Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The TRUTH about dye prints both Canon & Epson

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
March 21, 2005 12:54:51 PM

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

The truth of the matter appears to be that the dye ink prints from ALL dye
based inkjet printers will fade if they are abused,,, PERIOD.

The problem seems to be that they dont get treated properly after printing.

I have an on-going experiment at my house (average home, 1 smoker, 1 non
smoker, normal appliances generating normal levels of Ozome, Co and Co2, with
forced hot air heat.)

Results after 1 full year:

Prints left laying on a shelf, out of sunlight, top sheet covered with acid
free matting, cupboard kept closed 99% (or more) of the time. No noticable
fading or color shift, on Canon prints from i960, i950, (and 6 months storage
of prints from ip4000). Epson prints under same conditions as above from
Epson 785 EPX, same length of time (1 year except for prints from R200 which
are at 6 months)Gave identical results.

Prints left on an OPEN (no cupboard door) shelf NOT covered with anything but
NOT in sunlight.. Noticable shift toward Magenta in the Canon prints,
Noticable shift toward cyan in Epson prints.

Prints placed in an acid free photo envelope (clasp closure) One envelope
kept in closed cupboard, one kept on open shelf Neither were in sunlight:
No change whatever that I can discern with naked eye in Epson or Canon
prints, when compared side by side with new prints of the same photos.

Photos left in a "Photo Album" with clear plastic overlay on every page:

Some fading on prints with the book that was left out on coffee table in
living room, which alows sunlight to fall on pages about 2 hours a day.
Same for Epson & Canon prints.

Album that was stored in closet and taken out once monthly and paged through
(mimicking family perusal) No easily noticeable fading of either Canon or
Epson prints.

6 photos from Epson 6 photos from Canon and 6 photos from Olympus Dye-sub
printer all properly matted, framed, Under UV glass and hung on Den wall,
recieving 20 to 25 minutes Reflected sunlight per day. No noticeable change
on Epson or Canon prints. HOWEVER, the dye sub prints seem to have some color
shift along the EDGES of the prints. (none of the prints have glass touching
the prints. Matting is cut to fit VERY tight to seal out airflow.

All of my test prints were printed on Illford Premium Glossy and printed
with OEM ink @ 8x10". (except of course the dye-subs which are proprietary
Olympus Paper).

All the "stacked/shelved" prints had seperator sheets of non acid tissue
between them (both the "closed cupboard" and "open shelf" tests.

My "Control" prints were 5x7 and 8x10 prints done on Fuji machines at the
local Wal-Mart and stored/displayed under identical conditions. One of the
framed, matted, uv glass covered prints faded HORRIBLY, for reasons I cant
discern as yet. The rest are still good except the ones on an open shelf..
They ALL faded at the edge nearest the light.

Though this is not a scientific test, it IS a real world test that showed (to
my satisfaction at least) that "Instant Fading" usually is caused by poor
treatment or poor storage methods. I have a dozen or so photos just "stuck-
up" on the walls of my computer/photography room (used to be a darkroom) and
I notice that they start fading after about 3 months, and the ones nearest to
where I sit for hours on end editing and sorting ect turn yellow (the paper)
very shortly after being hung (cigarette smoke will do that) The Ionic ar
cleaner in this room is 4 times larger than the square footage requires, and
gets cleaned every 2 days, but only seems to protect the photos at the far
end of the room from me <G>.

As an aside, I accidently left a black leather briefcase containing 80 8x10s
from both Canon and Epson in my truck for 18 months (I thought it had been
lost), where temperature ranged from over 130 deg F (summer parked in the
sun) to minus 10 deg F (coldest weather this winter). The prints still
looked pristene, though a plastic ruler, and several other plastic items in
the case were warped and distorted by the summer heat.

All of these test prints will remain where they are until March 20, 2006.
Sorry about the time lag, but the only way to do a "Real World" test, is in
"Real World" time.

I almost forgot to mention that each room in my house has an ION type air
cleaner running 24/7/365 (similar too (but not as costly as)the ones
advertized ad nauseum on American TV). I dont know if they have ANY bearing
on the test results.

I did this test because I had told some of my customers that I would replace
their prints if they had any fading problems with properly stored photos, and
I wanted to know what I could expect.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 8:35:25 PM

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

I wonder what results you would get with pigmented inks?

Larry wrote:

>The truth of the matter appears to be that the dye ink prints from ALL dye
>based inkjet printers will fade if they are abused,,, PERIOD.
>
>The problem seems to be that they dont get treated properly after printing.
>
>I have an on-going experiment at my house (average home, 1 smoker, 1 non
>smoker, normal appliances generating normal levels of Ozome, Co and Co2, with
>forced hot air heat.)
>
>Results after 1 full year:
>
>Prints left laying on a shelf, out of sunlight, top sheet covered with acid
>free matting, cupboard kept closed 99% (or more) of the time. No noticable
>fading or color shift, on Canon prints from i960, i950, (and 6 months storage
>of prints from ip4000). Epson prints under same conditions as above from
>Epson 785 EPX, same length of time (1 year except for prints from R200 which
>are at 6 months)Gave identical results.
>
>Prints left on an OPEN (no cupboard door) shelf NOT covered with anything but
>NOT in sunlight.. Noticable shift toward Magenta in the Canon prints,
>Noticable shift toward cyan in Epson prints.
>
>Prints placed in an acid free photo envelope (clasp closure) One envelope
>kept in closed cupboard, one kept on open shelf Neither were in sunlight:
>No change whatever that I can discern with naked eye in Epson or Canon
>prints, when compared side by side with new prints of the same photos.
>
>Photos left in a "Photo Album" with clear plastic overlay on every page:
>
>Some fading on prints with the book that was left out on coffee table in
>living room, which alows sunlight to fall on pages about 2 hours a day.
>Same for Epson & Canon prints.
>
>Album that was stored in closet and taken out once monthly and paged through
>(mimicking family perusal) No easily noticeable fading of either Canon or
>Epson prints.
>
>6 photos from Epson 6 photos from Canon and 6 photos from Olympus Dye-sub
>printer all properly matted, framed, Under UV glass and hung on Den wall,
>recieving 20 to 25 minutes Reflected sunlight per day. No noticeable change
>on Epson or Canon prints. HOWEVER, the dye sub prints seem to have some color
>shift along the EDGES of the prints. (none of the prints have glass touching
>the prints. Matting is cut to fit VERY tight to seal out airflow.
>
>All of my test prints were printed on Illford Premium Glossy and printed
>with OEM ink @ 8x10". (except of course the dye-subs which are proprietary
>Olympus Paper).
>
>All the "stacked/shelved" prints had seperator sheets of non acid tissue
>between them (both the "closed cupboard" and "open shelf" tests.
>
>My "Control" prints were 5x7 and 8x10 prints done on Fuji machines at the
>local Wal-Mart and stored/displayed under identical conditions. One of the
>framed, matted, uv glass covered prints faded HORRIBLY, for reasons I cant
>discern as yet. The rest are still good except the ones on an open shelf..
>They ALL faded at the edge nearest the light.
>
>Though this is not a scientific test, it IS a real world test that showed (to
>my satisfaction at least) that "Instant Fading" usually is caused by poor
>treatment or poor storage methods. I have a dozen or so photos just "stuck-
>up" on the walls of my computer/photography room (used to be a darkroom) and
>I notice that they start fading after about 3 months, and the ones nearest to
>where I sit for hours on end editing and sorting ect turn yellow (the paper)
>very shortly after being hung (cigarette smoke will do that) The Ionic ar
>cleaner in this room is 4 times larger than the square footage requires, and
>gets cleaned every 2 days, but only seems to protect the photos at the far
>end of the room from me <G>.
>
>As an aside, I accidently left a black leather briefcase containing 80 8x10s
>from both Canon and Epson in my truck for 18 months (I thought it had been
>lost), where temperature ranged from over 130 deg F (summer parked in the
>sun) to minus 10 deg F (coldest weather this winter). The prints still
>looked pristene, though a plastic ruler, and several other plastic items in
>the case were warped and distorted by the summer heat.
>
>All of these test prints will remain where they are until March 20, 2006.
>Sorry about the time lag, but the only way to do a "Real World" test, is in
>"Real World" time.
>
>I almost forgot to mention that each room in my house has an ION type air
>cleaner running 24/7/365 (similar too (but not as costly as)the ones
>advertized ad nauseum on American TV). I dont know if they have ANY bearing
>on the test results.
>
>I did this test because I had told some of my customers that I would replace
>their prints if they had any fading problems with properly stored photos, and
>I wanted to know what I could expect.
>
>
>
>
>
>
March 21, 2005 8:35:26 PM

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

In article <xBD%d.20831$Pz7.18327@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com says...
> I wonder what results you would get with pigmented inks?
>

Since most of my customers want glossy prints (cant say why, I preffer a
MATTE print under glass myself) I have not persued it yet.

My whole point was that PROPER CARE is a bigger factor than most people seem
to think.

Regular photo prints from the Photo Shop on the corner would fade nearly as
fast as dye type ink-jet prints if not put away and kept out of the light.

I have several Canon & Epson dye prints that are old enough (5 - 6 years)
that I dont remember which model printer they were done on, but they have
been in an album in a closet (where all un-mounted prints should be) and they
look damn fine to me.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 1:04:36 AM

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

In article <MPG.1ca8e0e5c0e74216989787@news.individual.NET>, Larry
<larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes
>
>My whole point was that PROPER CARE is a bigger factor than most people seem
>to think.
>
That is exactly where Epson fouled up - they actually advertised the
fact that they could be left in the open and handled "normally" without
any proper care.

>Regular photo prints from the Photo Shop on the corner would fade nearly as
>fast as dye type ink-jet prints if not put away and kept out of the light.
>
The tests undertaken by Henry Wilhelm (under much more stringent and
repeatable conditions than yours) prove that this is not the case.
Typical corner store photos, whether on Fuji or Kodak paper, typically
last more than 10x and up to 1000x times longer than Epson or Canon dye
ink glossy prints when left in open air. You might also take a look at
Bob Meyer's page detailing some of the tests he did over 5 years ago
with Epson dye materials - at least one of those tests compared the fade
directly with a a print from a Fuji Frontier "photo store" machine.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
March 22, 2005 1:04:37 AM

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

In article <YiWsn4J0T0PCFwr7@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk
says...
> In article <MPG.1ca8e0e5c0e74216989787@news.individual.NET>, Larry
> <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes
> >
> >My whole point was that PROPER CARE is a bigger factor than most people seem
> >to think.
> >
> That is exactly where Epson fouled up - they actually advertised the
> fact that they could be left in the open and handled "normally" without
> any proper care.
>
> >Regular photo prints from the Photo Shop on the corner would fade nearly as
> >fast as dye type ink-jet prints if not put away and kept out of the light.
> >
> The tests undertaken by Henry Wilhelm (under much more stringent and
> repeatable conditions than yours) prove that this is not the case.
> Typical corner store photos, whether on Fuji or Kodak paper, typically
> last more than 10x and up to 1000x times longer than Epson or Canon dye
> ink glossy prints when left in open air. You might also take a look at
> Bob Meyer's page detailing some of the tests he did over 5 years ago
> with Epson dye materials - at least one of those tests compared the fade
> directly with a a print from a Fuji Frontier "photo store" machine.
>

Having no "Quality" lab in my area except for one I havent tried yet (New
Mystic Color Lab), has been the bane of my existance as far as film is
concerned. The prints form Wal-Mart dont look good, and dont last well.
(they tend to crack, fade and curl rapidly).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 5:08:55 AM

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

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca8aa469edd262d989783@news.individual.NET...
> The truth of the matter appears to be that the dye ink prints from ALL dye
> based inkjet printers will fade if they are abused,,, PERIOD.

snip -

> All of my test prints were printed on Illford Premium Glossy and printed
> with OEM ink @ 8x10". (except of course the dye-subs which are proprietary
> Olympus Paper).

First, and no big deal, but I have no idea what 'Illford Premium Glossy' is. I
am aware of the 'Ilford Galerie' series, which includes a 'Smooth Gloss Paper',
a 'Classic Gloss Paper' and a new 'Smooth Highgloss Media'. Which is 'Illford
Premium Glossy'?

Second, and it is a big deal, your observations would probably be more useful
[and you may be doing yourself a favor] if each print was done on the vendors'
own media. In my experience, it does make a difference. And even within a
vendors line, there are differences. As an example, Epson's 'ColorLife' paper
has a surface that softens to receive the ink and then later hardens to protect
the dyes better than an 'instant dry' paper which leaves open pores through
which atmospheric contaminants can attack the dyes.
March 22, 2005 5:08:56 AM

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

In article <X6L%d.6559$uw6.1996@trnddc06>, samtheman@verizon.net says...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ca8aa469edd262d989783@news.individual.NET...
> > The truth of the matter appears to be that the dye ink prints from ALL dye
> > based inkjet printers will fade if they are abused,,, PERIOD.
>
> snip -
>
> > All of my test prints were printed on Illford Premium Glossy and printed
> > with OEM ink @ 8x10". (except of course the dye-subs which are proprietary
> > Olympus Paper).
>
> First, and no big deal, but I have no idea what 'Illford Premium Glossy' is. I
> am aware of the 'Ilford Galerie' series, which includes a 'Smooth Gloss Paper',
> a 'Classic Gloss Paper' and a new 'Smooth Highgloss Media'. Which is 'Illford
> Premium Glossy'?
>
> Second, and it is a big deal, your observations would probably be more useful
> [and you may be doing yourself a favor] if each print was done on the vendors'
> own media. In my experience, it does make a difference. And even within a
> vendors line, there are differences. As an example, Epson's 'ColorLife' paper
> has a surface that softens to receive the ink and then later hardens to protect
> the dyes better than an 'instant dry' paper which leaves open pores through
> which atmospheric contaminants can attack the dyes.
>
>
>

Using different paper on each printer might make the printer perform more
like the manufacurer promisses, but it wouldn't do me any good. I am testing
to compare print-life on the SAME paper.

Since I buy my paper in lots of a thousand sheets, I would go broke buying
it.

The paper I purchase is obtained at a local warehouse store in a plain brown
carton labeled "Premium Glossy Photo Paper for ink-jet printers"

It has no brand name on the box, but it does contain an INFO sheet containing
guidlines for settings on about 50 different printers, and shows Illford as
being the manufacturer of the paper. Probably close to or equivalent to
Classic Gloss, (thats what it looks like) but since it doesnt say on the box,
I wouldn't like to guess.

Its the paper I use for all my index sheets, give-aways, promotional stuff,
and small 8x10 posters & signs.

Its very close to the paper I use for final delivered prints (but MUCH
cheaper @ $199.00 for 1000 sheets). The cost on my final print paper is MUCH
higher. (Epson Premium Glossy).




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 5:37:11 AM

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

In article <MPG.1ca91a294ff60c4198978e@news.individual.NET>, Larry
<larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes
>In article <YiWsn4J0T0PCFwr7@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk
>says...

>>at least one of those tests compared the fade
>> directly with a a print from a Fuji Frontier "photo store" machine.
>>
>
>Having no "Quality" lab in my area except for one I havent tried yet (New
>Mystic Color Lab), has been the bane of my existance as far as film is
>concerned.

Well I can't say what the local labs in your area are like, but I
wouldn't class a Fuji Frontier machine as a "Quality" lab machine.
Almost all of the cheapest photo labs around here use them. A couple
use Agfa printers, but the image quality is pretty abysmal. You have to
search far and wide to find a Kodak printing machine.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
March 22, 2005 5:37:12 AM

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

In article <ddOdouFXT4PCFwoz@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk
says...
> In article <MPG.1ca91a294ff60c4198978e@news.individual.NET>, Larry
> <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes
> >In article <YiWsn4J0T0PCFwr7@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk
> >says...
>
> >>at least one of those tests compared the fade
> >> directly with a a print from a Fuji Frontier "photo store" machine.
> >>
> >
> >Having no "Quality" lab in my area except for one I havent tried yet (New
> >Mystic Color Lab), has been the bane of my existance as far as film is
> >concerned.
>
> Well I can't say what the local labs in your area are like, but I
> wouldn't class a Fuji Frontier machine as a "Quality" lab machine.
> Almost all of the cheapest photo labs around here use them. A couple
> use Agfa printers, but the image quality is pretty abysmal. You have to
> search far and wide to find a Kodak printing machine.
>

Nothing around here BUT the Fuji Machines.. Unless I want to drive 40 or 50
miles.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 11:17:33 AM

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

Interesting tests, as far as they went (time will tell more.)

I do agree that most, if not all, OEM dye ink printers, and especially
six color type using the light dye load inks, are more vulnerable to
fading, both light and dark types. New dyes and papers are being
produced which may change much of this. The paper is very important to
this equation.

And all this is indeed the reason why pigment colorant inks have been
released as an answer to fugitive color until something better comes along.

Your word, abused, is an interesting one. Many people would not agree
that leaving a print exposed to indoor sunlight exposure as "abuse". Of
course, fine art galleries will tell you no art should be exposed to
light without some type of UV protection, even if that is just a glass
covered frame.

I can tell you that my cotton pants that are dyed black, slowly but
surly go gray or some variation thereof in a year or less or light
exposure and washing (without bleach), however, my acrylic sweaters (I'm
allergic to wool) and other plastic based fabrics (polyesters) look
pretty much the same color as they did when I bought them. So,
obviously, polymer encased colorants are pretty stable. Some of those
sweaters are over 15 years old. I use them when I wash the car, because
they are worn out, but the color hasn't changed greatly.

Properly wet processed modern day color photographic prints are a good
target point for inkjet prints to emulate in terms of stability, as
that's what the public considers acceptable permanence, and they last
for 30-50 years with moderate handling, and 80-100 years or better in
storage.

Art


Larry wrote:

> The truth of the matter appears to be that the dye ink prints from ALL dye
> based inkjet printers will fade if they are abused,,, PERIOD.
>
> The problem seems to be that they dont get treated properly after printing.
>
> I have an on-going experiment at my house (average home, 1 smoker, 1 non
> smoker, normal appliances generating normal levels of Ozome, Co and Co2, with
> forced hot air heat.)
>
> Results after 1 full year:
>
> Prints left laying on a shelf, out of sunlight, top sheet covered with acid
> free matting, cupboard kept closed 99% (or more) of the time. No noticable
> fading or color shift, on Canon prints from i960, i950, (and 6 months storage
> of prints from ip4000). Epson prints under same conditions as above from
> Epson 785 EPX, same length of time (1 year except for prints from R200 which
> are at 6 months)Gave identical results.
>
> Prints left on an OPEN (no cupboard door) shelf NOT covered with anything but
> NOT in sunlight.. Noticable shift toward Magenta in the Canon prints,
> Noticable shift toward cyan in Epson prints.
>
> Prints placed in an acid free photo envelope (clasp closure) One envelope
> kept in closed cupboard, one kept on open shelf Neither were in sunlight:
> No change whatever that I can discern with naked eye in Epson or Canon
> prints, when compared side by side with new prints of the same photos.
>
> Photos left in a "Photo Album" with clear plastic overlay on every page:
>
> Some fading on prints with the book that was left out on coffee table in
> living room, which alows sunlight to fall on pages about 2 hours a day.
> Same for Epson & Canon prints.
>
> Album that was stored in closet and taken out once monthly and paged through
> (mimicking family perusal) No easily noticeable fading of either Canon or
> Epson prints.
>
> 6 photos from Epson 6 photos from Canon and 6 photos from Olympus Dye-sub
> printer all properly matted, framed, Under UV glass and hung on Den wall,
> recieving 20 to 25 minutes Reflected sunlight per day. No noticeable change
> on Epson or Canon prints. HOWEVER, the dye sub prints seem to have some color
> shift along the EDGES of the prints. (none of the prints have glass touching
> the prints. Matting is cut to fit VERY tight to seal out airflow.
>
> All of my test prints were printed on Illford Premium Glossy and printed
> with OEM ink @ 8x10". (except of course the dye-subs which are proprietary
> Olympus Paper).
>
> All the "stacked/shelved" prints had seperator sheets of non acid tissue
> between them (both the "closed cupboard" and "open shelf" tests.
>
> My "Control" prints were 5x7 and 8x10 prints done on Fuji machines at the
> local Wal-Mart and stored/displayed under identical conditions. One of the
> framed, matted, uv glass covered prints faded HORRIBLY, for reasons I cant
> discern as yet. The rest are still good except the ones on an open shelf..
> They ALL faded at the edge nearest the light.
>
> Though this is not a scientific test, it IS a real world test that showed (to
> my satisfaction at least) that "Instant Fading" usually is caused by poor
> treatment or poor storage methods. I have a dozen or so photos just "stuck-
> up" on the walls of my computer/photography room (used to be a darkroom) and
> I notice that they start fading after about 3 months, and the ones nearest to
> where I sit for hours on end editing and sorting ect turn yellow (the paper)
> very shortly after being hung (cigarette smoke will do that) The Ionic ar
> cleaner in this room is 4 times larger than the square footage requires, and
> gets cleaned every 2 days, but only seems to protect the photos at the far
> end of the room from me <G>.
>
> As an aside, I accidently left a black leather briefcase containing 80 8x10s
> from both Canon and Epson in my truck for 18 months (I thought it had been
> lost), where temperature ranged from over 130 deg F (summer parked in the
> sun) to minus 10 deg F (coldest weather this winter). The prints still
> looked pristene, though a plastic ruler, and several other plastic items in
> the case were warped and distorted by the summer heat.
>
> All of these test prints will remain where they are until March 20, 2006.
> Sorry about the time lag, but the only way to do a "Real World" test, is in
> "Real World" time.
>
> I almost forgot to mention that each room in my house has an ION type air
> cleaner running 24/7/365 (similar too (but not as costly as)the ones
> advertized ad nauseum on American TV). I dont know if they have ANY bearing
> on the test results.
>
> I did this test because I had told some of my customers that I would replace
> their prints if they had any fading problems with properly stored photos, and
> I wanted to know what I could expect.
>
>
>
>
March 22, 2005 11:17:34 AM

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

In article <xwQ%d.54406$ZO2.17308@edtnps84>, artistic@telus.net says...
> Your word, abused, is an interesting one. Many people would not agree
> that leaving a print exposed to indoor sunlight exposure as "abuse". Of
> course, fine art galleries will tell you no art should be exposed to
> light without some type of UV protection, even if that is just a glass
> covered frame.
>
> I can tell you that my cotton pants that are dyed black, slowly but
> surly go gray or some variation thereof in a year or less or light
> exposure and washing (without bleach), however, my acrylic sweaters (I'm
> allergic to wool) and other plastic based fabrics (polyesters) look
> pretty much the same color as they did when I bought them. So,
> obviously, polymer encased colorants are pretty stable. Some of those
> sweaters are over 15 years old. I use them when I wash the car, because
> they are worn out, but the color hasn't changed greatly.
>
> Properly wet processed modern day color photographic prints are a good
> target point for inkjet prints to emulate in terms of stability, as
> that's what the public considers acceptable permanence, and they last
> for 30-50 years with moderate handling, and 80-100 years or better in
> storage.
>
> Art
>

As I told another person in the thread, I would not use the word "abused" to
a customer, I would simply replace the print with something that might last
longer. (so far that has meant a chemical print)

The available research is helpfull in that it gives me the information I need
to start off with (Thats why most of my delivered prints are done on an Epson
printer, on Epson paper). For myself I prefer Canon printers and the paper I
buy in bulk, but the available research shows a likelyhood of the Epson paper
lasting longer, so its what I sell.

The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good one at
the time, I can see I was misstaken.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
March 22, 2005 11:17:35 AM

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

In article <MPG.1ca9c90475ebf6ee989794@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> In article <xwQ%d.54406$ZO2.17308@edtnps84>, artistic@telus.net says...
> > Your word, abused, is an interesting one. Many people would not agree
> > that leaving a print exposed to indoor sunlight exposure as "abuse". Of
> > course, fine art galleries will tell you no art should be exposed to
> > light without some type of UV protection, even if that is just a glass
> > covered frame.
> >
> > I can tell you that my cotton pants that are dyed black, slowly but
> > surly go gray or some variation thereof in a year or less or light
> > exposure and washing (without bleach), however, my acrylic sweaters (I'm
> > allergic to wool) and other plastic based fabrics (polyesters) look
> > pretty much the same color as they did when I bought them. So,
> > obviously, polymer encased colorants are pretty stable. Some of those
> > sweaters are over 15 years old. I use them when I wash the car, because
> > they are worn out, but the color hasn't changed greatly.
> >
> > Properly wet processed modern day color photographic prints are a good
> > target point for inkjet prints to emulate in terms of stability, as
> > that's what the public considers acceptable permanence, and they last
> > for 30-50 years with moderate handling, and 80-100 years or better in
> > storage.
> >
> > Art
> >
>
> As I told another person in the thread, I would not use the word "abused" to
> a customer, I would simply replace the print with something that might last
> longer. (so far that has meant a chemical print)
>
> The available research is helpfull in that it gives me the information I need
> to start off with (Thats why most of my delivered prints are done on an Epson
> printer, on Epson paper). For myself I prefer Canon printers and the paper I
> buy in bulk, but the available research shows a likelyhood of the Epson paper
> lasting longer, so its what I sell.
>
> The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good one at
> the time, I can see I was misstaken.
>
>
>

I should append this:

I already KNOW that pigment inks lasts longer.

I have a couple of Epson printers that use them, my problem is I dont like
the way they look on Glossy Paper, even with "gloss optimizer" or oversprays.

If printed on Matte Paper, they dont have the lustre of a glossy print, and
that is what SELLS.. (the sizzle, not the steak).

If I could, I would simply sell pigment inks on Matte paper, but they dont
sell as well as the glosssy prints.

Up until the last event I shot in the fall last year, I always had a display
with Glossy, Matte, and Cloth prints, to show what was available. Since I
havent sold anything other than glossy in 3 years, it became clear to me I
was wasting my time, and wasting display space.

I have Glossy, Matte, & other on the order sheet, and the order sheet ALWAYS
comes back with Glossy checked off.

I cant educate the customer, it only annoys him, so I give 'em what they
want.

So Far I havent had a pigment printer that could make a Glossy print that I
liked. When I find one, I will use it. (I must admit to not trying the
current "Top of the line" Epsons yet, as they seem to keep changing the
line.)

What Im REALLY waiting for is to see if Canon is going to get off the porch
and into the game by coming out with a pigment printer, instead of giving us
smaller drops.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 11:55:55 AM

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

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca8e0e5c0e74216989787@news.individual.NET...
> In article <xBD%d.20831$Pz7.18327@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> measekite@yahoo.com says...
>> I wonder what results you would get with pigmented inks?
>>
>
> Since most of my customers want glossy prints (cant say why, I preffer a
> MATTE print under glass myself) I have not persued it yet.
>
> My whole point was that PROPER CARE is a bigger factor than most people
> seem
> to think.
>
> Regular photo prints from the Photo Shop on the corner would fade nearly
> as
> fast as dye type ink-jet prints if not put away and kept out of the light.
>
> I have several Canon & Epson dye prints that are old enough (5 - 6 years)
> that I dont remember which model printer they were done on, but they have
> been in an album in a closet (where all un-mounted prints should be) and
> they
> look damn fine to me.
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.

Were your 'control' Walmart prints done in a photo lab, or one of those
digital print booths? Without a doubt the quality of traditional film prints
can vary drastically depending on the quality of the chemicals, paper and
washing. The digital booths that are popping up are inkjet prints though
(Though I'm not sure on the exact technology)

For a true test, get photos printed at a professional quality lab, on
archival paper - I think you will find that they last much better than those
Walmart prints.

Sadly though, even framed photos, though the fading rate will slow
dramatically, will still fade over much longer periods of time. I work in a
film archive, and can certainly vouch for the fading of traditional media -
even in enclosed light free conditions.

The newer pigment printers have Gloss optimisers in models such as the Epson
R1800 and should resolve some peoples concerns about getting good glossy
prints with pigment ink.
March 22, 2005 11:55:56 AM

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

In article <423f42f1$0$27855$61c65585@un-2park-reader-
01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, caitlin_online_spamtrap@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ca8e0e5c0e74216989787@news.individual.NET...
> > In article <xBD%d.20831$Pz7.18327@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> > measekite@yahoo.com says...
> >> I wonder what results you would get with pigmented inks?
> >>
> >
> > Since most of my customers want glossy prints (cant say why, I preffer a
> > MATTE print under glass myself) I have not persued it yet.
> >
> > My whole point was that PROPER CARE is a bigger factor than most people
> > seem
> > to think.
> >
> > Regular photo prints from the Photo Shop on the corner would fade nearly
> > as
> > fast as dye type ink-jet prints if not put away and kept out of the light.
> >
> > I have several Canon & Epson dye prints that are old enough (5 - 6 years)
> > that I dont remember which model printer they were done on, but they have
> > been in an album in a closet (where all un-mounted prints should be) and
> > they
> > look damn fine to me.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Larry Lynch
> > Mystic, Ct.
>
> Were your 'control' Walmart prints done in a photo lab, or one of those
> digital print booths? Without a doubt the quality of traditional film prints
> can vary drastically depending on the quality of the chemicals, paper and
> washing. The digital booths that are popping up are inkjet prints though
> (Though I'm not sure on the exact technology)
>
> For a true test, get photos printed at a professional quality lab, on
> archival paper - I think you will find that they last much better than those
> Walmart prints.
>
> Sadly though, even framed photos, though the fading rate will slow
> dramatically, will still fade over much longer periods of time. I work in a
> film archive, and can certainly vouch for the fading of traditional media -
> even in enclosed light free conditions.
>
> The newer pigment printers have Gloss optimisers in models such as the Epson
> R1800 and should resolve some peoples concerns about getting good glossy
> prints with pigment ink.
>
>

"Control" prints were from 35mm film on Fuji Paper, done by Wal-Mart.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 7:26:21 PM

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

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca8e0e5c0e74216989787@news.individual.NET...
> In article <xBD%d.20831$Pz7.18327@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> measekite@yahoo.com says...
> > I wonder what results you would get with pigmented inks?
> >
>
> Since most of my customers want glossy prints (cant say why, I preffer a
> MATTE print under glass myself) I have not persued it yet.

....which implies you think pigmented/pigment inks don't produce good glossy
prints?

I'm getting similar results from both on TDK Pro Quality Glossy paper but
perhaps I should try the Ilford paper you are using to see how that
compares.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 11:10:58 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AQM%d.133$zl.110@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> In article <%3L%d.214$FN4.99@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
>> <measekite@yahoo.com> writes

*snip*
>
>> who is incapable of either researching what tests have been conducted and
>> which results have been published or of conducting any meaningful tests
>> yourself.
>>
>>> Larry did a real world test in the way they were used. He then saw or
>>> did not see changes.
>>>
>> Are you suggesting that Henry Wilhelm and Bob Meyer did not do real world
>> tests
>
> By their own admission, they used aging procedures. How do they know if
> the Epson ink will last 99 years. You and they will not be around to call
> each other liars.
>

Accelerated aging is an established scientific technique in the research of
materials degredation and is based on a decades of scientific research into
the affects of environment on organic objects. This is the research
methodology that is used in any serious studies of conservation of media,
and is far more meaningful than individuals personal experience over 6
months-1 year. You are making yourself look ignorant seriously questioning
the validity of such studies.

Estimates like 99 years are of course gross estimates and there is every
chance that a print could last for 300 years, or 50 depending on the
environment. The important thing though is the comparison to other media
that has been tested under the same control conditions. The difference
between these is the most meaningful thing to take away from such studies.
Though it is also safe to say that you can expect a media rated at 99 years
to be around for a good long time.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 11:22:18 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Interesting tests, as far as they went (time will tell more.)
>
> I do agree that most, if not all, OEM dye ink printers, and especially
> six color type using the light dye load inks, are more vulnerable to
> fading, both light and dark types. New dyes and papers are being
> produced which may change much of this. The paper is very important
> to this equation.
>
> And all this is indeed the reason why pigment colorant inks have been
> released as an answer to fugitive color until something better comes
> along.

It almost seems like you have a choice between longer lasting poorer
results or shorter lasting better results. Given that choice what is
best is the opinion of the user.


>
> Your word, abused, is an interesting one. Many people would not agree
> that leaving a print exposed to indoor sunlight exposure as "abuse".
> Of course, fine art galleries will tell you no art should be exposed
> to light without some type of UV protection, even if that is just a
> glass covered frame.
>
> I can tell you that my cotton pants that are dyed black, slowly but
> surly go gray or some variation thereof in a year or less or light
> exposure and washing (without bleach), however, my acrylic sweaters
> (I'm allergic to wool) and other plastic based fabrics (polyesters)
> look pretty much the same color as they did when I bought them. So,
> obviously, polymer encased colorants are pretty stable. Some of those
> sweaters are over 15 years old. I use them when I wash the car,
> because they are worn out, but the color hasn't changed greatly.
>
> Properly wet processed modern day color photographic prints are a good
> target point for inkjet prints to emulate in terms of stability, as
> that's what the public considers acceptable permanence, and they last
> for 30-50 years with moderate handling, and 80-100 years or better in
> storage.
>
> Art
>
>
> Larry wrote:
>
>> The truth of the matter appears to be that the dye ink prints from
>> ALL dye based inkjet printers will fade if they are abused,,, PERIOD.
>>
>> The problem seems to be that they dont get treated properly after
>> printing.
>>
>> I have an on-going experiment at my house (average home, 1 smoker, 1
>> non smoker, normal appliances generating normal levels of Ozome, Co
>> and Co2, with forced hot air heat.)
>>
>> Results after 1 full year:
>>
>> Prints left laying on a shelf, out of sunlight, top sheet covered
>> with acid free matting, cupboard kept closed 99% (or more) of the
>> time. No noticable fading or color shift, on Canon prints from i960,
>> i950, (and 6 months storage of prints from ip4000). Epson prints
>> under same conditions as above from Epson 785 EPX, same length of
>> time (1 year except for prints from R200 which are at 6 months)Gave
>> identical results.
>>
>> Prints left on an OPEN (no cupboard door) shelf NOT covered with
>> anything but NOT in sunlight.. Noticable shift toward Magenta in the
>> Canon prints, Noticable shift toward cyan in Epson prints.
>>
>> Prints placed in an acid free photo envelope (clasp closure) One
>> envelope kept in closed cupboard, one kept on open shelf Neither were
>> in sunlight:
>> No change whatever that I can discern with naked eye in Epson or
>> Canon prints, when compared side by side with new prints of the same
>> photos.
>>
>> Photos left in a "Photo Album" with clear plastic overlay on every page:
>>
>> Some fading on prints with the book that was left out on coffee table
>> in living room, which alows sunlight to fall on pages about 2 hours a
>> day.
>> Same for Epson & Canon prints.
>>
>> Album that was stored in closet and taken out once monthly and paged
>> through (mimicking family perusal) No easily noticeable fading of
>> either Canon or Epson prints.
>>
>> 6 photos from Epson 6 photos from Canon and 6 photos from Olympus
>> Dye-sub printer all properly matted, framed, Under UV glass and hung
>> on Den wall, recieving 20 to 25 minutes Reflected sunlight per day.
>> No noticeable change on Epson or Canon prints. HOWEVER, the dye sub
>> prints seem to have some color shift along the EDGES of the prints.
>> (none of the prints have glass touching the prints. Matting is cut to
>> fit VERY tight to seal out airflow.
>>
>> All of my test prints were printed on Illford Premium Glossy and
>> printed with OEM ink @ 8x10". (except of course the dye-subs which
>> are proprietary Olympus Paper).
>>
>> All the "stacked/shelved" prints had seperator sheets of non acid
>> tissue between them (both the "closed cupboard" and "open shelf" tests.
>>
>> My "Control" prints were 5x7 and 8x10 prints done on Fuji machines at
>> the local Wal-Mart and stored/displayed under identical conditions.
>> One of the framed, matted, uv glass covered prints faded HORRIBLY,
>> for reasons I cant discern as yet. The rest are still good except the
>> ones on an open shelf.. They ALL faded at the edge nearest the light.
>>
>> Though this is not a scientific test, it IS a real world test that
>> showed (to my satisfaction at least) that "Instant Fading" usually is
>> caused by poor treatment or poor storage methods. I have a dozen or
>> so photos just "stuck-
>> up" on the walls of my computer/photography room (used to be a
>> darkroom) and I notice that they start fading after about 3 months,
>> and the ones nearest to where I sit for hours on end editing and
>> sorting ect turn yellow (the paper) very shortly after being hung
>> (cigarette smoke will do that) The Ionic ar cleaner in this room is 4
>> times larger than the square footage requires, and gets cleaned every
>> 2 days, but only seems to protect the photos at the far end of the
>> room from me <G>.
>>
>> As an aside, I accidently left a black leather briefcase containing
>> 80 8x10s from both Canon and Epson in my truck for 18 months (I
>> thought it had been lost), where temperature ranged from over 130 deg
>> F (summer parked in the sun) to minus 10 deg F (coldest weather this
>> winter). The prints still looked pristene, though a plastic ruler,
>> and several other plastic items in the case were warped and distorted
>> by the summer heat.
>>
>> All of these test prints will remain where they are until March 20,
>> 2006. Sorry about the time lag, but the only way to do a "Real
>> World" test, is in "Real World" time.
>>
>> I almost forgot to mention that each room in my house has an ION type
>> air cleaner running 24/7/365 (similar too (but not as costly as)the
>> ones advertized ad nauseum on American TV). I dont know if they have
>> ANY bearing on the test results.
>>
>> I did this test because I had told some of my customers that I would
>> replace their prints if they had any fading problems with properly
>> stored photos, and I wanted to know what I could expect.
>>
>>
>>
>>
March 23, 2005 4:38:13 AM

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

In my opinion your posting of your experiences and opinions is helpful to
all. You were very clear in how you came to your conclusions and people can
use the information as they wish. You did not hold yourself up to be the
world's expert on the subject. Although others can certainly respond with
what they regard as more authoritative information there is no need for the
kind of foul-mouthed abuse that was leveled at you! Thanks for your posts
and keep it up.

I wish that Willhelm or PC Magazine had tested aftermarket inks that seem to
be in the mainstream at this time. MIS and Formulabs, among others, have
been reported as extremely close to Canon inks in color and behavior in the
printer. Inkgrabber and Alotofthings also seem to have a good reputation
with some of the people posting here and elsewhere.

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca9d16d239b0a85989795@news.individual.NET...
> In article <MPG.1ca9c90475ebf6ee989794@news.individual.NET>,
> larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
>> In article <xwQ%d.54406$ZO2.17308@edtnps84>, artistic@telus.net says...
>> > Your word, abused, is an interesting one. Many people would not agree
>> > that leaving a print exposed to indoor sunlight exposure as "abuse".
>> > Of
>> > course, fine art galleries will tell you no art should be exposed to
>> > light without some type of UV protection, even if that is just a glass
>> > covered frame.
>> >
>> > I can tell you that my cotton pants that are dyed black, slowly but
>> > surly go gray or some variation thereof in a year or less or light
>> > exposure and washing (without bleach), however, my acrylic sweaters
>> > (I'm
>> > allergic to wool) and other plastic based fabrics (polyesters) look
>> > pretty much the same color as they did when I bought them. So,
>> > obviously, polymer encased colorants are pretty stable. Some of those
>> > sweaters are over 15 years old. I use them when I wash the car,
>> > because
>> > they are worn out, but the color hasn't changed greatly.
>> >
>> > Properly wet processed modern day color photographic prints are a good
>> > target point for inkjet prints to emulate in terms of stability, as
>> > that's what the public considers acceptable permanence, and they last
>> > for 30-50 years with moderate handling, and 80-100 years or better in
>> > storage.
>> >
>> > Art
>> >
>>
>> As I told another person in the thread, I would not use the word "abused"
>> to
>> a customer, I would simply replace the print with something that might
>> last
>> longer. (so far that has meant a chemical print)
>>
>> The available research is helpfull in that it gives me the information I
>> need
>> to start off with (Thats why most of my delivered prints are done on an
>> Epson
>> printer, on Epson paper). For myself I prefer Canon printers and the
>> paper I
>> buy in bulk, but the available research shows a likelyhood of the Epson
>> paper
>> lasting longer, so its what I sell.
>>
>> The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good one
>> at
>> the time, I can see I was misstaken.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I should append this:
>
> I already KNOW that pigment inks lasts longer.
>
> I have a couple of Epson printers that use them, my problem is I dont like
> the way they look on Glossy Paper, even with "gloss optimizer" or
> oversprays.
>
> If printed on Matte Paper, they dont have the lustre of a glossy print,
> and
> that is what SELLS.. (the sizzle, not the steak).
>
> If I could, I would simply sell pigment inks on Matte paper, but they dont
> sell as well as the glosssy prints.
>
> Up until the last event I shot in the fall last year, I always had a
> display
> with Glossy, Matte, and Cloth prints, to show what was available. Since I
> havent sold anything other than glossy in 3 years, it became clear to me I
> was wasting my time, and wasting display space.
>
> I have Glossy, Matte, & other on the order sheet, and the order sheet
> ALWAYS
> comes back with Glossy checked off.
>
> I cant educate the customer, it only annoys him, so I give 'em what they
> want.
>
> So Far I havent had a pigment printer that could make a Glossy print that
> I
> liked. When I find one, I will use it. (I must admit to not trying the
> current "Top of the line" Epsons yet, as they seem to keep changing the
> line.)
>
> What Im REALLY waiting for is to see if Canon is going to get off the
> porch
> and into the game by coming out with a pigment printer, instead of giving
> us
> smaller drops.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.
March 23, 2005 4:38:14 AM

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

In article <9M30e.14582$C47.10421@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net says...
> In my opinion your posting of your experiences and opinions is helpful to
> all. You were very clear in how you came to your conclusions and people can
> use the information as they wish. You did not hold yourself up to be the
> world's expert on the subject. Although others can certainly respond with
> what they regard as more authoritative information there is no need for the
> kind of foul-mouthed abuse that was leveled at you! Thanks for your posts
> and keep it up.
>
> I wish that Willhelm or PC Magazine had tested aftermarket inks that seem to
> be in the mainstream at this time. MIS and Formulabs, among others, have
> been reported as extremely close to Canon inks in color and behavior in the
> printer. Inkgrabber and Alotofthings also seem to have a good reputation
> with some of the people posting here and elsewhere.
>

I have used large quantities of both Formulabs and MIS inks in Canon, Epson,
and HP printers.

I have had no difficulty with them. I find the Formulabs to be a better match
to the Canon ink, and both Formulabs and MIS are good close matches to OEM.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:20:16 AM

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

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:27:36 -0500, Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Nothing around here BUT the Fuji Machines.. Unless I want to drive 40 or 50
>miles.

I can't speak for the US, but in the UK there are a number of
professional labs online who do mail order. You can send them your
film or CDs with images and get prints and the film/CD back in the
post.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:23:13 AM

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

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:26:21 GMT, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:

>
>"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1ca8e0e5c0e74216989787@news.individual.NET...
>> In article <xBD%d.20831$Pz7.18327@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>> measekite@yahoo.com says...
>> > I wonder what results you would get with pigmented inks?
>> >
>>
>> Since most of my customers want glossy prints (cant say why, I preffer a
>> MATTE print under glass myself) I have not persued it yet.
>
>...which implies you think pigmented/pigment inks don't produce good glossy
>prints?
>
The problem with Epson inks in the 2100/220 is bronzing.

Of course, if you use a good quality replacement CIS that needn't
happen.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:27:13 AM

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

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:54:15 -0500, Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net>
wrote:


>So Far I havent had a pigment printer that could make a Glossy print that I
>liked. When I find one, I will use it. (I must admit to not trying the
>current "Top of the line" Epsons yet, as they seem to keep changing the
>line.)
>
The printer I use that makers a glossy print that I like is the Epson
2100 with Permajet inks - they use a "universal" black which doesn't
show the bronzing effects of the Epson inks. (Yes, they are pigment
inks). However, they are only available for the 2100/2200 as a CIS
system and the initial outlay is not cheap :) 

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:57:53 AM

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

In article <MPG.1ca9c63e5078d146989793@news.individual.NET>, Larry
<larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes
>
>I would never tell a customer he/she "abused" a print, I would simply take
>wahtever steps I thought were needed to ensure it doesnt happen again.

The problem here, Larry, is that you don't actually know what steps are
required to ensure it doesn't happen again - at least not with dye inks.
There are steps that you can take and recommend to *minimise* the risk
of it happening again, but not even Epson would sign up to underwriting
them anymore. They have been stung too badly and too often on that
promise.
>
>I might say "let me mount it for you" or "here, keep them in this album" but
>I would NEVER tell them they screwed the pooch. That would be juvenile,
>unproductive and foolish.
>
Nice marketing touch, I hope it works! ;-)

>I can, however, reasearch things in my own way, on my own time, and come to
>my own conclusions.
>
The problem you face is multidimensional (time, light, numerous
atmospheric contents etc.) and, while every congratulations go to anyone
trying to establish their local footprint on that multidimensional curve
is, it is only your specific local result.

I think it was Nai Chi Lee who first presented results on Epson media
from different locations in the same building - and the difference was
dramatic (days in one case to months in another just to the same level
of fade). So it is worth understanding the sort of variability that the
environment can induce before you reach any conclusions about the
print's expected life in the customer's environment.

Having said all of that, if you take steps to protect even Epson Premium
Glossy Photo prints from the environment then there is no reason not to
expect a life in the region of 25 years without fade. However, if you
use the recommended (mounted in glass frame) approach yo should also be
aware of other problems that your customers will encounter. The worst,
and most common, of these is glass fogging, due to the outgassing of
glycol solvents in the print itself. These continue to be released for
months after printing and some condense on the glass as an oily film,
diffusing the image. You may well find your own solutions subject to
return on that basis - so you need to be aware of the possibility.

I have seen prints that are still outgassing glycols almost a year after
printing - and, believe me, its more trouble than a measkite to get off
the glass!

--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:59:54 AM

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

Burt wrote:

>In my opinion your posting of your experiences and opinions is helpful to
>all. You were very clear in how you came to your conclusions and people can
>use the information as they wish. You did not hold yourself up to be the
>world's expert on the subject. Although others can certainly respond with
>what they regard as more authoritative information there is no need for the
>kind of foul-mouthed abuse that was leveled at you! Thanks for your posts
>and keep it up.
>
>I wish that Willhelm or PC Magazine had tested aftermarket inks that seem to
>be in the mainstream at this time. MIS and Formulabs, among others, have
>been reported as extremely close to Canon inks in color and behavior in the
>printer. Inkgrabber and Alotofthings
>
seem like an unprofessional organization that is run by a bunch of
schoolkids. There ebay website is not informative and they cannot take
critiicism. I also sent and email to inksupply offering helpful
criticism like I did to alotofthings. While inksupply who sells MIS
responded professionally like a corporation should, they did not
completely answer all of my questions. I expect to followup with them.
They were very receptive.

Formulabs needs to offer many more choices than alotofthings. I intend
to speak to them in the future.

> also seem to have a good reputation
>with some of the people posting here and elsewhere.
>
>"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1ca9d16d239b0a85989795@news.individual.NET...
>
>
>>In article <MPG.1ca9c90475ebf6ee989794@news.individual.NET>,
>>larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
>>
>>
>>>In article <xwQ%d.54406$ZO2.17308@edtnps84>, artistic@telus.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your word, abused, is an interesting one. Many people would not agree
>>>>that leaving a print exposed to indoor sunlight exposure as "abuse".
>>>>Of
>>>>course, fine art galleries will tell you no art should be exposed to
>>>>light without some type of UV protection, even if that is just a glass
>>>>covered frame.
>>>>
>>>>I can tell you that my cotton pants that are dyed black, slowly but
>>>>surly go gray or some variation thereof in a year or less or light
>>>>exposure and washing (without bleach), however, my acrylic sweaters
>>>>(I'm
>>>>allergic to wool) and other plastic based fabrics (polyesters) look
>>>>pretty much the same color as they did when I bought them. So,
>>>>obviously, polymer encased colorants are pretty stable. Some of those
>>>>sweaters are over 15 years old. I use them when I wash the car,
>>>>because
>>>>they are worn out, but the color hasn't changed greatly.
>>>>
>>>>Properly wet processed modern day color photographic prints are a good
>>>>target point for inkjet prints to emulate in terms of stability, as
>>>>that's what the public considers acceptable permanence, and they last
>>>>for 30-50 years with moderate handling, and 80-100 years or better in
>>>>storage.
>>>>
>>>>Art
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>As I told another person in the thread, I would not use the word "abused"
>>>to
>>>a customer, I would simply replace the print with something that might
>>>last
>>>longer. (so far that has meant a chemical print)
>>>
>>>The available research is helpfull in that it gives me the information I
>>>need
>>>to start off with (Thats why most of my delivered prints are done on an
>>>Epson
>>>printer, on Epson paper). For myself I prefer Canon printers and the
>>>paper I
>>>buy in bulk, but the available research shows a likelyhood of the Epson
>>>paper
>>>lasting longer, so its what I sell.
>>>
>>>The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good one
>>>at
>>>the time, I can see I was misstaken.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I should append this:
>>
>>I already KNOW that pigment inks lasts longer.
>>
>>I have a couple of Epson printers that use them, my problem is I dont like
>>the way they look on Glossy Paper, even with "gloss optimizer" or
>>oversprays.
>>
>>If printed on Matte Paper, they dont have the lustre of a glossy print,
>>and
>>that is what SELLS.. (the sizzle, not the steak).
>>
>>If I could, I would simply sell pigment inks on Matte paper, but they dont
>>sell as well as the glosssy prints.
>>
>>Up until the last event I shot in the fall last year, I always had a
>>display
>>with Glossy, Matte, and Cloth prints, to show what was available. Since I
>>havent sold anything other than glossy in 3 years, it became clear to me I
>>was wasting my time, and wasting display space.
>>
>>I have Glossy, Matte, & other on the order sheet, and the order sheet
>>ALWAYS
>>comes back with Glossy checked off.
>>
>>I cant educate the customer, it only annoys him, so I give 'em what they
>>want.
>>
>>So Far I havent had a pigment printer that could make a Glossy print that
>>I
>>liked. When I find one, I will use it. (I must admit to not trying the
>>current "Top of the line" Epsons yet, as they seem to keep changing the
>>line.)
>>
>>What Im REALLY waiting for is to see if Canon is going to get off the
>>porch
>>and into the game by coming out with a pigment printer, instead of giving
>>us
>>smaller drops.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Larry Lynch
>>Mystic, Ct.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:59:55 AM

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

measekite wrote:

>

>>
>> I wish that Willhelm or PC Magazine had tested aftermarket inks that
>> seem to be in the mainstream at this time. MIS and Formulabs, among
>> others, have been reported as extremely close to Canon inks in color
>> and behavior in the printer. Inkgrabber and Alotofthings
>>
> seem like an unprofessional organization that is run by a bunch of
> schoolkids. There ebay website is not informative and they cannot take
> critiicism. I also sent and email to inksupply offering helpful
> criticism like I did to alotofthings. While inksupply who sells MIS
> responded professionally like a corporation should, they did not
> completely answer all of my questions. I expect to followup with them.
> They were very receptive.
>
> Formulabs needs to offer many more choices than alotofthings. I intend
> to speak to them in the future.
>

Actually Formulabs (Sensient Imaging Technologies) was very nice, they
emailed me offering me gallons of refill ink. Since I'm not quite at the
corporate volume printing level yet, I didn't go for it. If you're
comments above are meant that they should offer smaller volumes, then
I'm all for it. Measekite, wanna split a gallon of magenta? ;-)

-Taliesyn
____________________________________________________________________
3rd party inks: print anything you can think of, with ink that costs
next to nothing, to impress people you don't like.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:00:11 AM

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

In article <smk141lucag1nlhbse98k77bpqu7hqmek1@4ax.com>, Hecate
<hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>>
>The problem with Epson inks in the 2100/220 is bronzing.
>
That tends to be a problem with Epson overall when used with 3rd party
media. The OEM papers handle over-inking much better than general
papers.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:04:55 AM

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

In article <MPG.1ca9d16d239b0a85989795@news.individual.NET>, Larry
<larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes
>
>What Im REALLY waiting for is to see if Canon is going to get off the porch
>and into the game by coming out with a pigment printer, instead of giving us
>smaller drops.
>
A lot of people are waiting for that too - but they are currently more
than 5 years behind Epson in terms of media, so it doesn't look like
there will be a solution that meets you and your customer needs for some
time yet, unless you look at Epson gloss optimised Ultrachrome ink
systems.

Believe me, I *know* what its like - and you have my sympathies. But
the best colours and the best life just don't mix at the moment.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
March 23, 2005 9:17:29 AM

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

There is the possibility that this small company doesn't want "constructive
criticism" and is happy to work at its own pace. I called and had a
friendly conversation with Joe, the owner, and he was very helpful. If
the product is as good as others have suggested, their business practices
are honest as reported, and their delivery is rapid, I can forgo the
trappings of a large, professional business presentation. Large businesses
such as Costco and Office Depot have great web sites and well managed
stores, but they sell aftermarket inks that I would definitely avoid.
Forget the image and focus on the quality of the products Alotofthings and
MIS sells.

I'm also surprised that formulabs inks are only handled by this small firm,
but it appears that their market is large volume commercial distribution.
It is my understanding that aftermarket inks only account for about 15% of
the market and it is divided up by several small vendors. Formulabs is
probably happy supplying consumers thorugh alotofthings and is not
interested in getting into the small quantity marketplace.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eJ60e.552$zl.280@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>In my opinion your posting of your experiences and opinions is helpful to
>>all. You were very clear in how you came to your conclusions and people
>>can use the information as they wish. You did not hold yourself up to be
>>the world's expert on the subject. Although others can certainly respond
>>with what they regard as more authoritative information there is no need
>>for the kind of foul-mouthed abuse that was leveled at you! Thanks for
>>your posts and keep it up.
>>
>>I wish that Willhelm or PC Magazine had tested aftermarket inks that seem
>>to be in the mainstream at this time. MIS and Formulabs, among others,
>>have been reported as extremely close to Canon inks in color and behavior
>>in the printer. Inkgrabber and Alotofthings
>>
> seem like an unprofessional organization that is run by a bunch of
> schoolkids. There ebay website is not informative and they cannot take
> critiicism. I also sent and email to inksupply offering helpful criticism
> like I did to alotofthings. While inksupply who sells MIS responded
> professionally like a corporation should, they did not completely answer
> all of my questions. I expect to followup with them. They were very
> receptive.
>
> Formulabs needs to offer many more choices than alotofthings. I intend to
> speak to them in the future.
>
>> also seem to have a good reputation with some of the people posting here
>> and elsewhere.
>>
>>"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1ca9d16d239b0a85989795@news.individual.NET...
>>
>>>In article <MPG.1ca9c90475ebf6ee989794@news.individual.NET>,
>>>larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
>>>
>>>>In article <xwQ%d.54406$ZO2.17308@edtnps84>, artistic@telus.net says...
>>>>
>>>>>Your word, abused, is an interesting one. Many people would not agree
>>>>>that leaving a print exposed to indoor sunlight exposure as "abuse". Of
>>>>>course, fine art galleries will tell you no art should be exposed to
>>>>>light without some type of UV protection, even if that is just a glass
>>>>>covered frame.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can tell you that my cotton pants that are dyed black, slowly but
>>>>>surly go gray or some variation thereof in a year or less or light
>>>>>exposure and washing (without bleach), however, my acrylic sweaters
>>>>>(I'm
>>>>>allergic to wool) and other plastic based fabrics (polyesters) look
>>>>>pretty much the same color as they did when I bought them. So,
>>>>>obviously, polymer encased colorants are pretty stable. Some of those
>>>>>sweaters are over 15 years old. I use them when I wash the car,
>>>>>because
>>>>>they are worn out, but the color hasn't changed greatly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Properly wet processed modern day color photographic prints are a good
>>>>>target point for inkjet prints to emulate in terms of stability, as
>>>>>that's what the public considers acceptable permanence, and they last
>>>>>for 30-50 years with moderate handling, and 80-100 years or better in
>>>>>storage.
>>>>>
>>>>>Art
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>As I told another person in the thread, I would not use the word
>>>>"abused" to
>>>>a customer, I would simply replace the print with something that might
>>>>last
>>>>longer. (so far that has meant a chemical print)
>>>>
>>>>The available research is helpfull in that it gives me the information I
>>>>need
>>>>to start off with (Thats why most of my delivered prints are done on an
>>>>Epson
>>>>printer, on Epson paper). For myself I prefer Canon printers and the
>>>>paper I
>>>>buy in bulk, but the available research shows a likelyhood of the Epson
>>>>paper
>>>>lasting longer, so its what I sell.
>>>>
>>>>The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good one
>>>>at
>>>>the time, I can see I was misstaken.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I should append this:
>>>
>>>I already KNOW that pigment inks lasts longer.
>>>
>>>I have a couple of Epson printers that use them, my problem is I dont
>>>like
>>>the way they look on Glossy Paper, even with "gloss optimizer" or
>>>oversprays.
>>>
>>>If printed on Matte Paper, they dont have the lustre of a glossy print,
>>>and
>>>that is what SELLS.. (the sizzle, not the steak).
>>>
>>>If I could, I would simply sell pigment inks on Matte paper, but they
>>>dont
>>>sell as well as the glosssy prints.
>>>
>>>Up until the last event I shot in the fall last year, I always had a
>>>display
>>>with Glossy, Matte, and Cloth prints, to show what was available. Since
>>>I
>>>havent sold anything other than glossy in 3 years, it became clear to me
>>>I
>>>was wasting my time, and wasting display space.
>>>
>>>I have Glossy, Matte, & other on the order sheet, and the order sheet
>>>ALWAYS
>>>comes back with Glossy checked off.
>>>
>>>I cant educate the customer, it only annoys him, so I give 'em what they
>>>want.
>>>
>>>So Far I havent had a pigment printer that could make a Glossy print that
>>>I
>>>liked. When I find one, I will use it. (I must admit to not trying the
>>>current "Top of the line" Epsons yet, as they seem to keep changing the
>>>line.)
>>>
>>>What Im REALLY waiting for is to see if Canon is going to get off the
>>>porch
>>>and into the game by coming out with a pigment printer, instead of giving
>>>us
>>>smaller drops.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Larry Lynch
>>>Mystic, Ct.
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:39:56 AM

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

This unprofessional school kid mentality that they present along with
their unprofessional eBay website and their statement on their own
website no to call and order anything is not the kind of organization
that deserves to have a small quantity monopoly from a large manufacturer.

If Formulabs does care about the way they are being represented, they
might possibly encourage other vendors to carry their merchandise.

Burt wrote:

>There is the possibility that this small company doesn't want "constructive
>criticism" and is happy to work at its own pace. I called and had a
>friendly conversation with Joe, the owner, and he was very helpful. If
>the product is as good as others have suggested, their business practices
>are honest as reported, and their delivery is rapid, I can forgo the
>trappings of a large, professional business presentation. Large businesses
>such as Costco and Office Depot have great web sites and well managed
>stores, but they sell aftermarket inks that I would definitely avoid.
>Forget the image and focus on the quality of the products Alotofthings and
>MIS sells.
>
>I'm also surprised that formulabs inks are only handled by this small firm,
>but it appears that their market is large volume commercial distribution.
>It is my understanding that aftermarket inks only account for about 15% of
>the market and it is divided up by several small vendors. Formulabs is
>probably happy supplying consumers thorugh alotofthings and is not
>interested in getting into the small quantity marketplace.
>
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:eJ60e.552$zl.280@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In my opinion your posting of your experiences and opinions is helpful to
>>>all. You were very clear in how you came to your conclusions and people
>>>can use the information as they wish. You did not hold yourself up to be
>>>the world's expert on the subject. Although others can certainly respond
>>>with what they regard as more authoritative information there is no need
>>>for the kind of foul-mouthed abuse that was leveled at you! Thanks for
>>>your posts and keep it up.
>>>
>>>I wish that Willhelm or PC Magazine had tested aftermarket inks that seem
>>>to be in the mainstream at this time. MIS and Formulabs, among others,
>>>have been reported as extremely close to Canon inks in color and behavior
>>>in the printer. Inkgrabber and Alotofthings
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>seem like an unprofessional organization that is run by a bunch of
>>schoolkids. There ebay website is not informative and they cannot take
>>critiicism. I also sent and email to inksupply offering helpful criticism
>>like I did to alotofthings. While inksupply who sells MIS responded
>>professionally like a corporation should, they did not completely answer
>>all of my questions. I expect to followup with them. They were very
>>receptive.
>>
>>Formulabs needs to offer many more choices than alotofthings. I intend to
>>speak to them in the future.
>>
>>
>>
>>> also seem to have a good reputation with some of the people posting here
>>>and elsewhere.
>>>
>>>"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1ca9d16d239b0a85989795@news.individual.NET...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <MPG.1ca9c90475ebf6ee989794@news.individual.NET>,
>>>>larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <xwQ%d.54406$ZO2.17308@edtnps84>, artistic@telus.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Your word, abused, is an interesting one. Many people would not agree
>>>>>>that leaving a print exposed to indoor sunlight exposure as "abuse". Of
>>>>>>course, fine art galleries will tell you no art should be exposed to
>>>>>>light without some type of UV protection, even if that is just a glass
>>>>>>covered frame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can tell you that my cotton pants that are dyed black, slowly but
>>>>>>surly go gray or some variation thereof in a year or less or light
>>>>>>exposure and washing (without bleach), however, my acrylic sweaters
>>>>>>(I'm
>>>>>>allergic to wool) and other plastic based fabrics (polyesters) look
>>>>>>pretty much the same color as they did when I bought them. So,
>>>>>>obviously, polymer encased colorants are pretty stable. Some of those
>>>>>>sweaters are over 15 years old. I use them when I wash the car,
>>>>>>because
>>>>>>they are worn out, but the color hasn't changed greatly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Properly wet processed modern day color photographic prints are a good
>>>>>>target point for inkjet prints to emulate in terms of stability, as
>>>>>>that's what the public considers acceptable permanence, and they last
>>>>>>for 30-50 years with moderate handling, and 80-100 years or better in
>>>>>>storage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Art
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>As I told another person in the thread, I would not use the word
>>>>>"abused" to
>>>>>a customer, I would simply replace the print with something that might
>>>>>last
>>>>>longer. (so far that has meant a chemical print)
>>>>>
>>>>>The available research is helpfull in that it gives me the information I
>>>>>need
>>>>>to start off with (Thats why most of my delivered prints are done on an
>>>>>Epson
>>>>>printer, on Epson paper). For myself I prefer Canon printers and the
>>>>>paper I
>>>>>buy in bulk, but the available research shows a likelyhood of the Epson
>>>>>paper
>>>>>lasting longer, so its what I sell.
>>>>>
>>>>>The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good one
>>>>>at
>>>>>the time, I can see I was misstaken.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I should append this:
>>>>
>>>>I already KNOW that pigment inks lasts longer.
>>>>
>>>>I have a couple of Epson printers that use them, my problem is I dont
>>>>like
>>>>the way they look on Glossy Paper, even with "gloss optimizer" or
>>>>oversprays.
>>>>
>>>>If printed on Matte Paper, they dont have the lustre of a glossy print,
>>>>and
>>>>that is what SELLS.. (the sizzle, not the steak).
>>>>
>>>>If I could, I would simply sell pigment inks on Matte paper, but they
>>>>dont
>>>>sell as well as the glosssy prints.
>>>>
>>>>Up until the last event I shot in the fall last year, I always had a
>>>>display
>>>>with Glossy, Matte, and Cloth prints, to show what was available. Since
>>>>I
>>>>havent sold anything other than glossy in 3 years, it became clear to me
>>>>I
>>>>was wasting my time, and wasting display space.
>>>>
>>>>I have Glossy, Matte, & other on the order sheet, and the order sheet
>>>>ALWAYS
>>>>comes back with Glossy checked off.
>>>>
>>>>I cant educate the customer, it only annoys him, so I give 'em what they
>>>>want.
>>>>
>>>>So Far I havent had a pigment printer that could make a Glossy print that
>>>>I
>>>>liked. When I find one, I will use it. (I must admit to not trying the
>>>>current "Top of the line" Epsons yet, as they seem to keep changing the
>>>>line.)
>>>>
>>>>What Im REALLY waiting for is to see if Canon is going to get off the
>>>>porch
>>>>and into the game by coming out with a pigment printer, instead of giving
>>>>us
>>>>smaller drops.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Larry Lynch
>>>>Mystic, Ct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:21:18 AM

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

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:20 -0500, Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net>
wrote as underneath my scribble :

I, and Im sure many others found your original posting very
informative and clear as to your own method and your own conclusions,
up to your readers whether they agree/disagree - you gave us enough
information to draw our own inferences - thanks and dont get
discouraged by snipers, they are legion unfortunately!
Charlie+
>
>The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good one at
>the time, I can see I was mistaken.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:27:47 AM

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

measekite wrote:
> This unprofessional school kid mentality that they present along with
> their unprofessional eBay website and their statement on their own
> website no to call and order anything is not the kind of organization
> that deserves to have a small quantity monopoly from a large manufacturer.
>
> If Formulabs does care about the way they are being represented, they
> might possibly encourage other vendors to carry their merchandise.
>

My feelings are that lack of "encouragement" by Formulabs is NOT the
reason Formulabs (Sensient) inks aren't carried by more dealers. The
real culprit is "cost". Most dealers (after sellers, not Formulabs) want
the highest profit margin and not necessarily the best quality (more
expensive) ink on the market. The vast majority of buyers are not
experts (or self-proclaimed experts) and professionals who demand the
very best. Therefore, dealers will opt to carry cheaper lines. My long
time dealer no longer sells Formulabs inks. It may be a long time
before they hear from me.

-Taliesyn
____________________________________________________________________
3rd party inks: print anything you can think of, with ink that costs
next to nothing, to impress people you don't like.
March 23, 2005 4:42:24 PM

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

The problem with the Photographic prints is they could 1. not really be
photographic process but the same as what you are printing with your
printer, but cheaper inks... or 2. subject to the cost cutting of the
company.

The RA-4 prints come in 2 flavors, 1 wash process and 2. waterless.

The wash process runs through Dev., bleach/fix, then a wash. the Wash needs
to be at a minimum flow rate, usually 1.5 gal per min and temp, usually 95
to 105 F. If either is incorrect not all the chemistry is removed and prints
fade very rapidly.

The waterless process substitutes a "stabilizer" for the wash, the
stabilizer is relatively expensive and if the company is trying to cut
corners they may not be replenishing properly, which causes once again,
rapid fading.....


"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca8e0e5c0e74216989787@news.individual.NET...
> In article <xBD%d.20831$Pz7.18327@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> measekite@yahoo.com says...
>> I wonder what results you would get with pigmented inks?
>>
>
> Since most of my customers want glossy prints (cant say why, I preffer a
> MATTE print under glass myself) I have not persued it yet.
>
> My whole point was that PROPER CARE is a bigger factor than most people
> seem
> to think.
>
> Regular photo prints from the Photo Shop on the corner would fade nearly
> as
> fast as dye type ink-jet prints if not put away and kept out of the light.
>
> I have several Canon & Epson dye prints that are old enough (5 - 6 years)
> that I dont remember which model printer they were done on, but they have
> been in an album in a closet (where all un-mounted prints should be) and
> they
> look damn fine to me.
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.
March 23, 2005 5:42:30 PM

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

In article <d1sdag$pj8@dispatch.concentric.net>, eagle102308@yahoo.com
says...
>
> The waterless process substitutes a "stabilizer" for the wash, the
> stabilizer is relatively expensive and if the company is trying to cut
> corners they may not be replenishing properly, which causes once again,
> rapid fading.....
>

I agree, and I know that there is no one available most of the time at Wal-
Mart, CVS, or Walgreens to check on the fitness of the machinery.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:49:22 PM

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

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:20 -0500, Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net>
wrote:

>The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good one at
>the time, I can see I was misstaken.

I can't remember who said that it is better the criticism of the
wise than the praise of the fool.

Geo
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:33:07 PM

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> This unprofessional school kid mentality that they present along with
>> their unprofessional eBay website and their statement on their own
>> website no to call and order anything is not the kind of organization
>> that deserves to have a small quantity monopoly from a large
>> manufacturer.
>>
>> If Formulabs does care about the way they are being represented, they
>> might possibly encourage other vendors to carry their merchandise.
>>
>
> My feelings are that lack of "encouragement" by Formulabs is NOT the
> reason Formulabs (Sensient) inks aren't carried by more dealers. The
> real culprit is "cost". Most dealers (after sellers, not Formulabs) want
> the highest profit margin and not necessarily the best quality (more
> expensive) ink on the market. The vast majority of buyers are not
> experts (or self-proclaimed experts) and professionals who demand the
> very best. Therefore, dealers will opt to carry cheaper lines. My long
> time dealer no longer sells Formulabs inks. It may be a long time
> before they hear from me.


We all know that Formulabs(Sensinet) is an ink formulator/manufacturer.
That said, who is MIS. I know that inksupply sells MIS ink but they do
not say if that is just their web store moniker or if that is a
manufacturer. If MIS is a manufacturer then I do not understand why
they use a noname in their prefilled carts.

That is the trouble with 3rd party. Not only (most of the time) does
one not know who the formulator/mfg is, you are not sure if whoever made
the ink the first time you purchased it but whether you second purchase
is from the same mfg and if it is you do not know if the raw materials
are the same or the formula is the same.

Now, in the case of Canon or Epson, that information is not readily
available either but they are huge organizations that have spent
millions on their brands; so their testing, specifications, and quality
control are the best they can make it so they can protect their name. I
ask what name the noname (generic) is protecting.

>
> -Taliesyn
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 3rd party inks: print anything you can think of, with ink that costs
> next to nothing, to impress people you don't like.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 3:33:37 PM

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

I don't think your posting your experience with fading was a poor
decision at all. It allows for discussion of the limitations and
benefits of that kind of semi-objective testing.

I also am saddened that more people don't recognize the benefits and
nice look a matte print can offer. I prefer matte prints, especially if
they are to be framed, to decrease the amount of internal reflection
that occurs.

Art

Larry wrote:


>>
>>As I told another person in the thread, I would not use the word "abused" to
>>a customer, I would simply replace the print with something that might last
>>longer. (so far that has meant a chemical print)
>>
>>The available research is helpfull in that it gives me the information I need
>>to start off with (Thats why most of my delivered prints are done on an Epson
>>printer, on Epson paper). For myself I prefer Canon printers and the paper I
>>buy in bulk, but the available research shows a likelyhood of the Epson paper
>>lasting longer, so its what I sell.
>>
>>The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good one at
>>the time, I can see I was misstaken.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I should append this:
>
> I already KNOW that pigment inks lasts longer.
>
> I have a couple of Epson printers that use them, my problem is I dont like
> the way they look on Glossy Paper, even with "gloss optimizer" or oversprays.
>
> If printed on Matte Paper, they dont have the lustre of a glossy print, and
> that is what SELLS.. (the sizzle, not the steak).
>
> If I could, I would simply sell pigment inks on Matte paper, but they dont
> sell as well as the glosssy prints.
>
> Up until the last event I shot in the fall last year, I always had a display
> with Glossy, Matte, and Cloth prints, to show what was available. Since I
> havent sold anything other than glossy in 3 years, it became clear to me I
> was wasting my time, and wasting display space.
>
> I have Glossy, Matte, & other on the order sheet, and the order sheet ALWAYS
> comes back with Glossy checked off.
>
> I cant educate the customer, it only annoys him, so I give 'em what they
> want.
>
> So Far I havent had a pigment printer that could make a Glossy print that I
> liked. When I find one, I will use it. (I must admit to not trying the
> current "Top of the line" Epsons yet, as they seem to keep changing the
> line.)
>
> What Im REALLY waiting for is to see if Canon is going to get off the porch
> and into the game by coming out with a pigment printer, instead of giving us
> smaller drops.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 3:54:36 PM

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

That might have been the case until the newest Ultrachrome inks were
introduced. The R800 and R1800 printers from Epson produce a glossy
print that many are selecting as the best print in the inkjet market and
they use a pigment colorant ink set.

Cost may be another factor, however.

Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Interesting tests, as far as they went (time will tell more.)
>>
>> I do agree that most, if not all, OEM dye ink printers, and especially
>> six color type using the light dye load inks, are more vulnerable to
>> fading, both light and dark types. New dyes and papers are being
>> produced which may change much of this. The paper is very important
>> to this equation.
>>
>> And all this is indeed the reason why pigment colorant inks have been
>> released as an answer to fugitive color until something better comes
>> along.
>
>
> It almost seems like you have a choice between longer lasting poorer
> results or shorter lasting better results. Given that choice what is
> best is the opinion of the user.
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:18:45 PM

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

I would think the testing of inks is paid for by the manufacturers or
distributors of the inks. If these companies you mention want their
inks tested they just have to come up with the funds.

Of course, part of the reason their inks are less costly is because they
don't have these independent tests carried out.

Art



Burt wrote:

> In my opinion your posting of your experiences and opinions is helpful to
> all. You were very clear in how you came to your conclusions and people can
> use the information as they wish. You did not hold yourself up to be the
> world's expert on the subject. Although others can certainly respond with
> what they regard as more authoritative information there is no need for the
> kind of foul-mouthed abuse that was leveled at you! Thanks for your posts
> and keep it up.
>
> I wish that Willhelm or PC Magazine had tested aftermarket inks that seem to
> be in the mainstream at this time. MIS and Formulabs, among others, have
> been reported as extremely close to Canon inks in color and behavior in the
> printer. Inkgrabber and Alotofthings also seem to have a good reputation
> with some of the people posting here and elsewhere.
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:48:27 PM

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

I have recently started to do testing on the newer R800 inks to
determine if the cleaning methods in my manual will work successfully
with them.

The 2100/2200 Ultrachrome inks were the first I encountered that
contained so much glycol content (I'm assuming it's the glycol) that the
inks literally took weeks to dry and never did fully on a non-porous
surface.

However, the new R800 inks are taking even longer to dry. I'm amazed
they are surface dry as quickly as they apparently are considering this.

No wonder these inks out-gas so long once framed.

Art


Kennedy McEwen wrote:


>
> I have seen prints that are still outgassing glycols almost a year after
> printing - and, believe me, its more trouble than a measkite to get off
> the glass!
>
March 26, 2005 6:41:00 PM

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

Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:

>That might have been the case until the newest Ultrachrome inks were
>introduced. The R800 and R1800 printers from Epson produce a glossy
>print that many are selecting as the best print in the inkjet market and
>they use a pigment colorant ink set.
>
>Cost may be another factor, however.
>
>Art


I have used an Epson 1270 printer since they first became available
and I think that the prints it makes certainly look beautiful.
However, I have been considering one of the new R800 or possibly a
R1800 as a replacement because of the print longevity. I have read
here that some think the print quality not as good with the pigment
inks so I requested EPSON send me a glossy print sample (free) printed
on the R800 to judge for my self.
The print is absolutely beautiful and most certainly as glossy as
anything I have ever printed on my 1270 so I have no idea what anyone
means when they say you must make a choice between longevity and
color! In fact, I am looking at the print just now, moving it in the
light to see if there is any discernable inconsistency in gloss or
color. Both color and gloss look absolutely perfect to me!
I would suggest that anyone send for a print sample to satisfy any
questions about print quality that you may have. It certainly
answered all of my questions!

Richard
March 26, 2005 8:40:35 PM

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

In article <BEc1e.109671$fc4.101979@edtnps89>, artistic@telus.net says...
> I don't think your posting your experience with fading was a poor
> decision at all. It allows for discussion of the limitations and
> benefits of that kind of semi-objective testing.
>
> I also am saddened that more people don't recognize the benefits and
> nice look a matte print can offer. I prefer matte prints, especially if
> they are to be framed, to decrease the amount of internal reflection
> that occurs.
>
> Art
>

The arbiter of all things, and knower of all knowledge (my wife) suggests I
should only bring good quality Matte paper, and not offer Glossy at all for
our first event this year.

Her logic is: I'll be the only photographer at the event, and if its all Im
selling, they will buy it.

Personally, I would prefer they buy it because they like it.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:13:43 PM

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

On 26-Mar-2005, Richard <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have no idea what anyone
> means when they say you must make a choice between longevity and
> color!

The factors in longevity are UV exposure, ink composition and importantly
whether you use archival quality paper. The underling paper stock
should be chlorine (bleaching agent used in paper production) free.
Removing the last traces of chlorine compounds is reflected in the
paper price. Then it's mainly a matter of storing in a clean, dry
environment, out of contact with non-archival quality materials.
Like it is no good putting the prints in a cheap album, cheap card
one side, with a plastic film holding them to the page. The plastic
film will lose some volatiles, harden and age, not to mention the card.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:24:32 PM

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

Doesn't UV or Museums glass reduce reflections so glossy would be ok. I
do like matte prints or eggshell for BW and for some portrait work.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I don't think your posting your experience with fading was a poor
> decision at all. It allows for discussion of the limitations and
> benefits of that kind of semi-objective testing.
>
> I also am saddened that more people don't recognize the benefits and
> nice look a matte print can offer. I prefer matte prints, especially
> if they are to be framed, to decrease the amount of internal
> reflection that occurs.
>
> Art
>
> Larry wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> As I told another person in the thread, I would not use the word
>>> "abused" to a customer, I would simply replace the print with
>>> something that might last longer. (so far that has meant a chemical
>>> print)
>>>
>>> The available research is helpfull in that it gives me the
>>> information I need to start off with (Thats why most of my delivered
>>> prints are done on an Epson printer, on Epson paper). For myself I
>>> prefer Canon printers and the paper I buy in bulk, but the available
>>> research shows a likelyhood of the Epson paper lasting longer, so
>>> its what I sell.
>>>
>>> The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good
>>> one at the time, I can see I was misstaken.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I should append this:
>>
>> I already KNOW that pigment inks lasts longer.
>>
>> I have a couple of Epson printers that use them, my problem is I dont
>> like the way they look on Glossy Paper, even with "gloss optimizer"
>> or oversprays.
>>
>> If printed on Matte Paper, they dont have the lustre of a glossy
>> print, and that is what SELLS.. (the sizzle, not the steak).
>>
>> If I could, I would simply sell pigment inks on Matte paper, but they
>> dont sell as well as the glosssy prints.
>> Up until the last event I shot in the fall last year, I always had a
>> display with Glossy, Matte, and Cloth prints, to show what was
>> available. Since I havent sold anything other than glossy in 3
>> years, it became clear to me I was wasting my time, and wasting
>> display space.
>>
>> I have Glossy, Matte, & other on the order sheet, and the order sheet
>> ALWAYS comes back with Glossy checked off.
>> I cant educate the customer, it only annoys him, so I give 'em what
>> they want.
>>
>> So Far I havent had a pigment printer that could make a Glossy print
>> that I liked. When I find one, I will use it. (I must admit to not
>> trying the current "Top of the line" Epsons yet, as they seem to keep
>> changing the line.)
>>
>> What Im REALLY waiting for is to see if Canon is going to get off the
>> porch and into the game by coming out with a pigment printer, instead
>> of giving us smaller drops.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:28:12 PM

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

Epson inks are confusing. You speak of Ultrachrome. Then I see
Durabrite advertised. Then, I do not know what you call it but the dye
based ink that is in the R300/R200 series. What are the differences?

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> That might have been the case until the newest Ultrachrome inks were
> introduced. The R800 and R1800 printers from Epson produce a glossy
> print that many are selecting as the best print in the inkjet market
> and they use a pigment colorant ink set.
>
> Cost may be another factor, however.
>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting tests, as far as they went (time will tell more.)
>>>
>>> I do agree that most, if not all, OEM dye ink printers, and
>>> especially six color type using the light dye load inks, are more
>>> vulnerable to fading, both light and dark types. New dyes and
>>> papers are being produced which may change much of this. The paper
>>> is very important to this equation.
>>>
>>> And all this is indeed the reason why pigment colorant inks have
>>> been released as an answer to fugitive color until something better
>>> comes along.
>>
>>
>>
>> It almost seems like you have a choice between longer lasting poorer
>> results or shorter lasting better results. Given that choice what is
>> best is the opinion of the user.
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:39:32 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I would think the testing of inks is paid for by the manufacturers or
> distributors of the inks. If these companies you mention want their
> inks tested they just have to come up with the funds.

Many time PCMag or Consumer Reports test products that are not supplied
by the mfg. In the case of ink; it would not cost them very much to
cooperate with a periodical doing a comparative test analysis of their
product.

>
> Of course, part of the reason their inks are less costly is because
> they don't have these independent tests carried out.
>
> Art
>
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> In my opinion your posting of your experiences and opinions is
>> helpful to all. You were very clear in how you came to your
>> conclusions and people can use the information as they wish. You did
>> not hold yourself up to be the world's expert on the subject.
>> Although others can certainly respond with what they regard as more
>> authoritative information there is no need for the kind of
>> foul-mouthed abuse that was leveled at you! Thanks for your posts
>> and keep it up.
>>
>> I wish that Willhelm or PC Magazine had tested aftermarket inks that
>> seem to be in the mainstream at this time. MIS and Formulabs, among
>> others, have been reported as extremely close to Canon inks in color
>> and behavior in the printer. Inkgrabber and Alotofthings also seem
>> to have a good reputation with some of the people posting here and
>> elsewhere.
>>
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:30:22 PM

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

There are a number of different types of glass out there for frame
glazing. UV glass does nothing about reflection, it just has a colorant
in it (it's slightly yellow) which filters some UV. There are also some
glasses which are made non-glossy via chemical etching, but I don't like
that look at all.

you are probably referring to AR (anti-reflective) glass which has
vaporized metallic coatings on it like they use on eyeglasses, camera
lenses and filters to make the surfaces "disappear". They work better
than some, but only under the correct lighting, otherwise they can make
the reflection worse. Further the coatings tend to be very vulnerable
to scratching, fingerprints, etc, and cost a minor fortune.

Lastly, other than mounting the image, which is not acceptable practice
for conservation framing, a glossy print, especially larger than about
letter size, tends to ripple and sag or otherwise distort when matted
and framed, and if it is glossy, that begins to look bad.

So, overall, I prefer a nice velvety matte paper over glossy for my prints.

Art


measekite wrote:

> Doesn't UV or Museums glass reduce reflections so glossy would be ok. I
> do like matte prints or eggshell for BW and for some portrait work.
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I don't think your posting your experience with fading was a poor
>> decision at all. It allows for discussion of the limitations and
>> benefits of that kind of semi-objective testing.
>>
>> I also am saddened that more people don't recognize the benefits and
>> nice look a matte print can offer. I prefer matte prints, especially
>> if they are to be framed, to decrease the amount of internal
>> reflection that occurs.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> Larry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> As I told another person in the thread, I would not use the word
>>>> "abused" to a customer, I would simply replace the print with
>>>> something that might last longer. (so far that has meant a chemical
>>>> print)
>>>>
>>>> The available research is helpfull in that it gives me the
>>>> information I need to start off with (Thats why most of my delivered
>>>> prints are done on an Epson printer, on Epson paper). For myself I
>>>> prefer Canon printers and the paper I buy in bulk, but the available
>>>> research shows a likelyhood of the Epson paper lasting longer, so
>>>> its what I sell.
>>>>
>>>> The idea of sharing what I have done with others seemed like a good
>>>> one at the time, I can see I was misstaken.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I should append this:
>>>
>>> I already KNOW that pigment inks lasts longer.
>>>
>>> I have a couple of Epson printers that use them, my problem is I dont
>>> like the way they look on Glossy Paper, even with "gloss optimizer"
>>> or oversprays.
>>>
>>> If printed on Matte Paper, they dont have the lustre of a glossy
>>> print, and that is what SELLS.. (the sizzle, not the steak).
>>>
>>> If I could, I would simply sell pigment inks on Matte paper, but they
>>> dont sell as well as the glosssy prints.
>>> Up until the last event I shot in the fall last year, I always had a
>>> display with Glossy, Matte, and Cloth prints, to show what was
>>> available. Since I havent sold anything other than glossy in 3
>>> years, it became clear to me I was wasting my time, and wasting
>>> display space.
>>>
>>> I have Glossy, Matte, & other on the order sheet, and the order sheet
>>> ALWAYS comes back with Glossy checked off. I cant educate the
>>> customer, it only annoys him, so I give 'em what they want.
>>>
>>> So Far I havent had a pigment printer that could make a Glossy print
>>> that I liked. When I find one, I will use it. (I must admit to not
>>> trying the current "Top of the line" Epsons yet, as they seem to keep
>>> changing the line.)
>>>
>>> What Im REALLY waiting for is to see if Canon is going to get off the
>>> porch and into the game by coming out with a pigment printer, instead
>>> of giving us smaller drops.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:41:02 PM

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

One of the beauties of Epson printer technology is the ability of many
inks being possible to create and use in the printers. Besides Epson's
own inks, there are probably hundreds of other 3rd party ink formulas
for Epson printers.

Overall, the basic printer head design can work with any of the inks,
although some firmware, profiles and other elements might be changed to
make the printer work better with differing ink types

Epson makes a variety of inks for different applications. The first
basic inks were 4 color dye colorant inks. They expanded these to 6
color (adding low dye load C and M) and finally several other colors.

Then they introduced the Durabrite inks, which were their first pigment
colorant attempt. They first came out with a six color system for the
2000P. They then used the same basic technology to develop a four color
version, which went into their "business" printers, (Some of the C and
CX series). The Durabrite inks had some limitations, especially in the
six color versions (metamerism) so they reformulated and came up with
the Ultrachrome inks, which have a wider gamut, but aren't quite as
fade-resistant. These were first introduced in the 2100/2200 printer.
They also added two blacks to allow for both matte and glossy results.
They then reformulated them again with more colors and a way of making
them glossier by using a coating (used in the R800 and R1800 printers).

Art


measekite wrote:

> Epson inks are confusing. You speak of Ultrachrome. Then I see
> Durabrite advertised. Then, I do not know what you call it but the dye
> based ink that is in the R300/R200 series. What are the differences?
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> That might have been the case until the newest Ultrachrome inks were
>> introduced. The R800 and R1800 printers from Epson produce a glossy
>> print that many are selecting as the best print in the inkjet market
>> and they use a pigment colorant ink set.
>>
>> Cost may be another factor, however.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting tests, as far as they went (time will tell more.)
>>>>
>>>> I do agree that most, if not all, OEM dye ink printers, and
>>>> especially six color type using the light dye load inks, are more
>>>> vulnerable to fading, both light and dark types. New dyes and
>>>> papers are being produced which may change much of this. The paper
>>>> is very important to this equation.
>>>>
>>>> And all this is indeed the reason why pigment colorant inks have
>>>> been released as an answer to fugitive color until something better
>>>> comes along.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It almost seems like you have a choice between longer lasting poorer
>>> results or shorter lasting better results. Given that choice what is
>>> best is the opinion of the user.
>>>
>>>
>>>
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:45:29 PM

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

In the case of the magazines, the subscribers pay for the tests, but
most independnet tests are paid for by the company requesting the testing.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I would think the testing of inks is paid for by the manufacturers or
>> distributors of the inks. If these companies you mention want their
>> inks tested they just have to come up with the funds.
>
>
> Many time PCMag or Consumer Reports test products that are not supplied
> by the mfg. In the case of ink; it would not cost them very much to
> cooperate with a periodical doing a comparative test analysis of their
> product.
>
>>
>> Of course, part of the reason their inks are less costly is because
>> they don't have these independent tests carried out.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>>
>> Burt wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion your posting of your experiences and opinions is
>>> helpful to all. You were very clear in how you came to your
>>> conclusions and people can use the information as they wish. You did
>>> not hold yourself up to be the world's expert on the subject.
>>> Although others can certainly respond with what they regard as more
>>> authoritative information there is no need for the kind of
>>> foul-mouthed abuse that was leveled at you! Thanks for your posts
>>> and keep it up.
>>>
>>> I wish that Willhelm or PC Magazine had tested aftermarket inks that
>>> seem to be in the mainstream at this time. MIS and Formulabs, among
>>> others, have been reported as extremely close to Canon inks in color
>>> and behavior in the printer. Inkgrabber and Alotofthings also seem
>>> to have a good reputation with some of the people posting here and
>>> elsewhere.
>>>
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 7:41:25 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> One of the beauties of Epson printer technology is the ability of many
> inks being possible to create and use in the printers. Besides
> Epson's own inks, there are probably hundreds of other 3rd party ink
> formulas for Epson printers.

Of those hundreds I bet the majority are low quality noname sold by
fly-by-night websites that have that print head clogging tendancy or
that do not produce good results. Also, many of these fly-by-nights are
selling the exact same noname inks that exhibit the same problems touted
by some name they bestow on the product they bought and then lie about
how good and unique their stuff is.

If you did use one or two lots of these without incident, you can never
be sure how much variance there will be from lot to lot. The big three
spends millions to maintain quality and consistency and you can be sure
that the variance is minimal.

>
> Overall, the basic printer head design can work with any of the inks,
> although some firmware, profiles and other elements might be changed
> to make the printer work better with differing ink types
>
> Epson makes a variety of inks for different applications. The first
> basic inks were 4 color dye colorant inks. They expanded these to 6
> color (adding low dye load C and M) and finally several other colors.


Did Epson give these basic inks a model name ie like Ultrachrome or
something or can they be identified by not having that special name.
Another name they have used is Durabrite.

>
> Then they introduced the Durabrite inks, which were their first
> pigment colorant attempt.

Are the Durabrite inks designed for graphic business documents or are
they also used as well for photos?

> They first came out with a six color system for the 2000P. They then
> used the same basic technology to develop a four color version, which
> went into their "business" printers, (Some of the C and CX series).
> The Durabrite inks had some limitations,


Do you know what they were?

> especially in the six color versions (metamerism) so they reformulated
> and came up with the Ultrachrome inks, which have a wider gamut, but
> aren't quite as fade-resistant. These were first introduced in the
> 2100/2200 printer. They also added two blacks to allow for both matte
> and glossy results. They then reformulated them again with more colors
> and a way of making them glossier by using a coating (used in the R800
> and R1800 printers).
>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> Epson inks are confusing. You speak of Ultrachrome. Then I see
>> Durabrite advertised. Then, I do not know what you call it but the
>> dye based ink that is in the R300/R200 series. What are the
>> differences?
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> That might have been the case until the newest Ultrachrome inks were
>>> introduced. The R800 and R1800 printers from Epson produce a glossy
>>> print that many are selecting as the best print in the inkjet market
>>> and they use a pigment colorant ink set.
>>>
>>> Cost may be another factor, however.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting tests, as far as they went (time will tell more.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I do agree that most, if not all, OEM dye ink printers, and
>>>>> especially six color type using the light dye load inks, are more
>>>>> vulnerable to fading, both light and dark types. New dyes and
>>>>> papers are being produced which may change much of this. The
>>>>> paper is very important to this equation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And all this is indeed the reason why pigment colorant inks have
>>>>> been released as an answer to fugitive color until something
>>>>> better comes along.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It almost seems like you have a choice between longer lasting
>>>> poorer results or shorter lasting better results. Given that
>>>> choice what is best is the opinion of the user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 5:49:54 AM

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:45:29 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
wrote:

>In the case of the magazines, the subscribers pay for the tests, but
>most independnet tests are paid for by the company requesting the testing.
>
Which, of course, means independent tests aren't. Independent that is.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
!