having analog negative film stored than
>> digital CDR. You can't have 10 negatives (originals - there's only one
>> original. If you copy it, copies won't be as good), while you can have
>> 10 CDR's - all equal originals.
>> Now which system has bigger risk? Note that printing a photo is not
>> meant for last ages, but simply to show people your shots. You can
>> always make another one from intact original, while you can't make
>> equally good one from 50 years old negative.
>>
>
> That is a vey good point, SleeperMan.
> There's is only ONE original negative film.
> The chances of been lost or destroyed are more than a lot of
> digital copies.
>
> We must not worry about longevity.
> You do your bit by creating copies, and transferring to
> new media, and just hope that your descendants will do the same.

I wouldn't be surprised that in 50-100 years that much of anything (i.e.
photographs, documents etc.) will survive in the form of hard copies.
Even today how many of the digital photos we take actually make it to
the print stage? I know in our house it might be 5% of them. IMO,
anyone that wants to make sure their data is saved for future
generations needs to look into on-line data storage services and hope
someone in the family cares enough to maintain the stored data when we
are all taking a dirt nap.

I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I take
pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the pictures
saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a digital
copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for future
generations.

 

[Guest]

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

Hecate wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

> >just a bi gwaste of time.
> >BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper
pro...bastards!
> >
> What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
> tests in "real world" conditions.

Canon's century rating is for album use (a real use I think) and that
means 99.999% of the time it's dark (album closed) and probably under
clear plastic stuff (sealed from gas).
This is how Livick came up with 2-years?

Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Mike Tsakiris wrote:
>> SleeperMan wrote:
>>
>>> There is WAY bigger risk in having analog negative film stored than
>>> digital CDR. You can't have 10 negatives (originals - there's only
>>> one original. If you copy it, copies won't be as good), while you
>>> can have 10 CDR's - all equal originals.
>>> Now which system has bigger risk? Note that printing a photo is not
>>> meant for last ages, but simply to show people your shots. You can
>>> always make another one from intact original, while you can't make
>>> equally good one from 50 years old negative.
>>>
>>
>> That is a vey good point, SleeperMan.
>> There's is only ONE original negative film.
>> The chances of been lost or destroyed are more than a lot of
>> digital copies.
>>
>> We must not worry about longevity.
>> You do your bit by creating copies, and transferring to
>> new media, and just hope that your descendants will do the same.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised that in 50-100 years that much of anything
> (i.e. photographs, documents etc.) will survive in the form of hard
> copies. Even today how many of the digital photos we take actually
> make it to the print stage? I know in our house it might be 5% of
> them. IMO, anyone that wants to make sure their data is saved for
> future generations needs to look into on-line data storage services
> and hope someone in the family cares enough to maintain the stored
> data when we are all taking a dirt nap.
>
> I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
> Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
> can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
> get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I
> take pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the
> pictures saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a
> digital copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for
> future generations.

At last a word of wisdom...

 

[Guest]

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

Ben Thomas wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>> Caitlin wrote:
>>
>>> The ink is more of an issue than the paper though. Any decent
>>> quality paper will probably last 50 years. I intend to print at
>>> least some of my photos commercially, as I have experienced the sad
>>> effect of faded prints - most of my childhood was recorded on
>>> Polaroid film in the 70's - most of it now faded into shadowy haze.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that the Canon, though I think it's a great printer,
>>> has inks suitable for long term archiving. Your best option in that
>>> case is still commercial print laboratories. There may be some more
>>> expensive photo printers around that offer more stable ink
>>> technology, I'm guessing at a much higher price. The Canon, and most
>>> standard inkjet printers no matter how good the photo quality, don't
>>> claim to produce permanent photos. I don't know what actual length
>>> of time they will last though.
>>
>>
>> Canon claims their Photo paper Pro (PR-101) is supposely to last
>> over 100 years with their original ink.
>> But, then again, we discussed this in looong thread "Epson beats them
>> all"....
>> read it and make your opinion...
>>
>>
>
> They told me the only claim 25 years.
>
> --

look at this page
http://bj.canon.co.jp/english/photopaper/knowpaper/knowpaper11.html

i quote from it:

Canon's continuing research and development of photo papers has led to
enhancement of the ozone tolerance level. Photo Paper Pro offers "image
permanence of up to 100 years (when stored in an album) or 25 years (when
stored in a photo frame)."