The TRUTH about dye prints both Canon & Epson

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,378
0
19,280
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
 

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,378
0
19,280
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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 ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,378
0
19,280
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,378
0
19,280
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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 ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,378
0
19,280
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
>
>
>
>
 

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,378
0
19,280
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.
 

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,378
0
19,280
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,378
0
19,280
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
 

BURT

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2004
712
0
18,980
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.
 

Larry

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,378
0
19,280
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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...
 
G

Guest

Guest
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...
 
G

Guest

Guest
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...
 
G

Guest

Guest
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 ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.