Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dye vs Pigment

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:08:52 PM

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

Found this on the www.marrut.com site. Thought it might be of interest.

What I find interesting about it is the fact that this is a company that is
for the serious photograper and supplies only Lyson ink which is nearly (but
not all) pigment based.

http://www.marrutt.com/digital-ink-myths-2.php#f

--
Patrick

More about : dye pigment

May 21, 2005 5:07:41 AM

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

Patrick wrote:

> Found this on the www.marrut.com site. Thought it might be of interest.
>
> What I find interesting about it is the fact that this is a company that is
> for the serious photograper and supplies only Lyson ink which is nearly (but
> not all) pigment based.
>
> http://www.marrutt.com/digital-ink-myths-2.php#f
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
When you read it, bear in mind these facts:

Epson make pigment and dye inkjet printers. They clearly differentiate
which is for general purpose/office, and "serious photographic" use.

The current pigment/ink debate is not based on "colour quality".
Vibrancy vs tonal range perhaps, but Lyson's argument specifically
implies that vibrancy = quality.

The current newest technology (and best?) pigment inks (for the
R800/1800) are conspicuously absent from Lyson's range.

Making dye ink is easy. Making pigment ink is not easy.

The primary objective of a company is to make a profit.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:23:41 PM

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

I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
but here's something from Creo's website (they are the world's largest
pre-press supplier and sell Iris products)

"How light-fast are Iris inks?
Iris prints can last unprotected six months or longer, depending on
surrounding environmental factors. Direct sunlight, room lighting and
humidity are all factors that affect image permanence."

Lyson's history has numerous fits and starts with ink sets and withdrawn
inks. Some of their inks are not compatible with OEM inks and require
the old inks to be fully flushed out of they will cause major head clogs.

Many people like their ink sets, but they are competing with OEM and
other ink sources, and there are, IMHO, a number of misleading, if not
self-serving comments made in that article.

Art



Patrick wrote:

> Found this on the www.marrut.com site. Thought it might be of interest.
>
> What I find interesting about it is the fact that this is a company that is
> for the serious photograper and supplies only Lyson ink which is nearly (but
> not all) pigment based.
>
> http://www.marrutt.com/digital-ink-myths-2.php#f
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:35:45 PM

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

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:NvHje.1427208$8l.1207443@pd7tw1no...
> I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
> but here's something from Creo's website (they are the world's largest
> pre-press supplier and sell Iris products)
>
> "How light-fast are Iris inks?
> Iris prints can last unprotected six months or longer, depending on
> surrounding environmental factors. Direct sunlight, room lighting and
> humidity are all factors that affect image permanence."

I suppose its like anything else - it depends where you look for
information. The link below states upto 36 years before noticable fade.
These figures seem to have been supplied by Wilhelm Imaging Research.
Perhaps they have flawed testing methods?
http://www.aquarelle.ca/dietrich/giclee.html

> Lyson's history has numerous fits and starts with ink sets and withdrawn
> inks. Some of their inks are not compatible with OEM inks and require
> the old inks to be fully flushed out of they will cause major head clogs.

Lyson dye based ink does seem to fair well in tests;
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/additional_wir/WIR_...
f

--
Patrick
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:25:17 PM

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

No, it seems to depend on what ink set and what paper is used:

IRIS PRINTERS

Using Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set:
Arches Cold Press 32-36 years
Somerset Velvet Paper 20-24 years
Iris Canvas 16-18 years
Arches for Iris paper 13-15 years
Liege Inkjet Fine Art Paper 2-3 years

Using Iris Graphics Industrial Design (ID) Ink Set
Arches Cold Press Paper 2-3 years (tentative)

Using Iris Equipoise Black Ink (Only) in Monochrome Prints
Arches Cold Press Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
Somerset Velvet Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
Arches for Iris Prints (test continuing) >80 years
Iris Canvas (test continuing) >80 years

Lyson has changed their inks so many times, that at one point they had
to list the colors by which generation that were on.

There more recent inksets may indeed have finally stabilized.

Art

Patrick wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:NvHje.1427208$8l.1207443@pd7tw1no...
>
>>I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
>>but here's something from Creo's website (they are the world's largest
>>pre-press supplier and sell Iris products)
>>
>>"How light-fast are Iris inks?
>>Iris prints can last unprotected six months or longer, depending on
>>surrounding environmental factors. Direct sunlight, room lighting and
>>humidity are all factors that affect image permanence."
>
>
> I suppose its like anything else - it depends where you look for
> information. The link below states upto 36 years before noticable fade.
> These figures seem to have been supplied by Wilhelm Imaging Research.
> Perhaps they have flawed testing methods?
> http://www.aquarelle.ca/dietrich/giclee.html
>
>
>>Lyson's history has numerous fits and starts with ink sets and withdrawn
>>inks. Some of their inks are not compatible with OEM inks and require
>>the old inks to be fully flushed out of they will cause major head clogs.
>
>
> Lyson dye based ink does seem to fair well in tests;
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/additional_wir/WIR_...
> f
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:27:54 PM

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

Lyson is a mfg. And they sell under their own name in various places.
That is good.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> No, it seems to depend on what ink set and what paper is used:
>
> IRIS PRINTERS
>
> Using Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set:
> Arches Cold Press 32-36 years
> Somerset Velvet Paper 20-24 years
> Iris Canvas 16-18 years
> Arches for Iris paper 13-15 years
> Liege Inkjet Fine Art Paper 2-3 years
>
> Using Iris Graphics Industrial Design (ID) Ink Set
> Arches Cold Press Paper 2-3 years (tentative)
>
> Using Iris Equipoise Black Ink (Only) in Monochrome Prints
> Arches Cold Press Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
> Somerset Velvet Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
> Arches for Iris Prints (test continuing) >80 years
> Iris Canvas (test continuing) >80 years
>
> Lyson has changed their inks so many times, that at one point they had
> to list the colors by which generation that were on.
>
> There more recent inksets may indeed have finally stabilized.
>
> Art
>
> Patrick wrote:
>
>> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:NvHje.1427208$8l.1207443@pd7tw1no...
>>
>>> I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
>>> but here's something from Creo's website (they are the world's largest
>>> pre-press supplier and sell Iris products)
>>>
>>> "How light-fast are Iris inks?
>>> Iris prints can last unprotected six months or longer, depending on
>>> surrounding environmental factors. Direct sunlight, room lighting and
>>> humidity are all factors that affect image permanence."
>>
>>
>>
>> I suppose its like anything else - it depends where you look for
>> information. The link below states upto 36 years before noticable fade.
>> These figures seem to have been supplied by Wilhelm Imaging Research.
>> Perhaps they have flawed testing methods?
>> http://www.aquarelle.ca/dietrich/giclee.html
>>
>>
>>> Lyson's history has numerous fits and starts with ink sets and
>>> withdrawn
>>> inks. Some of their inks are not compatible with OEM inks and require
>>> the old inks to be fully flushed out of they will cause major head
>>> clogs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lyson dye based ink does seem to fair well in tests;
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/additional_wir/WIR_...
>>
>> f
>>
>> --
>> Patrick
>>
>>
May 23, 2005 11:20:37 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uooke.673$rY6.657@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Lyson is a mfg. And they sell under their own name in various places.
> That is good.

The lord Measekite has spoken - From Genesis after the 7th day of creation,
"Lyson is a mfg..." and ...That is good." How many gallons of Lyson ink has
he used to be able to give any kind of judgement as to its quality. I'm
glad to hear testimonials from actual users of the product, but spare me the
subjective, biased judgements of a non-user who demeans people who have
actual knowledge of these materials.

>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> No, it seems to depend on what ink set and what paper is used:
>>
>> IRIS PRINTERS
>>
>> Using Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set:
>> Arches Cold Press 32-36 years
>> Somerset Velvet Paper 20-24 years
>> Iris Canvas 16-18 years
>> Arches for Iris paper 13-15 years
>> Liege Inkjet Fine Art Paper 2-3 years
>>
>> Using Iris Graphics Industrial Design (ID) Ink Set
>> Arches Cold Press Paper 2-3 years (tentative)
>>
>> Using Iris Equipoise Black Ink (Only) in Monochrome Prints
>> Arches Cold Press Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
>> Somerset Velvet Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
>> Arches for Iris Prints (test continuing) >80 years
>> Iris Canvas (test continuing) >80 years
>>
>> Lyson has changed their inks so many times, that at one point they had to
>> list the colors by which generation that were on.
>>
>> There more recent inksets may indeed have finally stabilized.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> Patrick wrote:
>>
>>> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> news:NvHje.1427208$8l.1207443@pd7tw1no...
>>>
>>>> I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
>>>> but here's something from Creo's website (they are the world's largest
>>>> pre-press supplier and sell Iris products)
>>>>
>>>> "How light-fast are Iris inks?
>>>> Iris prints can last unprotected six months or longer, depending on
>>>> surrounding environmental factors. Direct sunlight, room lighting and
>>>> humidity are all factors that affect image permanence."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose its like anything else - it depends where you look for
>>> information. The link below states upto 36 years before noticable fade.
>>> These figures seem to have been supplied by Wilhelm Imaging Research.
>>> Perhaps they have flawed testing methods?
>>> http://www.aquarelle.ca/dietrich/giclee.html
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lyson's history has numerous fits and starts with ink sets and
>>>> withdrawn
>>>> inks. Some of their inks are not compatible with OEM inks and require
>>>> the old inks to be fully flushed out of they will cause major head
>>>> clogs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lyson dye based ink does seem to fair well in tests;
>>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/additional_wir/WIR_...
>>> f
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:22:14 PM

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

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:1moke.1454304$Xk.884123@pd7tw3no...
> No, it seems to depend on what ink set and what paper is used:

The original article stated that Iris printers are dye based and are used
for producing hight quality art prints with longevity. I don't see why you
took issue with this?

>
> IRIS PRINTERS
>
> Using Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set:
> Arches Cold Press 32-36 years
> Somerset Velvet Paper 20-24 years
> Iris Canvas 16-18 years
> Arches for Iris paper 13-15 years
> Liege Inkjet Fine Art Paper 2-3 years
>
> Using Iris Graphics Industrial Design (ID) Ink Set
> Arches Cold Press Paper 2-3 years (tentative)
>
> Using Iris Equipoise Black Ink (Only) in Monochrome Prints
> Arches Cold Press Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
> Somerset Velvet Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
> Arches for Iris Prints (test continuing) >80 years
> Iris Canvas (test continuing) >80 years
>
> Lyson has changed their inks so many times, that at one point they had
> to list the colors by which generation that were on.
>
> There more recent inksets may indeed have finally stabilized.

The pdf from Wilhem-research that includes Lyson ink is dated June 2000. In
inkjet terms - is this classed as recent?

Art, I read your posts here with interest and respect. My original post was
not to start a flame but to perhaps suggest that dye ink can have longevity
and pigment can be as vivid, and perhap these two arguments should not be
stated as gospel and instead should be qualified. Further evidense of this
might be the fact that Canon-USA have endorsed the Wilhem-research.

--
Patrick

> Art
>
> Patrick wrote:
>
> > "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> > news:NvHje.1427208$8l.1207443@pd7tw1no...
> >
> >>I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
> >>but here's something from Creo's website (they are the world's largest
> >>pre-press supplier and sell Iris products)
> >>
> >>"How light-fast are Iris inks?
> >>Iris prints can last unprotected six months or longer, depending on
> >>surrounding environmental factors. Direct sunlight, room lighting and
> >>humidity are all factors that affect image permanence."
> >
> >
> > I suppose its like anything else - it depends where you look for
> > information. The link below states upto 36 years before noticable fade.
> > These figures seem to have been supplied by Wilhelm Imaging Research.
> > Perhaps they have flawed testing methods?
> > http://www.aquarelle.ca/dietrich/giclee.html
> >
> >
> >>Lyson's history has numerous fits and starts with ink sets and withdrawn
> >>inks. Some of their inks are not compatible with OEM inks and require
> >>the old inks to be fully flushed out of they will cause major head
clogs.
> >
> >
> > Lyson dye based ink does seem to fair well in tests;
> >
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/additional_wir/WIR_...
> > f
> >
> > --
> > Patrick
> >
> >
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:33:34 PM

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

Dye ink vendors have a bad enough reputation not only with their
business practices but with clogging printers. Should they really get
into pigment inks things will really get a whole lot worse.

Like I said before I would like to see a few that sell BRANDED products
that were good.

Patrick wrote:

>"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>news:1moke.1454304$Xk.884123@pd7tw3no...
>
>
>>No, it seems to depend on what ink set and what paper is used:
>>
>>
>
>The original article stated that Iris printers are dye based and are used
>for producing hight quality art prints with longevity. I don't see why you
>took issue with this?
>
>
>
>> IRIS PRINTERS
>>
>>Using Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set:
>>Arches Cold Press 32-36 years
>>Somerset Velvet Paper 20-24 years
>>Iris Canvas 16-18 years
>>Arches for Iris paper 13-15 years
>>Liege Inkjet Fine Art Paper 2-3 years
>>
>>Using Iris Graphics Industrial Design (ID) Ink Set
>>Arches Cold Press Paper 2-3 years (tentative)
>>
>>Using Iris Equipoise Black Ink (Only) in Monochrome Prints
>>Arches Cold Press Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
>>Somerset Velvet Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
>>Arches for Iris Prints (test continuing) >80 years
>>Iris Canvas (test continuing) >80 years
>>
>>Lyson has changed their inks so many times, that at one point they had
>>to list the colors by which generation that were on.
>>
>>There more recent inksets may indeed have finally stabilized.
>>
>>
>
>The pdf from Wilhem-research that includes Lyson ink is dated June 2000. In
>inkjet terms - is this classed as recent?
>
>Art, I read your posts here with interest and respect. My original post was
>not to start a flame but to perhaps suggest that dye ink can have longevity
>and pigment can be as vivid, and perhap these two arguments should not be
>stated as gospel and instead should be qualified. Further evidense of this
>might be the fact that Canon-USA have endorsed the Wilhem-research.
>
>--
>Patrick
>
>
>
>>Art
>>
>>Patrick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>news:NvHje.1427208$8l.1207443@pd7tw1no...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
>>>>but here's something from Creo's website (they are the world's largest
>>>>pre-press supplier and sell Iris products)
>>>>
>>>>"How light-fast are Iris inks?
>>>>Iris prints can last unprotected six months or longer, depending on
>>>>surrounding environmental factors. Direct sunlight, room lighting and
>>>>humidity are all factors that affect image permanence."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I suppose its like anything else - it depends where you look for
>>>information. The link below states upto 36 years before noticable fade.
>>>These figures seem to have been supplied by Wilhelm Imaging Research.
>>>Perhaps they have flawed testing methods?
>>>http://www.aquarelle.ca/dietrich/giclee.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lyson's history has numerous fits and starts with ink sets and withdrawn
>>>>inks. Some of their inks are not compatible with OEM inks and require
>>>>the old inks to be fully flushed out of they will cause major head
>>>>
>>>>
>clogs.
>
>
>>>Lyson dye based ink does seem to fair well in tests;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/additional_wir/WIR_...
>
>
>>>f
>>>
>>>--
>>>Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 4:57:00 PM

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

You are sounding more and more like a simpleton with each posting.

Art

measekite wrote:

> Lyson is a mfg. And they sell under their own name in various places.
> That is good.
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 5:17:01 PM

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

I took issue with it because of several issues.

I found the Lyson article to have a bias built into it. I then went to
Creo's website, a company that sells Iris printers and supplies and they
regarded Iris inks as transient, at best. Then, looking over Wilhelm's
data, I discovered that one of Iris's inkset (the ID set) provides a
tentative 2-3 year fade resistance.

The Lyson article implies that Iris inks, in spite of being dye colorant
based, are very fade resistant. Some of the newer sets are, relatively
so. Pigment colorant inks have longer fade resistance, in general, than
the best of the Iris dye inks. Further, the fade resistance is very
paper dependent with dye inks, (HP's inks are a good example of this)
and although it is also so to some extend with pigment colorant inks,
that is usually less the case.

I know that more permanent dye ink/paper combos are on their way, and
dye inks do have some advantages over pigment (for instance pigment inks
tend to clog more, and they are more abrasive on the head and nozzles so
they wear more, so I am not adverse to better dye inks.

However, I put to questions some of the statements made in the Lyson
article as of right now.

I know of a number artists who relied upon Iris ink sets for very costly
"Giclee" prints they sold only to have fading become a major complaint
with their clients. I was therefore surprised by the Lyson article
claiming they were very archival inks. I am pleased, however, to see
the newer ink sets have greatly improved longevity.


Art

Patrick wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:1moke.1454304$Xk.884123@pd7tw3no...
>
>>No, it seems to depend on what ink set and what paper is used:
>
>
> The original article stated that Iris printers are dye based and are used
> for producing hight quality art prints with longevity. I don't see why you
> took issue with this?
>
>
>> IRIS PRINTERS
>>
>>Using Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set:
>>Arches Cold Press 32-36 years
>>Somerset Velvet Paper 20-24 years
>>Iris Canvas 16-18 years
>>Arches for Iris paper 13-15 years
>>Liege Inkjet Fine Art Paper 2-3 years
>>
>>Using Iris Graphics Industrial Design (ID) Ink Set
>>Arches Cold Press Paper 2-3 years (tentative)
>>
>>Using Iris Equipoise Black Ink (Only) in Monochrome Prints
>>Arches Cold Press Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
>>Somerset Velvet Paper (tests continuing) >80 years
>>Arches for Iris Prints (test continuing) >80 years
>>Iris Canvas (test continuing) >80 years
>>
>>Lyson has changed their inks so many times, that at one point they had
>>to list the colors by which generation that were on.
>>
>>There more recent inksets may indeed have finally stabilized.
>
>
> The pdf from Wilhem-research that includes Lyson ink is dated June 2000. In
> inkjet terms - is this classed as recent?
>
> Art, I read your posts here with interest and respect. My original post was
> not to start a flame but to perhaps suggest that dye ink can have longevity
> and pigment can be as vivid, and perhap these two arguments should not be
> stated as gospel and instead should be qualified. Further evidense of this
> might be the fact that Canon-USA have endorsed the Wilhem-research.
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
>>Art
>>
>>Patrick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>news:NvHje.1427208$8l.1207443@pd7tw1no...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
>>>>but here's something from Creo's website (they are the world's largest
>>>>pre-press supplier and sell Iris products)
>>>>
>>>>"How light-fast are Iris inks?
>>>>Iris prints can last unprotected six months or longer, depending on
>>>>surrounding environmental factors. Direct sunlight, room lighting and
>>>>humidity are all factors that affect image permanence."
>>>
>>>
>>>I suppose its like anything else - it depends where you look for
>>>information. The link below states upto 36 years before noticable fade.
>>>These figures seem to have been supplied by Wilhelm Imaging Research.
>>>Perhaps they have flawed testing methods?
>>>http://www.aquarelle.ca/dietrich/giclee.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lyson's history has numerous fits and starts with ink sets and withdrawn
>>>>inks. Some of their inks are not compatible with OEM inks and require
>>>>the old inks to be fully flushed out of they will cause major head
>
> clogs.
>
>>>
>>>Lyson dye based ink does seem to fair well in tests;
>>>
>
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/additional_wir/WIR_...
>
>>>f
>>>
>>>--
>>>Patrick
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 8:02:21 PM

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

> I found the Lyson article to have a bias built into it.

Biased perhaps - but was there any mis-information as to quote from your
first reply infers;
"I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article "

> I then went to
> Creo's website, a company that sells Iris printers and supplies and they
> regarded Iris inks as transient, at best. Then, looking over Wilhelm's
> data, I discovered that one of Iris's inkset (the ID set) provides a
> tentative 2-3 year fade resistance.

Or the other quoted inkset and media;
"Using Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set: Arches Cold Press 32-36 years"

>
> The Lyson article implies that Iris inks, in spite of being dye colorant
> based, are very fade resistant.

Yes and advice posted in this group implies the oposite, yet from the
Wilhelm data in the pdf I linked in my original post;

Epson Photo 700 and Photo Ex Printers (std. Epson inks)

Epson Photo paper (1998 "improved" type) 2 years
Polariod Premium Quality Photographic paper 3 years

Lysonic E inks for Epson 3000 4-ink Printers

Luminos Lumijet Premium Tapestry X (tentative) >120 years
Arches Cold Press Paper 50-55 years



>Some of the newer sets are, relatively
> so.
This above data was published by Wilhelm five years ago. What do you class
as 'newer'?

>Pigment colorant inks have longer fade resistance, in general, than
> the best of the Iris dye inks.

Not denied - but that does not mean that dye based is not suitable for
'Keepers'
I recently re-framed one of our wedding photos. This was a conventional
silver-halide photographs from a respected photographer. After six years of
display under glass in a typical living environment (no direct sun) I was
shocked by the difference between the colour of where the frame had covered
the edges of the print. Silver-halide photographs have long been regarded by
'joe public' as 'keepers' yet this is not the case. Any print can and will
fade.

>Further, the fade resistance is very
> paper dependent with dye inks, (HP's inks are a good example of this)
> and although it is also so to some extend with pigment colorant inks,
> that is usually less the case.

Yes - and end result (i.e. bronzing etc.) with pigment ink is dependant on
paper. Basically the choice of paper is as critical as anything else when
printing with any type of ink.

>
> I know that more permanent dye ink/paper combos are on their way

Five years ago with a rating of >120 years, perhaps you meant printer makers
are improving their ink, again Canon-USA endorsing WIR is a good indicator.

> However, I put to questions some of the statements made in the Lyson
> article as of right now.
>
> I know of a number artists who relied upon Iris ink sets for very costly
> "Giclee" prints they sold only to have fading become a major complaint
> with their clients. I was therefore surprised by the Lyson article
> claiming they were very archival inks. I am pleased, however, to see
> the newer ink sets have greatly improved longevity.
>

To refer back to the data above;
Five years ago
"Using Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set: Arches Cold Press 32-36 years"
Perhaps the experiences of your artist acquaintances are from a time before
the year 2000. Or perhaps they never investigated the medium they choose to
use. Perhaps their clients used them on 'billboards' in the Amazon.

The 'Don't use dye-based inks for 'keepers' ' without qualification is to
spread mis-information.

--
Patrick
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 6:01:55 PM

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

Patrick wrote:

>>I found the Lyson article to have a bias built into it.
>
>
> Biased perhaps - but was there any mis-information as to quote from your
> first reply infers;
> "I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article "
>

Creo's website is current, and I used it as my reference. My previous
knowledge of Iris ink sets, plus the current Creo website information
led me to the conclusion that the article in question was biased.

Sometimes misinformation is the direct result of slight of hand. As an
example, he spends a long paragraph speaking about a photographer who
printed a test pattern with a pigment colorant ink set, who then ???put
the inks away for a year??? and then upon reprinting the same chart
found it to be considerably lacking in color. This is an absurd claim.
No one does this, and all pigment inks indicate they should be
agitated before use. He then indicates the same photographer agitated
the inks and got back 90% of the density (of course he did!). Worse
still he indicates that today's pigment inks have much better suspension
characteristics (up to 18 months), so what was the point of that. How
long ago was that article written and how long ago was that pigment ink
"experiment". Just how long a lifespan does Lyson place on there own
inks (dye or Pigment, for that matter?) As I recall they have a rather
short shelf life.

That whole section of the article while possibly factually correct, has
only one intent, and that is to mislead.

In another section, he claims that it is a myth that pigment colorant
inks clog more often than dye do, and in cases that they do, it is
because of badly formulated inks. He also claims the reason for this is
that the size of the pigment particles are too small to clog the nozzle
or jet.

What actually causes clogs on most printers is a build up of ink
residue. Depending upon the head design, this can manifest in different
ways, such as cone formation around the jet or nozzle that slowly
narrows the jet, nozzle deflection, by build up on one side to the
nozzle, or just general build up under the head. While dye inks do
indeed redissolve in the ink still left in the head/cartridge, even that
can and does eventually become to thick to get self cleaned. But with
pigment inks, the residue becomes caked and is not easily dissolvable,
due to both the pigment itself and the carriers used, which differ form
dye inks. There is a reason some printers do not use pigment colorant
inks at all, because they do tend to be harder to keep flowing.

In fact, when reading over his section about this, he actually
contradicts himself, fist claiming pigment inks are no more likely to
clog a head than dye, but later in the same section he admits pigment
inks are more difficult to redissolve.

Probably the most questionable section is the area about Dye versus
Pigment inks. In fact, I would go as far as suggesting he uses some
very intentional word smithing to mislead the reader. Firstly, only some
Iris inks have reasonable longevity claims, and only when used with
certain papers. On the other hand, in the case of most pigment inks
almost the opposite exists, you have to go out of your way to find
papers that make them less fade resistant than most dye inks. I would
also say that Iris dye inks are less "renowned" for their longevity that
most pigment inks. Iris has indeed built a niche market for high color
gamut prints, but left many artists in the lurch when their older inks
did not prove to be as light stable as originally claimed or expected.
I recall Iris having numerous failed ink sets (especially the yellow and
magenta inks) along the way, which were supposed to be stable.

Further, great strides have occurred in pigment particles and how they
lay on paper, and the gamut differences have been bridged for the most part.

His example of taking two inks, one dye, one pigment and after proving
they had similar color gamut, printing each and seeing different end
results, is again, an abuse of the process. Just because an ink set has
similar color gamut doesn't indicate they have the same color gamut per
color and therefore the assumption that both will print an identical
final image without profiling each ink set, is not true. Besides which,
he is only giving his opinion of the color differences.

I do agree with most of his section on the problems with improper
teaming of inks and papers, causing unexpected results. However, I find
it "interesting" that he refers to an ink manufacturer of being biased
in its testing process, while he himself uses a similar method of
selective inclusion or omission to bolster some of his statements.

His section on warranties and 3rd part inks, IMHO, stinks, but is
structured similarly to the rest of the article. On the one hand he
implies that the law protects you for being refused warranty coverage if
you use 3rd party inks, and that the ink jet printer company must prove
that non-OEM inks caused the damage, and then just two sentences later
he suggests always keeping a set of OEM inks on hand to place in your
printer to fool the repair and warranty people. That shows how much he
relies upon the law for protection, when he suggests you use deceit.

Regarding your experiences with framed color photo prints, no one uses
color photography as the bellweather for permanence. It has always been
considered a transient medium. Black and white is another matter
entirely. In color, oil paints or even some watercolor were considered
a more reasonable goal to strive for.

And no, I was not referring to OEM/manufacturers when I stated that
newer improved and longer lasting dye inks were coming, along with new
paper technologies. Better dyes are coming.

And lastly, that 120 year Iris ink... it's the black only.

The newest full color pigment inks from Epson are rating 34-60 years
without glass and 61-166 years with (with regular glass).

Some dye inks, used with the right papers can be used to create long
lasting art.

Art


>>Pigment colorant inks have longer fade resistance, in general, than
>>the best of the Iris dye inks.
>
>
> Not denied - but that does not mean that dye based is not suitable for
> 'Keepers'
> I recently re-framed one of our wedding photos. This was a conventional
> silver-halide photographs from a respected photographer. After six years of
> display under glass in a typical living environment (no direct sun) I was
> shocked by the difference between the colour of where the frame had covered
> the edges of the print. Silver-halide photographs have long been regarded by
> 'joe public' as 'keepers' yet this is not the case. Any print can and will
> fade.
>
>
>>Further, the fade resistance is very
>>paper dependent with dye inks, (HP's inks are a good example of this)
>>and although it is also so to some extend with pigment colorant inks,
>>that is usually less the case.
>
>
> Yes - and end result (i.e. bronzing etc.) with pigment ink is dependant on
> paper. Basically the choice of paper is as critical as anything else when
> printing with any type of ink.
>
>
>>I know that more permanent dye ink/paper combos are on their way
>
>
> Five years ago with a rating of >120 years, perhaps you meant printer makers
> are improving their ink, again Canon-USA endorsing WIR is a good indicator.
>
>
>>However, I put to questions some of the statements made in the Lyson
>>article as of right now.
>>
>>I know of a number artists who relied upon Iris ink sets for very costly
>>"Giclee" prints they sold only to have fading become a major complaint
>>with their clients. I was therefore surprised by the Lyson article
>>claiming they were very archival inks. I am pleased, however, to see
>>the newer ink sets have greatly improved longevity.
>>
>
>
> To refer back to the data above;
> Five years ago
> "Using Iris Graphics Equipoise Ink Set: Arches Cold Press 32-36 years"
> Perhaps the experiences of your artist acquaintances are from a time before
> the year 2000. Or perhaps they never investigated the medium they choose to
> use. Perhaps their clients used them on 'billboards' in the Amazon.
>
> The 'Don't use dye-based inks for 'keepers' ' without qualification is to
> spread mis-information.
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 8:41:43 PM

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

> >>I found the Lyson article to have a bias built into it.
> >
> >
> > Biased perhaps - but was there any mis-information as to quote from your
> > first reply infers;
> > "I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
"
> >
>
> Creo's website is current, and I used it as my reference. My previous
> knowledge of Iris ink sets, plus the current Creo website information
> led me to the conclusion that the article in question was biased.

So Iris have managed to reduce their fade resistance?

>
> Sometimes misinformation is the direct result of slight of hand. As an
> example, he spends a long paragraph speaking about a photographer who
> printed a test pattern with a pigment colorant ink set, who then ???put
> the inks away for a year??? and then upon reprinting the same chart
> found it to be considerably lacking in color. This is an absurd claim.
> No one does this, and all pigment inks indicate they should be
> agitated before use. He then indicates the same photographer agitated
> the inks and got back 90% of the density (of course he did!). Worse
> still he indicates that today's pigment inks have much better suspension
> characteristics (up to 18 months), so what was the point of that. How
> long ago was that article written and how long ago was that pigment ink
> "experiment". Just how long a lifespan does Lyson place on there own
> inks (dye or Pigment, for that matter?) As I recall they have a rather
> short shelf life.
>
> That whole section of the article while possibly factually correct, has
> only one intent, and that is to mislead.
>
> In another section, he claims that it is a myth that pigment colorant
> inks clog more often than dye do, and in cases that they do, it is
> because of badly formulated inks. He also claims the reason for this is
> that the size of the pigment particles are too small to clog the nozzle
> or jet.
>
> What actually causes clogs on most printers is a build up of ink
> residue. Depending upon the head design, this can manifest in different
> ways, such as cone formation around the jet or nozzle that slowly
> narrows the jet, nozzle deflection, by build up on one side to the
> nozzle, or just general build up under the head. While dye inks do
> indeed redissolve in the ink still left in the head/cartridge, even that
> can and does eventually become to thick to get self cleaned. But with
> pigment inks, the residue becomes caked and is not easily dissolvable,
> due to both the pigment itself and the carriers used, which differ form
> dye inks. There is a reason some printers do not use pigment colorant
> inks at all, because they do tend to be harder to keep flowing.
>
> In fact, when reading over his section about this, he actually
> contradicts himself, fist claiming pigment inks are no more likely to
> clog a head than dye, but later in the same section he admits pigment
> inks are more difficult to redissolve.

Another example of slight of hand to mislead is the above five paragraghs.
My op linked directly to the dye vs pigment section and the title of my post
reflected that section. Yet the first half of your post is with regards to
other sections not referenced by myself.

>
> Probably the most questionable section is the area about Dye versus
> Pigment inks. In fact, I would go as far as suggesting he uses some
> very intentional word smithing to mislead the reader. Firstly, only some
> Iris inks have reasonable longevity claims, and only when used with
> certain papers.

He states that;
"It's worth noting that many fine art reproduction houses use Iris inkjet
printers to produce "Giclee" prints, which are renowned for their longevity.
All Iris printers use dyebased inks."

I've looked - and he's right - a many do atleast I presume they do - as
there is a website discussing their use in fine art.

> On the other hand, in the case of most pigment inks
> almost the opposite exists, you have to go out of your way to find
> papers that make them less fade resistant than most dye inks.

Again from the article;
"It's true that pigments generally are more fade-resistant, particularly
for outdoor exposure where the intensity and type of light is very different
than artificial illumination.
It looks like he agrees with you.

> also say that Iris dye inks are less "renowned" for their longevity that
> most pigment inks. Iris has indeed built a niche market for high color
> gamut prints, but left many artists in the lurch when their older inks
> did not prove to be as light stable as originally claimed or expected.

From WIR;
"Iris machines, which can print images as large as 34X46 inches, were
designed for direct digital proofing, making comps, and technical
applications. These of course are throw-away things, not photographs or
works of art. The initial inksets provided by Iris Graphic were never
intended for making prints to be matted, framed, and displayed."


> I recall Iris having numerous failed ink sets (especially the yellow and
> magenta inks) along the way, which were supposed to be stable.

I recall reading somewhere that Epson had problems with some of their ink.

> Further, great strides have occurred in pigment particles and how they
> lay on paper, and the gamut differences have been bridged for the most
part.

to quote again;
" The latest pigment preparation technology improves the color quality by
grinding the particles to the smallest possible size and using resins to
coat the particles, which helps smooth out the rough surface."
You and Mr Lyson agree again.

> His section on warranties and 3rd part inks, IMHO, stinks, but is
> structured similarly to the rest of the article. On the one hand he
> implies that the law protects you for being refused warranty coverage if
> you use 3rd party inks, and that the ink jet printer company must prove
> that non-OEM inks caused the damage, and then just two sentences later
> he suggests always keeping a set of OEM inks on hand to place in your
> printer to fool the repair and warranty people. That shows how much he
> relies upon the law for protection, when he suggests you use deceit.

Or does it suggest that the printer makers will try to avoid their legal
obligations and to avoid any such sittuations place OEM cartridges in the
printer.

> Regarding your experiences with framed color photo prints, no one uses
> color photography as the bellweather for permanence. It has always been
> considered a transient medium. Black and white is another matter
> entirely. In color, oil paints or even some watercolor were considered
> a more reasonable goal to strive for.

Fair comment. I used it to illustrate 'Client expectations'

>
> And no, I was not referring to OEM/manufacturers when I stated that
> newer improved and longer lasting dye inks were coming, along with new
> paper technologies. Better dyes are coming.

Yep! Better cars, computers, televisions..... When you think about it just
about anything you can think of will be improved upon. - I see why you are
so good at spotting 'slight of hand' to mislead.


>
> And lastly, that 120 year Iris ink... it's the black only.

I appogise for that it was not my intention to mislead. I assumed the 120
rating given to the 'Lysonic' inkset was indeed colour as they appear on the
same matrix as colour inksets and the Lyson website states their 'Lysonic'
ink is colour.
So I may continue to learn - can you direct me to the resource that
indicates 'Black only'.

>
> Some dye inks, used with the right papers can be used to create long
> lasting art.

to quote myself;
"The 'Don't use dye-based inks for 'keepers' ' without qualification is to
spread mis-information."

So we agree also.

--
Patrick
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 3:44:06 PM

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

Patrick,

You may think me stupid enough not to catch the gist of your implied
insults, even when I am working at 4 AM and stealing valuable sleep time
to respond to you, but you'd be wrong.

> Another example of slight of hand to mislead is the above five
paragraghs.
> My op linked directly to the dye vs pigment section and the title of
my post
> reflected that section. Yet the first half of your post is with
regards to
> other sections not referenced by myself.
>


Hardly, I address numerous examples of the problems with the Lyson
article. You gave a url, you did not indicate anyone should only read
certain sentences of it. The whole article uses the same technique
throughout. The Lyson article plays games I am not interested in
playing, and I'm even less interested in continuing wasting my time with
playing them with you, so this will be my late exchange with you about
it. Anyone who has a bit of wordsmithing ability can make a bold and
outrageous statement and then qualify it in the next dozen sentences to
a mere shadow of the original intent, in the hopes most people will not
read carefully enough to recognize the technique.

The Lyson article starts each section with a statement and then uses a
bunch of contradictory statements to "qualify" the original to the point
where it has little to no import at all.

I have just written a small piece using the same technique:

======================

Everyone who lives in Florida knows you had better be prepared because
it snows like heck there! Citrus crops freeze, ponds freeze over, water
pipes can burst, and the roads become slick and dangerous, especially
with their elderly population who have a hard time driving during better
weather. You'd wish more people used snow tires and chains on those days.

The median temperature in Florida is around 65 degrees F year round, and
they can have days, sometimes even occasionally weeks, where it goes
over 100. But those are not very common except during the peak of
summer. It's winter when those snow and ice days show up and do their
damage, so watch out!

====================

I didn't check the median temperature in Florida, because I don't have
the time, so it might be slightly off. However, the statements are
otherwise all true about Florida. You can quote each one and it would
be correct. HOWEVER, Patrick, they leave a completely bogus impression
about the weather in Florida, because they start with an opening
statement that, although true, requires huge qualifiers that aren't
provided until later on and only in vague and intentionally limited
fashion. The type of snowstorm this describes has occurred in Florida,
what, perhaps 3 times in the last 25 years, if that.

Lastly, you may have provided the link to the article in question in
regard to the dye versus pigment debate, but the article doesn't
honestly answer that debate either, because it is craftily biased, and
is misleading, and as such it required additional qualifiers, some of
which I have provided. You brought up the article, not me. I've put
more time into discussing it than you have. Selective quoting is
meaningless in an article written in the manner that one has been. It
is the analysis of the information which makes or breaks it. It's broken.

Art



Patrick wrote:

>>>>I found the Lyson article to have a bias built into it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Biased perhaps - but was there any mis-information as to quote from your
>>>first reply infers;
>>>"I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that article
>
> "
>
>>Creo's website is current, and I used it as my reference. My previous
>>knowledge of Iris ink sets, plus the current Creo website information
>>led me to the conclusion that the article in question was biased.
>
>
> So Iris have managed to reduce their fade resistance?
>
>
>>Sometimes misinformation is the direct result of slight of hand. As an
>>example, he spends a long paragraph speaking about a photographer who
>>printed a test pattern with a pigment colorant ink set, who then ???put
>>the inks away for a year??? and then upon reprinting the same chart
>>found it to be considerably lacking in color. This is an absurd claim.
>> No one does this, and all pigment inks indicate they should be
>>agitated before use. He then indicates the same photographer agitated
>>the inks and got back 90% of the density (of course he did!). Worse
>>still he indicates that today's pigment inks have much better suspension
>>characteristics (up to 18 months), so what was the point of that. How
>>long ago was that article written and how long ago was that pigment ink
>>"experiment". Just how long a lifespan does Lyson place on there own
>>inks (dye or Pigment, for that matter?) As I recall they have a rather
>>short shelf life.
>>
>>That whole section of the article while possibly factually correct, has
>>only one intent, and that is to mislead.
>>
>>In another section, he claims that it is a myth that pigment colorant
>>inks clog more often than dye do, and in cases that they do, it is
>>because of badly formulated inks. He also claims the reason for this is
>>that the size of the pigment particles are too small to clog the nozzle
>>or jet.
>>
>>What actually causes clogs on most printers is a build up of ink
>>residue. Depending upon the head design, this can manifest in different
>>ways, such as cone formation around the jet or nozzle that slowly
>>narrows the jet, nozzle deflection, by build up on one side to the
>>nozzle, or just general build up under the head. While dye inks do
>>indeed redissolve in the ink still left in the head/cartridge, even that
>>can and does eventually become to thick to get self cleaned. But with
>>pigment inks, the residue becomes caked and is not easily dissolvable,
>>due to both the pigment itself and the carriers used, which differ form
>>dye inks. There is a reason some printers do not use pigment colorant
>>inks at all, because they do tend to be harder to keep flowing.
>>
>>In fact, when reading over his section about this, he actually
>>contradicts himself, fist claiming pigment inks are no more likely to
>>clog a head than dye, but later in the same section he admits pigment
>>inks are more difficult to redissolve.
>
>
> Another example of slight of hand to mislead is the above five paragraghs.
> My op linked directly to the dye vs pigment section and the title of my post
> reflected that section. Yet the first half of your post is with regards to
> other sections not referenced by myself.
>
>
>>Probably the most questionable section is the area about Dye versus
>>Pigment inks. In fact, I would go as far as suggesting he uses some
>>very intentional word smithing to mislead the reader. Firstly, only some
>>Iris inks have reasonable longevity claims, and only when used with
>>certain papers.
>
>
> He states that;
> "It's worth noting that many fine art reproduction houses use Iris inkjet
> printers to produce "Giclee" prints, which are renowned for their longevity.
> All Iris printers use dyebased inks."
>
> I've looked - and he's right - a many do atleast I presume they do - as
> there is a website discussing their use in fine art.
>
>
>>On the other hand, in the case of most pigment inks
>>almost the opposite exists, you have to go out of your way to find
>>papers that make them less fade resistant than most dye inks.
>
>
> Again from the article;
> "It's true that pigments generally are more fade-resistant, particularly
> for outdoor exposure where the intensity and type of light is very different
> than artificial illumination.
> It looks like he agrees with you.
>
> > also say that Iris dye inks are less "renowned" for their longevity that
>
>>most pigment inks. Iris has indeed built a niche market for high color
>>gamut prints, but left many artists in the lurch when their older inks
>>did not prove to be as light stable as originally claimed or expected.
>
>
> From WIR;
> "Iris machines, which can print images as large as 34X46 inches, were
> designed for direct digital proofing, making comps, and technical
> applications. These of course are throw-away things, not photographs or
> works of art. The initial inksets provided by Iris Graphic were never
> intended for making prints to be matted, framed, and displayed."
>
>
>
>>I recall Iris having numerous failed ink sets (especially the yellow and
>>magenta inks) along the way, which were supposed to be stable.
>
>
> I recall reading somewhere that Epson had problems with some of their ink.
>
>
>>Further, great strides have occurred in pigment particles and how they
>>lay on paper, and the gamut differences have been bridged for the most
>
> part.
>
> to quote again;
> " The latest pigment preparation technology improves the color quality by
> grinding the particles to the smallest possible size and using resins to
> coat the particles, which helps smooth out the rough surface."
> You and Mr Lyson agree again.
>
>
>>His section on warranties and 3rd part inks, IMHO, stinks, but is
>>structured similarly to the rest of the article. On the one hand he
>>implies that the law protects you for being refused warranty coverage if
>>you use 3rd party inks, and that the ink jet printer company must prove
>>that non-OEM inks caused the damage, and then just two sentences later
>>he suggests always keeping a set of OEM inks on hand to place in your
>>printer to fool the repair and warranty people. That shows how much he
>>relies upon the law for protection, when he suggests you use deceit.
>
>
> Or does it suggest that the printer makers will try to avoid their legal
> obligations and to avoid any such sittuations place OEM cartridges in the
> printer.
>
>
>>Regarding your experiences with framed color photo prints, no one uses
>>color photography as the bellweather for permanence. It has always been
>>considered a transient medium. Black and white is another matter
>>entirely. In color, oil paints or even some watercolor were considered
>>a more reasonable goal to strive for.
>
>
> Fair comment. I used it to illustrate 'Client expectations'
>
>
>>And no, I was not referring to OEM/manufacturers when I stated that
>>newer improved and longer lasting dye inks were coming, along with new
>>paper technologies. Better dyes are coming.
>
>
> Yep! Better cars, computers, televisions..... When you think about it just
> about anything you can think of will be improved upon. - I see why you are
> so good at spotting 'slight of hand' to mislead.
>
>
>
>>And lastly, that 120 year Iris ink... it's the black only.
>
>
> I appogise for that it was not my intention to mislead. I assumed the 120
> rating given to the 'Lysonic' inkset was indeed colour as they appear on the
> same matrix as colour inksets and the Lyson website states their 'Lysonic'
> ink is colour.
> So I may continue to learn - can you direct me to the resource that
> indicates 'Black only'.
>
>
>>Some dye inks, used with the right papers can be used to create long
>>lasting art.
>
>
> to quote myself;
> "The 'Don't use dye-based inks for 'keepers' ' without qualification is to
> spread mis-information."
>
> So we agree also.
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:04:52 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> You may think me stupid enough not to catch the gist of your implied
> insults, even when I am working at 4 AM and stealing valuable sleep
> time to respond to you, but you'd be wrong.


Because you choose to answer do you think any one gives a damn if you
miss sleeping. That is your choiced pal. Now you sound like the holy one.

>
> > Another example of slight of hand to mislead is the above five
> paragraghs.
> > My op linked directly to the dye vs pigment section and the title of
> my post
> > reflected that section. Yet the first half of your post is with
> regards to
> > other sections not referenced by myself.
> >
>
>
> Hardly, I address numerous examples of the problems with the Lyson
> article. You gave a url, you did not indicate anyone should only read
> certain sentences of it. The whole article uses the same technique
> throughout. The Lyson article plays games I am not interested in
> playing, and I'm even less interested in continuing wasting my time
> with playing them with you, so this will be my late exchange with you
> about it. Anyone who has a bit of wordsmithing ability can make a
> bold and outrageous statement and then qualify it in the next dozen
> sentences to a mere shadow of the original intent, in the hopes most
> people will not read carefully enough to recognize the technique.
>
> The Lyson article starts each section with a statement and then uses a
> bunch of contradictory statements to "qualify" the original to the
> point where it has little to no import at all.
>
> I have just written a small piece using the same technique:
>
> ======================
>
> Everyone who lives in Florida knows you had better be prepared because
> it snows like heck there! Citrus crops freeze, ponds freeze over,
> water pipes can burst, and the roads become slick and dangerous,
> especially with their elderly population who have a hard time driving
> during better weather. You'd wish more people used snow tires and
> chains on those days.
>
> The median temperature in Florida is around 65 degrees F year round,
> and they can have days, sometimes even occasionally weeks, where it
> goes over 100. But those are not very common except during the peak
> of summer. It's winter when those snow and ice days show up and do
> their damage, so watch out!
>
> ====================
>
> I didn't check the median temperature in Florida, because I don't have
> the time, so it might be slightly off. However, the statements are
> otherwise all true about Florida. You can quote each one and it would
> be correct. HOWEVER, Patrick, they leave a completely bogus
> impression about the weather in Florida, because they start with an
> opening statement that, although true, requires huge qualifiers that
> aren't provided until later on and only in vague and intentionally
> limited fashion. The type of snowstorm this describes has occurred in
> Florida, what, perhaps 3 times in the last 25 years, if that.
>
> Lastly, you may have provided the link to the article in question in
> regard to the dye versus pigment debate, but the article doesn't
> honestly answer that debate either, because it is craftily biased, and
> is misleading, and as such it required additional qualifiers, some of
> which I have provided. You brought up the article, not me. I've put
> more time into discussing it than you have. Selective quoting is
> meaningless in an article written in the manner that one has been. It
> is the analysis of the information which makes or breaks it. It's
> broken.
>
> Art
>
>
>
> Patrick wrote:
>
>>>>> I found the Lyson article to have a bias built into it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Biased perhaps - but was there any mis-information as to quote from
>>>> your
>>>> first reply infers;
>>>> "I don't know what Mr. Lyson was partaking of when he wrote that
>>>> article
>>>
>>
>> "
>>
>>> Creo's website is current, and I used it as my reference. My previous
>>> knowledge of Iris ink sets, plus the current Creo website information
>>> led me to the conclusion that the article in question was biased.
>>
>>
>>
>> So Iris have managed to reduce their fade resistance?
>>
>>
>>> Sometimes misinformation is the direct result of slight of hand. As an
>>> example, he spends a long paragraph speaking about a photographer who
>>> printed a test pattern with a pigment colorant ink set, who then ???put
>>> the inks away for a year??? and then upon reprinting the same chart
>>> found it to be considerably lacking in color. This is an absurd claim.
>>> No one does this, and all pigment inks indicate they should be
>>> agitated before use. He then indicates the same photographer agitated
>>> the inks and got back 90% of the density (of course he did!). Worse
>>> still he indicates that today's pigment inks have much better
>>> suspension
>>> characteristics (up to 18 months), so what was the point of that. How
>>> long ago was that article written and how long ago was that pigment ink
>>> "experiment". Just how long a lifespan does Lyson place on there own
>>> inks (dye or Pigment, for that matter?) As I recall they have a rather
>>> short shelf life.
>>>
>>> That whole section of the article while possibly factually correct, has
>>> only one intent, and that is to mislead.
>>>
>>> In another section, he claims that it is a myth that pigment colorant
>>> inks clog more often than dye do, and in cases that they do, it is
>>> because of badly formulated inks. He also claims the reason for
>>> this is
>>> that the size of the pigment particles are too small to clog the nozzle
>>> or jet.
>>>
>>> What actually causes clogs on most printers is a build up of ink
>>> residue. Depending upon the head design, this can manifest in
>>> different
>>> ways, such as cone formation around the jet or nozzle that slowly
>>> narrows the jet, nozzle deflection, by build up on one side to the
>>> nozzle, or just general build up under the head. While dye inks do
>>> indeed redissolve in the ink still left in the head/cartridge, even
>>> that
>>> can and does eventually become to thick to get self cleaned. But with
>>> pigment inks, the residue becomes caked and is not easily dissolvable,
>>> due to both the pigment itself and the carriers used, which differ form
>>> dye inks. There is a reason some printers do not use pigment colorant
>>> inks at all, because they do tend to be harder to keep flowing.
>>>
>>> In fact, when reading over his section about this, he actually
>>> contradicts himself, fist claiming pigment inks are no more likely to
>>> clog a head than dye, but later in the same section he admits pigment
>>> inks are more difficult to redissolve.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another example of slight of hand to mislead is the above five
>> paragraghs.
>> My op linked directly to the dye vs pigment section and the title of
>> my post
>> reflected that section. Yet the first half of your post is with
>> regards to
>> other sections not referenced by myself.
>>
>>
>>> Probably the most questionable section is the area about Dye versus
>>> Pigment inks. In fact, I would go as far as suggesting he uses some
>>> very intentional word smithing to mislead the reader. Firstly, only
>>> some
>>> Iris inks have reasonable longevity claims, and only when used with
>>> certain papers.
>>
>>
>>
>> He states that;
>> "It's worth noting that many fine art reproduction houses use Iris
>> inkjet
>> printers to produce "Giclee" prints, which are renowned for their
>> longevity.
>> All Iris printers use dyebased inks."
>>
>> I've looked - and he's right - a many do atleast I presume they do - as
>> there is a website discussing their use in fine art.
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand, in the case of most pigment inks
>>> almost the opposite exists, you have to go out of your way to find
>>> papers that make them less fade resistant than most dye inks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again from the article;
>> "It's true that pigments generally are more fade-resistant,
>> particularly
>> for outdoor exposure where the intensity and type of light is very
>> different
>> than artificial illumination.
>> It looks like he agrees with you.
>>
>> > also say that Iris dye inks are less "renowned" for their
>> longevity that
>>
>>> most pigment inks. Iris has indeed built a niche market for high color
>>> gamut prints, but left many artists in the lurch when their older inks
>>> did not prove to be as light stable as originally claimed or expected.
>>
>>
>>
>> From WIR;
>> "Iris machines, which can print images as large as 34X46 inches, were
>> designed for direct digital proofing, making comps, and technical
>> applications. These of course are throw-away things, not photographs or
>> works of art. The initial inksets provided by Iris Graphic were never
>> intended for making prints to be matted, framed, and displayed."
>>
>>
>>
>>> I recall Iris having numerous failed ink sets (especially the yellow
>>> and
>>> magenta inks) along the way, which were supposed to be stable.
>>
>>
>>
>> I recall reading somewhere that Epson had problems with some of their
>> ink.
>>
>>
>>> Further, great strides have occurred in pigment particles and how they
>>> lay on paper, and the gamut differences have been bridged for the most
>>
>>
>> part.
>>
>> to quote again;
>> " The latest pigment preparation technology improves the color
>> quality by
>> grinding the particles to the smallest possible size and using resins to
>> coat the particles, which helps smooth out the rough surface."
>> You and Mr Lyson agree again.
>>
>>
>>> His section on warranties and 3rd part inks, IMHO, stinks, but is
>>> structured similarly to the rest of the article. On the one hand he
>>> implies that the law protects you for being refused warranty
>>> coverage if
>>> you use 3rd party inks, and that the ink jet printer company must prove
>>> that non-OEM inks caused the damage, and then just two sentences later
>>> he suggests always keeping a set of OEM inks on hand to place in your
>>> printer to fool the repair and warranty people. That shows how much he
>>> relies upon the law for protection, when he suggests you use deceit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or does it suggest that the printer makers will try to avoid their legal
>> obligations and to avoid any such sittuations place OEM cartridges in
>> the
>> printer.
>>
>>
>>> Regarding your experiences with framed color photo prints, no one uses
>>> color photography as the bellweather for permanence. It has always
>>> been
>>> considered a transient medium. Black and white is another matter
>>> entirely. In color, oil paints or even some watercolor were considered
>>> a more reasonable goal to strive for.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fair comment. I used it to illustrate 'Client expectations'
>>
>>
>>> And no, I was not referring to OEM/manufacturers when I stated that
>>> newer improved and longer lasting dye inks were coming, along with new
>>> paper technologies. Better dyes are coming.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep! Better cars, computers, televisions..... When you think about it
>> just
>> about anything you can think of will be improved upon. - I see why
>> you are
>> so good at spotting 'slight of hand' to mislead.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And lastly, that 120 year Iris ink... it's the black only.
>>
>>
>>
>> I appogise for that it was not my intention to mislead. I assumed the
>> 120
>> rating given to the 'Lysonic' inkset was indeed colour as they appear
>> on the
>> same matrix as colour inksets and the Lyson website states their
>> 'Lysonic'
>> ink is colour.
>> So I may continue to learn - can you direct me to the resource that
>> indicates 'Black only'.
>>
>>
>>> Some dye inks, used with the right papers can be used to create long
>>> lasting art.
>>
>>
>>
>> to quote myself;
>> "The 'Don't use dye-based inks for 'keepers' ' without qualification
>> is to
>> spread mis-information."
>>
>> So we agree also.
>>
>> --
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 9:33:23 PM

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

> You may think me stupid enough not to catch the gist of your implied
> insults, even when I am working at 4 AM and stealing valuable sleep time
> to respond to you, but you'd be wrong.

There was really no reason to do so, but that was your choice. As for
insulting you, that was not my intention. You made the big deal on the
wordsmithing - all I did was to point out that you are quite good at it
yourself. As a rule I don't insult strangers.

> You gave a url, you did not indicate anyone should only read
> certain sentences of it.
I referenced a section and not 'certain sentences' - when it comes to
wordsmithing you really are a champ.

The url I gave linked directly to the section titled ' Dye vs Pigment'. This
section is in the middle of the entire article. I would have linked to the
begining of the article if that was what I was referencing - but it wasn't.
The subject of my post was entitled 'Dye vs Pigment' the same as the
section. I assumed it to be clear enough but as you point out that it was
not clear enough for you, I will try to be more clear in the future

>The whole article uses the same technique
> throughout. The Lyson article plays games I am not interested in
> playing

Oh but you are. On a number of occasions you mention that Lyson and Iris had
failed inksets. What has that to do with the thread? Wait could it be that
Lyson wrote the article, but have had failures in the past so they can't be
any good and the article must be wrong. As I pointed out to you Epson have
also had failed inksets, but I don't try to infer that because of this they
must be poor.

> and I'm even less interested in continuing wasting my time with
> playing them with you, so this will be my late exchange with you about
> it.

Shame - I was just getting into it - never mind.

>Anyone who has a bit of wordsmithing ability can make a bold and
> outrageous statement and then qualify it in the next dozen sentences to
> a mere shadow of the original intent, in the hopes most people will not
> read carefully enough to recognize the technique.

Yep - you've shown this.

> The Lyson article starts each section with a statement and then uses a
> bunch of contradictory statements to "qualify" the original to the point
> where it has little to no import at all.
>
> I have just written a small piece using the same technique:
>
> ======================
>
> Everyone who lives in Florida knows you had better be prepared because
> it snows like heck there! Citrus crops freeze, ponds freeze over, water
> pipes can burst, and the roads become slick and dangerous, especially
> with their elderly population who have a hard time driving during better
> weather. You'd wish more people used snow tires and chains on those days.
>
> The median temperature in Florida is around 65 degrees F year round, and
> they can have days, sometimes even occasionally weeks, where it goes
> over 100. But those are not very common except during the peak of
> summer. It's winter when those snow and ice days show up and do their
> damage, so watch out!
>
> ====================

Sounds like a nice place - a bit cold though :) .

> I didn't check the median temperature in Florida, because I don't have
> the time, so it might be slightly off.

You mean you posted to a news group without checking your facts. Thats how
mis-information starts.

> Lastly, you may have provided the link to the article in question in
> regard to the dye versus pigment debate, but the article doesn't
> honestly answer that debate either, because it is craftily biased, and
> is misleading, and as such it required additional qualifiers, some of
> which I have provided.

In your opinion. and no you have not.

>You brought up the article, not me. I've put
> more time into discussing it than you have.

You may have put more time into it but partly that was due to you commenting
on sections not referenced by me.
You have slated the article and it's author but provided nothing to back
this up.
All you did was to make comments like;

I remember they had failed inksets - so what - it proves nothing, Epson has
had them.

or

Artists being disapointed with the fade resistance of Iris prints with their
older ink - I referred to Wilhelm stating that early Iris ink was never
inended for photos or fine art.

I provided a link to a pdf from WIR that showed Lyson and Iris to have good
fade resistance, with one set getting 120 years. Your only come back on this
was that the 120 rating was for 'Black only' I was not aware of this and
asked if you could tell me your source for the 'Black only' - I'm still
waiting. I'm not saying your wrong but I'd like to read it.

> Selective quoting is
> meaningless in an article written in the manner that one has been. It
> is the analysis of the information which makes or breaks it. It's broken.

So is slating an article with nothing but 'I knew someone who' or 'I
remeber when'

My only intention with this thread was to point out that dye ink can be used
for 'keepers' and that to state otherwise without qaulifying it was to
spread mis-information
If you read back your posts in this thread and cut away all your
wordsmithing you will see that you agree.

--
Patrick
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:44:16 AM

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

Patrick wrote:

>>You may think me stupid enough not to catch the gist of your implied
>>insults, even when I am working at 4 AM and stealing valuable sleep time
>>to respond to you, but you'd be wrong.
>>
>>
>
>There was really no reason to do so, but that was your choice. As for
>insulting you, that was not my intention. You made the big deal on the
>wordsmithing - all I did was to point out that you are quite good at it
>yourself. As a rule I don't insult strangers.
>
>
>
>> You gave a url, you did not indicate anyone should only read
>>certain sentences of it.
>>
>>
>I referenced a section and not 'certain sentences' - when it comes to
>wordsmithing you really are a champ.
>
>

Did you say Champ or Chump? Everybody in this NG does wordsmithing.

>The url I gave linked directly to the section titled ' Dye vs Pigment'. This
>section is in the middle of the entire article. I would have linked to the
>begining of the article if that was what I was referencing - but it wasn't.
>
>

Makes sense to me.

>The subject of my post was entitled 'Dye vs Pigment' the same as the
>section. I assumed it to be clear enough but as you point out that it was
>not clear enough for you, I will try to be more clear in the future
>
>

I wouldn't. It is very clear as it is.

>
>
>>The whole article uses the same technique
>>throughout. The Lyson article plays games I am not interested in
>>playing
>>
>>
>
>Oh but you are. On a number of occasions you mention that Lyson and Iris had
>failed inksets.
>

At least Lyson is a BRAND and people know what they are getting and can
purchase the BRAND from more than one Vendor.

>What has that to do with the thread? Wait could it be that
>Lyson wrote the article, but have had failures in the past so they can't be
>any good and the article must be wrong. As I pointed out to you Epson have
>also had failed inksets, but I don't try to infer that because of this they
>must be poor.
>
>

I would imagine that Epson is the best for their printers used on their
paper. They were all designed to work together. The same is for HP and
Canon.

> > and I'm even less interested in continuing wasting my time with
>
>
>>playing them with you, so this will be my late exchange with you about
>>it.
>>
>>
>
>Shame - I was just getting into it - never mind.
>
>
>
>>Anyone who has a bit of wordsmithing ability can make a bold and
>>outrageous statement and then qualify it in the next dozen sentences to
>>a mere shadow of the original intent, in the hopes most people will not
>>read carefully enough to recognize the technique.
>>
>>
>
>Yep - you've shown this.
>
>
>
>>The Lyson article starts each section with a statement and then uses a
>>bunch of contradictory statements to "qualify" the original to the point
>>where it has little to no import at all.
>>
>>I have just written a small piece using the same technique:
>>
>>======================
>>
>>Everyone who lives in Florida knows you had better be prepared because
>>it snows like heck there!
>>
And Canada is a Desert.

>>Citrus crops freeze, ponds freeze over, water
>>pipes can burst, and the roads become slick and dangerous, especially
>>with their elderly population who have a hard time driving during better
>>weather. You'd wish more people used snow tires and chains on those days.
>>
>>The median temperature in Florida is around 65 degrees F year round, and
>>they can have days, sometimes even occasionally weeks, where it goes
>>over 100. But those are not very common except during the peak of
>>summer. It's winter when those snow and ice days show up and do their
>>damage, so watch out!
>>
>>
>>

And this takes the cake. Good for weather.com

>>====================
>>
>>
>
>Sounds like a nice place - a bit cold though :) .
>
>
>
>>I didn't check the median temperature in Florida, because I don't have
>>the time, so it might be slightly off.
>>
>>
>
>You mean you posted to a news group without checking your facts. Thats how
>mis-information starts.
>
>
>
>>Lastly, you may have provided the link to the article in question in
>>regard to the dye versus pigment debate, but the article doesn't
>>honestly answer that debate either, because it is craftily biased, and
>>is misleading, and as such it required additional qualifiers, some of
>>which I have provided.
>>
>>
>
>In your opinion. and no you have not.
>
>
>
>>You brought up the article, not me. I've put
>>more time into discussing it than you have.
>>
>>
>
>You may have put more time into it but partly that was due to you commenting
>on sections not referenced by me.
>You have slated the article and it's author but provided nothing to back
>this up.
>All you did was to make comments like;
>
>I remember they had failed inksets - so what - it proves nothing, Epson has
>had them.
>
>or
>
>Artists being disapointed with the fade resistance of Iris prints with their
>older ink - I referred to Wilhelm stating that early Iris ink was never
>inended for photos or fine art.
>
>I provided a link to a pdf from WIR that showed Lyson and Iris to have good
>fade resistance, with one set getting 120 years. Your only come back on this
>was that the 120 rating was for 'Black only' I was not aware of this and
>asked if you could tell me your source for the 'Black only' - I'm still
>waiting. I'm not saying your wrong but I'd like to read it.
>
>
>
>>Selective quoting is
>>meaningless in an article written in the manner that one has been. It
>>is the analysis of the information which makes or breaks it. It's broken.
>>
>>
>
>So is slating an article with nothing but 'I knew someone who' or 'I
>remeber when'
>
>My only intention with this thread was to point out that dye ink can be used
>for 'keepers' and that to state otherwise without qaulifying it was to
>spread mis-information
>If you read back your posts in this thread and cut away all your
>wordsmithing you will see that you agree.
>
>--
>Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
!