Believe It Or NOt

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

The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
seeing this on the US Canon site.

Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.


It is a popular yet mistaken belief that images printed at home with an
inkjet paper fade more quickly than traditional photographs. All
photographs are affected by (among other things) light, atmospheric
pollutants, high temperatures and humidity, all of which may cause
fading – inkjet printed images are no different to professionally
developed photographs in this respect.

Images will last longer if the causes of fading can be reduced or
eliminated. Colour images will last longer when displayed under lower
light levels. Equally the life of prints may be shorter if subjected to
intense lighting such as in an art gallery. Prints intended for long
term display may be framed behind glass or plastic to protect them from
fading caused by exposure to gas such as ozone or cigarette smoke.

Fading can be a problem when prints are displayed unframed (i.e. without
any protection), such as when pinned to a notice board or stuck to the
refrigerator door, and is largely caused by gas. Prints displayed in the
kitchen may also be especially prone to fading due to the high
temperatures and humidity caused by steam and the vapours from cooking.

When printing images, the ink should be left to dry naturally (i.e. away
from direct sunlight or sources of heat); complete drying may take
approximately 24 hours. We recommend that printed images are not
displayed out of doors or exposed to direct sunlight or high
temperatures. Images should be kept at normal room temperature where
possible, and away from humid rooms such as the kitchen or bathroom.

To protect images from direct exposure to air and reduce fading, store
them in albums or framed behind glass. Prints stored in an album will
last longer than photos that are framed. However, avoid self-adhesive
type albums and those with PVC overlays – these albums may actually
increase fading and discolouration.

*How long will my photos last?
*Since actual display, storage and environmental conditions in the real
world differ considerably (for example the light levels in homes and art
galleries are quite different) it is not easy to give a definite answer
unless conditions can be controlled in some way. For images that are
stored in an album we quote an image life of up to 100 years (when
printed using genuine Canon inks and Photo Paper Pro PR-101). This is
based on accelerated dark storage testing at 23°C and 50% RH (relative
humidity) and is representative of conditions in a typical home
environment.

To get the optimum results, remember to use paper and inks designed for
use with your printer and follow the advice for display and storage.

*Photo Paper
* Canon offers an extensive range of specialty paper to suit all needs
and accommodate the ever-increasing trend of home photo printing. New
photo papers have been introduced that make printing at home even more
versatile and fun. Photo Paper Plus Double Sided PP-101D for example is
a high quality photo paper that is printable on both sides and is
especially suitable for album printing. The paper is also included as
part of a Photo Album Kit PAK-101, which contains everything needed to
make a personalised digital photo album or scrapbook when using the
latest PIXMA photo printers.

The synergy between Canon’s digital cameras, the new PIXMA range of
printers and photo paper allows users to create lab quality photos at
home. Easy connectivity via PictBridge allows photo printing straight
from compatible digital still and video cameras, making it easier than
ever to print photos at home.
30 answers Last reply
More about believe
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:
    > The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
    > seeing this on the US Canon site.
    >
    > Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.
    >

    There's nothing surprising in the article and nothing I didn't already
    know already. Just basic, common sense photo handling tips.

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

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:usH2e.18566$C47.2990@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    > The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
    > seeing this on the US Canon site.
    >
    > Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > It is a popular yet mistaken belief that images printed at home with an
    > inkjet paper fade more quickly than traditional photographs.

    Nothing untrue about that. Traditional-type colour photographs fade
    surprisingly quickly if exposed to sunlight - in the case of Polaroid's that
    can happen in a matter of weeks. Kodak and Agfa used to rate their papers
    for ~20 years, but that's been shown to be generally optimistic.

    The old-fashioned 'paper' Black and White photographs on the other hand can
    last for 100+ years without any special treatment, and although resin coated
    prints should last as long; in practice they will start to fade noticeable
    after 20 years or so.

    Current inkjet inks can compete quite well with those life spans.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:
    > The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
    > seeing this on the US Canon site.
    >
    > Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.

    All true. Even slides stored in the dark will fade - I have some slides
    from the 50s and early 60s that were projected perhaps five or six times
    each, yet they have acquired a purple cast. Colour pictures all use
    organic dyes (even the pigment inks have dyes in them), and organic
    compounds are not stable. They have "shelf life." You an extend the
    life of a colour print to several decades with careful storage, but you
    can't make it permanent.

    The only long-lasting colours (ie, life measured in centuries) are those
    made with minerals such as clays (raw/burnt sienna, yellow ochre, etc)
    or mineral salts (chrome yellow/green, vermilion, lapis lazuli blue,
    etc), but even these can change colour when subjected to moisture and
    oxygen, a combination that creates an acid, which will react with the
    minerals. Also, the medium used to make the paint (eg, mineral or olive
    oil, egg tempera, etc) deteriorates.

    That being said, colour laser prints last longer than inkjet prints and
    photographs. Socalled "giclee" prints are made with colour lasers AFAIK,
    and should last for decades even when exhibited in brightly lit living
    rooms, etc.

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

    Ivor Floppy wrote:

    > "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:usH2e.18566$C47.2990@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >>The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
    >>seeing this on the US Canon site.
    >>
    >>Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>It is a popular yet mistaken belief that images printed at home with an
    >>inkjet paper fade more quickly than traditional photographs.
    >
    >
    > Nothing untrue about that. Traditional-type colour photographs fade
    > surprisingly quickly if exposed to sunlight - in the case of Polaroid's that
    > can happen in a matter of weeks. Kodak and Agfa used to rate their papers
    > for ~20 years, but that's been shown to be generally optimistic.
    >

    Yep

    There has been over the past 20 years patches of paper types that have
    had colour coupler problems and only lasted 3 years before they went purple.

    And remember colour slide film go back and see what that like now - not
    good and thats all brands Kodak Fuji Agfa.

    > The old-fashioned 'paper' Black and White photographs on the other hand can
    > last for 100+ years without any special treatment, and although resin coated
    > prints should last as long; in practice they will start to fade noticeable
    > after 20 years or so.
    >

    If processed correctly and all silver has been treated - sepia processed
    is the most archival.


    > Current inkjet inks can compete quite well with those life spans.
    >
    >


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

    I suspect the product liability laws differ in the UK.

    As to if Canon ink and paper prints last as long as silver wet color
    photo images, well, I suppose there may be some very poorly processed
    photos somewhere... otherwise it is a great flexing of the truth.
    Today's "drug store" prints will last up to 100 years in low-moderate
    lighting, and 20-30 years in medium bright lighting. I am not speaking
    of direct sunlight or in a window or outdoors for either case.

    You notice the ONLY number Canon will offer is up to 100 years in total
    darkness. So, perhaps, if you do not display the images, they could
    last "up to 100 years", who knows.

    Art

    measekite wrote:

    > The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
    > seeing this on the US Canon site.
    >
    > Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > It is a popular yet mistaken belief that images printed at home with an
    > inkjet paper fade more quickly than traditional photographs. All
    > photographs are affected by (among other things) light, atmospheric
    > pollutants, high temperatures and humidity, all of which may cause
    > fading – inkjet printed images are no different to professionally
    > developed photographs in this respect.
    >
    > Images will last longer if the causes of fading can be reduced or
    > eliminated. Colour images will last longer when displayed under lower
    > light levels. Equally the life of prints may be shorter if subjected to
    > intense lighting such as in an art gallery. Prints intended for long
    > term display may be framed behind glass or plastic to protect them from
    > fading caused by exposure to gas such as ozone or cigarette smoke.
    >
    > Fading can be a problem when prints are displayed unframed (i.e. without
    > any protection), such as when pinned to a notice board or stuck to the
    > refrigerator door, and is largely caused by gas. Prints displayed in the
    > kitchen may also be especially prone to fading due to the high
    > temperatures and humidity caused by steam and the vapours from cooking.
    >
    > When printing images, the ink should be left to dry naturally (i.e. away
    > from direct sunlight or sources of heat); complete drying may take
    > approximately 24 hours. We recommend that printed images are not
    > displayed out of doors or exposed to direct sunlight or high
    > temperatures. Images should be kept at normal room temperature where
    > possible, and away from humid rooms such as the kitchen or bathroom.
    >
    > To protect images from direct exposure to air and reduce fading, store
    > them in albums or framed behind glass. Prints stored in an album will
    > last longer than photos that are framed. However, avoid self-adhesive
    > type albums and those with PVC overlays – these albums may actually
    > increase fading and discolouration.
    >
    > *How long will my photos last?
    > *Since actual display, storage and environmental conditions in the real
    > world differ considerably (for example the light levels in homes and art
    > galleries are quite different) it is not easy to give a definite answer
    > unless conditions can be controlled in some way. For images that are
    > stored in an album we quote an image life of up to 100 years (when
    > printed using genuine Canon inks and Photo Paper Pro PR-101). This is
    > based on accelerated dark storage testing at 23°C and 50% RH (relative
    > humidity) and is representative of conditions in a typical home
    > environment.
    >
    > To get the optimum results, remember to use paper and inks designed for
    > use with your printer and follow the advice for display and storage.
    >
    > *Photo Paper
    > * Canon offers an extensive range of specialty paper to suit all needs
    > and accommodate the ever-increasing trend of home photo printing. New
    > photo papers have been introduced that make printing at home even more
    > versatile and fun. Photo Paper Plus Double Sided PP-101D for example is
    > a high quality photo paper that is printable on both sides and is
    > especially suitable for album printing. The paper is also included as
    > part of a Photo Album Kit PAK-101, which contains everything needed to
    > make a personalised digital photo album or scrapbook when using the
    > latest PIXMA photo printers.
    >
    > The synergy between Canon’s digital cameras, the new PIXMA range of
    > printers and photo paper allows users to create lab quality photos at
    > home. Easy connectivity via PictBridge allows photo printing straight
    > from compatible digital still and video cameras, making it easier than
    > ever to print photos at home.
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    >It is a popular yet mistaken belief that images printed at home with an
    > inkjet paper fade more quickly than traditional photographs.

    You know, you are correct... this is written so deceptively, that they
    may not be "lying".

    Look at the first sentence. They never mention Canon by name, so there
    is some truth to what they say... it is a myth that some images printed
    at home do not lastthe same as traditional (color) photos. For
    instance, Eposon pigment colorant ink images, and even HP printer on
    swellable polymer will last as long as "traditional (color) photos" The
    problem is Canon's made with ethir own inks won't (and that they fail to
    mention).

    >All photographs are affected by (among other things) light,
    atmospheric > pollutants, high temperatures and humidity, all of which
    may cause
    > fading – inkjet printed images are no different to professionally
    > developed photographs in this respect.

    Again, true. The AMOUNT of effect these environmental influences have
    may differ between Canon ink prints and traditional (color) photos, but
    both are altered, and some, otehr than Canon ink prints are probably
    even less altered by these conditions than traditional (color) photos.

    you notice I keep on indicating (color) because interms of Black and
    White, real silver traditional photos are so ahead of anything in teh
    inkjet biz for longevity that it's no contest.


    Art

    Taliesyn wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >> The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
    >> seeing this on the US Canon site.
    >>
    >> Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.
    >>
    >
    > There's nothing surprising in the article and nothing I didn't already
    > know already. Just basic, common sense photo handling tips.
    >
    > -Taliesyn
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Except current Canon ink prints can't. They can fade under indoor
    fluorescent lighting in a matter of months. I haven't seen a properly
    processed traditional color photo do that in about 30 years.

    Art


    Ivor Floppy wrote:

    > "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:usH2e.18566$C47.2990@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >>The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
    >>seeing this on the US Canon site.
    >>
    >>Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>It is a popular yet mistaken belief that images printed at home with an
    >>inkjet paper fade more quickly than traditional photographs.
    >
    >
    > Nothing untrue about that. Traditional-type colour photographs fade
    > surprisingly quickly if exposed to sunlight - in the case of Polaroid's that
    > can happen in a matter of weeks. Kodak and Agfa used to rate their papers
    > for ~20 years, but that's been shown to be generally optimistic.
    >
    > The old-fashioned 'paper' Black and White photographs on the other hand can
    > last for 100+ years without any special treatment, and although resin coated
    > prints should last as long; in practice they will start to fade noticeable
    > after 20 years or so.
    >
    > Current inkjet inks can compete quite well with those life spans.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <ERU2e.4065$x8.847735@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    wwolfkir@sympatico.ca (Wolf Kirchmeir) wrote:

    > So called "giclee" prints are made with colour lasers AFAIK...

    No. ink jets.

    'Gigleé' is the past participle of the French verb meaning 'to squirt', so
    it means 'squirted'. It's a euphemism of sorts, coined because the 'art
    world' is a bit snobby about ink jet printers (amongst other things).

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

    Jon O'Brien wrote:
    > In article <ERU2e.4065$x8.847735@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    > wwolfkir@sympatico.ca (Wolf Kirchmeir) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>So called "giclee" prints are made with colour lasers AFAIK...
    >
    >
    > No. ink jets.
    >
    > 'Gigleé' is the past participle of the French verb meaning 'to squirt', so
    > it means 'squirted'. It's a euphemism of sorts, coined because the 'art
    > world' is a bit snobby about ink jet printers (amongst other things).
    >
    > Jon.

    OK, but I was told that a "giclee" print I was looking at was printed
    with a colour laser. Go figure... :-)
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:26:02 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
    >seeing this on the US Canon site.
    >
    >Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.
    >
    Seems pretty accurate, though I'd question the need for buying Canon
    papers. Apart from that it's mostly good advice.

    --

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

    On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:29:33 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
    wrote:

    >Except current Canon ink prints can't. They can fade under indoor
    >fluorescent lighting in a matter of months. I haven't seen a properly
    >processed traditional color photo do that in about 30 years.
    >
    True.

    --

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

    In article <ok_2e.18647$w63.1132630@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    wwolfkir@sympatico.ca (Wolf Kirchmeir) wrote:

    > OK, but I was told that a "giclee" print I was looking at was printed
    > with a colour laser. Go figure... :-)

    Easy. The person that told you that doesn't have a clue! :-)

    I was talking to an art gallery owner last year when I happened to use the
    words 'ink jet printer' when talking about giclée prints. His nose reached
    for the ceiling and, sneering down it, he told me that giclée was a
    'special' printing process far beyond the capabilities of something
    someone might have on their desk.

    A few days later I dropped in a copy of a page from Nash Editions' Web
    site, which explains about giclée prints and Iris ink jet printers, along
    with a print from my Epson 2100. I didn't hang around to gloat but he's
    neatly avoided speaking to me every time I've been back to the gallery
    since then.

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

    In article <memo.20050401143309.3388A@blue.compulink.co.uk>,
    Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com says...
    > In article <ok_2e.18647$w63.1132630@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    > wwolfkir@sympatico.ca (Wolf Kirchmeir) wrote:
    >
    > > OK, but I was told that a "giclee" print I was looking at was printed
    > > with a colour laser. Go figure... :-)
    >
    > Easy. The person that told you that doesn't have a clue! :-)
    >
    > I was talking to an art gallery owner last year when I happened to use the
    > words 'ink jet printer' when talking about giclée prints. His nose reached
    > for the ceiling and, sneering down it, he told me that giclée was a
    > 'special' printing process far beyond the capabilities of something
    > someone might have on their desk.
    >
    > A few days later I dropped in a copy of a page from Nash Editions' Web
    > site, which explains about giclée prints and Iris ink jet printers, along
    > with a print from my Epson 2100. I didn't hang around to gloat but he's
    > neatly avoided speaking to me every time I've been back to the gallery
    > since then.
    >
    > Jon.
    >


    How is "giclee" pronounced (besides INK JET)


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:33 +0100 (BST), Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com
    (Jon O'Brien) wrote:

    >In article <ok_2e.18647$w63.1132630@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    >wwolfkir@sympatico.ca (Wolf Kirchmeir) wrote:
    >
    >> OK, but I was told that a "giclee" print I was looking at was printed
    >> with a colour laser. Go figure... :-)
    >
    >Easy. The person that told you that doesn't have a clue! :-)
    >
    >I was talking to an art gallery owner last year when I happened to use the
    >words 'ink jet printer' when talking about giclée prints. His nose reached
    >for the ceiling and, sneering down it, he told me that giclée was a
    >'special' printing process far beyond the capabilities of something
    >someone might have on their desk.
    >
    >A few days later I dropped in a copy of a page from Nash Editions' Web
    >site, which explains about giclée prints and Iris ink jet printers, along
    >with a print from my Epson 2100. I didn't hang around to gloat but he's
    >neatly avoided speaking to me every time I've been back to the gallery
    >since then.
    >
    LOL! You wouldn't like to mail me with the name of the gallery so I
    can have a laugh too? ;-)

    --

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

    In article <v8jr41tscvmk18f5fnpa2f3oh15lk9s450@4ax.com>,
    hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:

    > LOL! You wouldn't like to mail me with the name of the gallery so I
    > can have a laugh too? ;-)

    For shame, madam! I would never be so indiscreet! ;-)

    Purely because I can't remember the name, however. It's at the top of
    Guildford High Street, though.

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

    In article <MPG.1cb744f7ca99be34989943@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
    lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet (Larry) wrote:

    > How is "giclee" pronounced (besides INK JET)

    How's your French? :-)

    If you're old enough to remember the film, the 'gi' is pronounced the same
    as in 'Gigi' and the 'clée' is pronounced a bit like 'clay', with the 'y'
    sound cut short (think 'fiancée'). Otherwise the closest I could get to it
    would be: jee-clay, where the 'j' is like the 'ge' in 'garage'.

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

    In article <memo.20050402031506.2092A@blue.compulink.co.uk>,
    Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com says...
    > How's your French? :-)
    >
    > If you're old enough to remember the film, the 'gi' is pronounced the same
    > as in 'Gigi' and the 'clée' is pronounced a bit like 'clay', with the 'y'
    > sound cut short (think 'fiancée'). Otherwise the closest I could get to it
    > would be: jee-clay, where the 'j' is like the 'ge' in 'garage'.
    >
    > Jon.
    >
    Plenty old enough to "Thank Heaven For Little Girls".

    My French is non-existant, but you did well.

    I consider myself taught how to pronounce it.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Perhaps "all true" in the same manner your information below is "all
    true", meaning it has holes in it. In your case, I believe it is
    because your knowledge base is somewhat restricted to color technologies
    that are more traditional, in Canon's case, it is manipulatively
    misrepresenting by intentional misdirection and omission.

    There are two types of fading usually discussed in terms of color dyes,
    one referred to as "light fading" or contrastingly (Light keeping) and
    the other, dark fading, or dark keeping.

    Dyes which are good at one, may be poor at the other. For instance,
    Kodachrome film which is really a layered black and white film with
    color separator filters, has no dyes incorporated into the film itself,
    but they are actually added during the development process. These dyes
    have very good dark keeping, but are fairly vulnerable to light fading.

    Older Ektachrome was the opposite. It uses (and still does today) dyes
    which are incorporated as dye couplers within the film, and these are
    chemically turned into color dyes during processing. These dyes hold up
    fairly well to light (such as projection) but tend to go through fading
    during dark storage. I am not suggesting that keeping them in the light
    protect them from fading, but that they are less vulnerable to light
    fading other dyes. They fade in both light and in the dark, but they
    are less vulnerable to the light fading than the dyes in Kodachrome films.

    Current dyes used in slide and neg film have been improved considerably
    in the last 10 years. Also, the dyes used in photographic wet prints
    have been improved probably almost 10 fold. It isn't the dyes that have
    necessarily changed, but more the technology of the papers and their
    coatings. Using coating that filter UV, oxygen and other reducers can
    protect the dyes.

    As you stated, pigment colors made from minerals often are quite stable,
    but metal oxides can also be relatively stable, if kept on surfaced that
    are buffered or non-acidic. That's where the papers come in. Further
    dyes can be locked into paper surfaces via polymers or mordants. It
    would seem you are coming from a painting or printmakers understanding,
    which is great, but it is also incomplete when speaking about today's
    technologies. SOme polymers and plastics have very long lifespans (as
    anyone who is familiar with ecology can tell you ;-)) Acrylics can be
    designed to be very invulnerable to oxidation, moisture, UV, etc. Some
    pigment paints stand up extremely well to fading. We have a 30 year old
    car that has had tens of thousands of hours of direct sun exposure and
    the color has only slightly faded.

    Not all pigment inks have dye colorants in them. These mixed types are
    usually referred to as pigmented or hybrid inks.

    Canon's UK commentary is full of subterfuge. It is a way of trying to
    degrade the reputation of competitive product or technologies to excuse
    their own, and as such it is deceptive. It deceives principally by a
    mixture of omission and misdirection of linkages that don't necessarily
    follow. In my view, that's untruthful.

    Art


    Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >> The following came from Canon's website in the UK. I do not remember
    >> seeing this on the US Canon site.
    >>
    >> Are they tell lies or is there any truth to what they are saying.
    >
    >
    > All true. Even slides stored in the dark will fade - I have some slides
    > from the 50s and early 60s that were projected perhaps five or six times
    > each, yet they have acquired a purple cast. Colour pictures all use
    > organic dyes (even the pigment inks have dyes in them), and organic
    > compounds are not stable. They have "shelf life." You an extend the
    > life of a colour print to several decades with careful storage, but you
    > can't make it permanent.
    >
    > The only long-lasting colours (ie, life measured in centuries) are those
    > made with minerals such as clays (raw/burnt sienna, yellow ochre, etc)
    > or mineral salts (chrome yellow/green, vermilion, lapis lazuli blue,
    > etc), but even these can change colour when subjected to moisture and
    > oxygen, a combination that creates an acid, which will react with the
    > minerals. Also, the medium used to make the paint (eg, mineral or olive
    > oil, egg tempera, etc) deteriorates.
    >
    > That being said, colour laser prints last longer than inkjet prints and
    > photographs. Socalled "giclee" prints are made with colour lasers AFAIK,
    > and should last for decades even when exhibited in brightly lit living
    > rooms, etc.
    >
    > HTH
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    One of the reasons the term isn't used more, is because in French, it is
    also used in several more "vulgar" connotations.

    Here in Canada, where their is more bi-lingual French/English awareness,
    the terms is used more gingerly.

    Art

    Jon O'Brien wrote:

    > In article <ERU2e.4065$x8.847735@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    > wwolfkir@sympatico.ca (Wolf Kirchmeir) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>So called "giclee" prints are made with colour lasers AFAIK...
    >
    >
    > No. ink jets.
    >
    > 'Gigleé' is the past participle of the French verb meaning 'to squirt', so
    > it means 'squirted'. It's a euphemism of sorts, coined because the 'art
    > world' is a bit snobby about ink jet printers (amongst other things).
    >
    > Jon.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Giclee specifically refers to an Inkjet printed print. It was coined
    originally by artists using the Iris printer, who has a unique inkjet
    design, and was one of the first commercial ink printers on the market
    for larger format prints. It used a very different system, the ink was
    projected toward the paper and the ink that was not to be used was
    diverted by static fields and airflow away from the paper where it was
    recirculated and re-used.

    These printers were originally designed for fairly crude large posters
    and text printing for things like advertising and billboards.

    Graham Nash (yes, the same one from Crosby, Stills, and Nash) bought one
    and worked with engineers to redesign it to print more accurately. The
    Iris company didn't think it would even work, but Nash and his money
    persevered and eventually hundreds of thousands of dollars later, Nash
    opened up Nash Editions, one of the first inkjet fine art companies,
    which produced not only Nash's portrait photography, but attracted many
    other photographers and artists.

    Art


    Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

    > Jon O'Brien wrote:
    >
    >> In article <ERU2e.4065$x8.847735@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    >> wwolfkir@sympatico.ca (Wolf Kirchmeir) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> So called "giclee" prints are made with colour lasers AFAIK...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> No. ink jets.
    >>
    >> 'Gigleé' is the past participle of the French verb meaning 'to
    >> squirt', so it means 'squirted'. It's a euphemism of sorts, coined
    >> because the 'art world' is a bit snobby about ink jet printers
    >> (amongst other things).
    >>
    >> Jon.
    >
    >
    > OK, but I was told that a "giclee" print I was looking at was printed
    > with a colour laser. Go figure... :-)
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Well, Iris printers do use a unique method of depositing the ink, which
    differs considerably from any other inkjet printer, but truth be known,
    today's consumer inkjet printers probably produce a better result than
    the Iris printers of old.

    Art

    Jon O'Brien wrote:

    > In article <ok_2e.18647$w63.1132630@news20.bellglobal.com>,
    > wwolfkir@sympatico.ca (Wolf Kirchmeir) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>OK, but I was told that a "giclee" print I was looking at was printed
    >>with a colour laser. Go figure... :-)
    >
    >
    > Easy. The person that told you that doesn't have a clue! :-)
    >
    > I was talking to an art gallery owner last year when I happened to use the
    > words 'ink jet printer' when talking about giclée prints. His nose reached
    > for the ceiling and, sneering down it, he told me that giclée was a
    > 'special' printing process far beyond the capabilities of something
    > someone might have on their desk.
    >
    > A few days later I dropped in a copy of a page from Nash Editions' Web
    > site, which explains about giclée prints and Iris ink jet printers, along
    > with a print from my Epson 2100. I didn't hang around to gloat but he's
    > neatly avoided speaking to me every time I've been back to the gallery
    > since then.
    >
    > Jon.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    If you say "ji" (as in jig) and "clay" you'll have it fairly close.

    Art

    Larry wrote:


    >
    > How is "giclee" pronounced (besides INK JET)
    >
    >
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1cb7cfafeb2933c998994d@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
    lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet (Larry) wrote:

    > Plenty old enough to "Thank Heaven For Little Girls".

    Careful! The 'Net's being monitored for those sort of sentiments these
    days! :-)

    > My French is non-existant...

    Not any more. You now know how to say 'squirted' in French. :-) However,
    note Arthur Entlich's post and be careful how you use it!

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

    In article <Ywt3e.147623$gJ3.89698@clgrps13>, artistic@telus.net (Arthur
    Entlich) wrote:

    > ...but truth be known, today's consumer inkjet printers probably produce
    > a better result than the Iris printers of old.

    Very true! That's why I included a (clearly labelled as to the source)
    2100 print.

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

    In article <Vos3e.147608$gJ3.144862@clgrps13>, artistic@telus.net (Arthur
    Entlich) wrote:

    > The Iris company didn't think it would even work, but Nash and his
    > money persevered...

    Money gained, partly, by selling his extensive collection of photographs,
    assembled over many years. The man was on a mission and we should all be
    grateful to him for it.

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

    In article <29s3e.127460$ZO2.387@edtnps84>, artistic@telus.net (Arthur
    Entlich) wrote:

    > One of the reasons the term isn't used more, is because in French, it
    > is also used in several more "vulgar" connotations.

    I know of one (much of my French was learned on the streets of Paris and
    contains a lot of, no doubt now outdated, /argot/, to the point where I'm
    not always sure what's socially acceptable - e.g. degoutant/degeulasse)
    but wasn't aware there were several.

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

    In article <memo.20050402151958.2092D@blue.compulink.co.uk>,
    Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1cb7cfafeb2933c998994d@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
    > lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet (Larry) wrote:
    >
    > > Plenty old enough to "Thank Heaven For Little Girls".
    >
    > Careful! The 'Net's being monitored for those sort of sentiments these
    > days! :-)
    >
    > > My French is non-existant...
    >
    > Not any more. You now know how to say 'squirted' in French. :-) However,
    > note Arthur Entlich's post and be careful how you use it!
    >
    > Jon.
    >

    By todays standards, Gigi would be a "porn" movie... Matching up a
    (supposedly) under-aged girl with a middle-aged bachelor. (I think Leslie
    Caron was late 20's early 30s when she made that movie, but she played the
    "child" well)


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 03:15 +0100 (BST), Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com
    (Jon O'Brien) wrote:

    >In article <v8jr41tscvmk18f5fnpa2f3oh15lk9s450@4ax.com>,
    >hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:
    >
    >> LOL! You wouldn't like to mail me with the name of the gallery so I
    >> can have a laugh too? ;-)
    >
    >For shame, madam! I would never be so indiscreet! ;-)

    LOL!

    >Purely because I can't remember the name, however. It's at the top of
    >Guildford High Street, though.
    >
    Oh right. I wonder what the reaction would be in those twee little
    shops in Hartley Wintney? ;-)

    --

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

    In article <MPG.1cb8d71159e8bbe598994f@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
    lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet (Larry) wrote:

    > By todays standards, Gigi would be a "porn" movie... Matching up a
    > (supposedly) under-aged girl with a middle-aged bachelor.

    I don't think she was supposed to be a 'Lolita', just young. I doubt that
    most studios would take the chance of making it these days, though.

    > I think Leslie Caron was late 20's early 30s when she made that
    > movie...

    According to IMDB she was born in 1931, which would have made her 27.

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

    In article <k8fu41lr2k5cuc7iek8doi7hi794vdf5u5@4ax.com>,
    hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:

    > I wonder what the reaction would be in those twee little shops in
    > Hartley Wintney? ;-)

    If I get bored, I'll mount a baiting expedition.

    Jon.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Peripherals