Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Inkjet prints lifetime in photo album

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 6:44:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am considering purchasing either the Epson R800 or the Canon i9900
printer. I'm planning on mounting prints I make in a photo album. I
understand the Canon prints have a lifetime of something like 30 years
under glass in display conditions. What does this translate to if the
photos are mounted in a photo album? It would be nice to make
something that would be around for the grandkids.

Thanks in advance,
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 10:11:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

alacriti@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<1107906283.378062.149860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> I am considering purchasing either the Epson R800 or the Canon i9900
> printer. I'm planning on mounting prints I make in a photo album. I
> understand the Canon prints have a lifetime of something like 30 years
> under glass in display conditions. What does this translate to if the
> photos are mounted in a photo album? It would be nice to make
> something that would be around for the grandkids.
>
> Thanks in advance,
Sorry, can't answer Your question directly.However, Epson claim print
life of 75 years with r800 and relevant paper.I have R800 and I can
recomend print quality.I would have thought that prints 'sealed' in a
modern photo album with plastic inserts and in relative darkness most
of time, would last as least as long as anything hanging on a wall.
Peter.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 11:12:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<alacriti@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107906283.378062.149860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I am considering purchasing either the Epson R800 or the Canon i9900
> printer. I'm planning on mounting prints I make in a photo album. I
> understand the Canon prints have a lifetime of something like 30 years
> under glass in display conditions. What does this translate to if the
> photos are mounted in a photo album? It would be nice to make
> something that would be around for the grandkids.
>
> Thanks in advance,

The Epson's Ultra Chrome inks are pigment-based, and will outlast ANY dye-based system
currently available for desktop printing.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:51:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate> writes:

> RSD99 wrote:
>> "alacriti" posted:
>> "...
>> It would be nice to make something that would be around for the grandkids.
>> ..."
>> If so .. the Epson R800 uses the Ultrachrome pigmented inks. These
>> are the
>> closest thing to archival that anyone has come up with ... to date, anyway.
>> Print life ratings seem to be well into the three-digit range.
>> You can find out more at Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc.
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
>> An article and ratings on the R800 are at
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_...
>> Oh ... and FWIW: the tests I have seen for the Canon do not appear
>> to be
>> anywhere near as long.
>
> I don't have access to WWW right now, so can you tell me if those
> links mention print longevity in an album (which is what the OP was
> asking basically)?

Yes; one of the categories they give a rating for is "Album/dark
storage". For those conditions, *all* of the papers they tested the
Epson R800 with rate over 100 years, and most rate over 200 years.

Since you say "right now", perhaps
<http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html&gt; will be useful to
you later, or to other people.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 3:06:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:12:09 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:


>The Epson's Ultra Chrome inks are pigment-based, and will outlast ANY dye-based system
>currently available for desktop printing.


Not necessarily. The HP DesignJet 30 and 130 (and a
few other HP models) get an 82 year Wilhelm rating
on selected HP media.

Not disputing your *general* point that pigment
inks will yield better longevity than dyes. But
the HP ink/paper system is a specific exception.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 3:06:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:ne6j01hrdosdnj5c9eqvr778r61oeu8okc@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:12:09 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>
>>The Epson's Ultra Chrome inks are pigment-based, and will outlast ANY dye-based system
>>currently available for desktop printing.
>
>
> Not necessarily. The HP DesignJet 30 and 130 (and a
> few other HP models) get an 82 year Wilhelm rating
> on selected HP media.
>
> Not disputing your *general* point that pigment
> inks will yield better longevity than dyes. But
> the HP ink/paper system is a specific exception.

My personal experience is that Willhelm has been very very wrong in the
past...specifically with regard to Epson's 1270/870 printers and ink. They had horrible
shift problems (and I'm an Epson guy!)...even after fabulous claims of longevity from
Willhelm.

I do understand that he is widely regarded as the longevity guru...but I would be very
cautious when considering ANY ink-based system that is not behind glass, or where future
handling cannot necessarily be predicted (which definitely includes albums).
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 3:14:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"alacriti" posted:
"...
It would be nice to make something that would be around for the grandkids.
...."

If so .. the Epson R800 uses the Ultrachrome pigmented inks. These are the
closest thing to archival that anyone has come up with ... to date, anyway.
Print life ratings seem to be well into the three-digit range.

You can find out more at Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
An article and ratings on the R800 are at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_...

Oh ... and FWIW: the tests I have seen for the Canon do not appear to be
anywhere near as long.




<alacriti@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107906283.378062.149860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I am considering purchasing either the Epson R800 or the Canon i9900
> printer. I'm planning on mounting prints I make in a photo album. I
> understand the Canon prints have a lifetime of something like 30 years
> under glass in display conditions. What does this translate to if the
> photos are mounted in a photo album? It would be nice to make
> something that would be around for the grandkids.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 4:22:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:10:05 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:ne6j01hrdosdnj5c9eqvr778r61oeu8okc@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:12:09 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Epson's Ultra Chrome inks are pigment-based, and will outlast ANY dye-based system
>>>currently available for desktop printing.
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. The HP DesignJet 30 and 130 (and a
>> few other HP models) get an 82 year Wilhelm rating
>> on selected HP media.
>>
>> Not disputing your *general* point that pigment
>> inks will yield better longevity than dyes. But
>> the HP ink/paper system is a specific exception.
>
>My personal experience is that Willhelm has been very very wrong in the
>past...specifically with regard to Epson's 1270/870 printers and ink. They had horrible
>shift problems (and I'm an Epson guy!)...even after fabulous claims of longevity from
>Willhelm.
>
>I do understand that he is widely regarded as the longevity guru...but I would be very
>cautious when considering ANY ink-based system that is not behind glass, or where future
>handling cannot necessarily be predicted (which definitely includes albums).


Yes, the "orange shift" fiasco was a
bit of an embarassment, and not just
for Henry Wilhelm. On the other hand it
led to refinements in the testing regime
and further qualifications -- notice
how the longevity figures are now quoted
for prints *under glass.*

I'm not defending Wilhelm particularly.
OTOH, I've seen ordinary dye ink prints
last a lot longer than anyone says they
ought to.

A healthy skepticism is wise, but give
some credit where it's due -- there aren't
too many doing what Wilhelm does.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 4:22:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:idaj01dpni2tntlscu71p6qhnfmvgqoptc@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:10:05 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>news:ne6j01hrdosdnj5c9eqvr778r61oeu8okc@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:12:09 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Epson's Ultra Chrome inks are pigment-based, and will outlast ANY dye-based system
>>>>currently available for desktop printing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. The HP DesignJet 30 and 130 (and a
>>> few other HP models) get an 82 year Wilhelm rating
>>> on selected HP media.
>>>
>>> Not disputing your *general* point that pigment
>>> inks will yield better longevity than dyes. But
>>> the HP ink/paper system is a specific exception.
>>
>>My personal experience is that Willhelm has been very very wrong in the
>>past...specifically with regard to Epson's 1270/870 printers and ink. They had horrible
>>shift problems (and I'm an Epson guy!)...even after fabulous claims of longevity from
>>Willhelm.
>>
>>I do understand that he is widely regarded as the longevity guru...but I would be very
>>cautious when considering ANY ink-based system that is not behind glass, or where future
>>handling cannot necessarily be predicted (which definitely includes albums).
>
>
> Yes, the "orange shift" fiasco was a
> bit of an embarassment, and not just
> for Henry Wilhelm. On the other hand it
> led to refinements in the testing regime
> and further qualifications -- notice
> how the longevity figures are now quoted
> for prints *under glass.*
>
> I'm not defending Wilhelm particularly.
> OTOH, I've seen ordinary dye ink prints
> last a lot longer than anyone says they
> ought to.
>
> A healthy skepticism is wise, but give
> some credit where it's due -- there aren't
> too many doing what Wilhelm does.

I completely agree with this last statement in particular.
Wilhelm is a good guy doing good work.
The orange shift was particularly frustrating to me because it was their claims of
longevity that convinced me to by the *then* top-of-the-line Nikon film scanner...and 1270
printer. What a disappointment to find that I couldn't rely on ANY of my prints!! It was
a real damper on my photographic enthusiasm, because I love to provide prints for
others--but did NOT want to necessarily include a long list of do's and don'ts for
handling/protecting the prints.

I *am* an Epson fan, however (now that I've over my serious fits of anger at them...), and
am an extremely happer user of their fantastic Epson 4000 17" wide format Ultra Chrome
printer. What a fabulous machine this is!

Anyway... I am generally in agreement with you on the above regarding Wilhelm.
-Mark
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 4:22:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:o SiOd.48267$0u.4479@fed1read04...
> I completely agree with this last statement in particular.
> Wilhelm is a good guy doing good work.
> The orange shift was particularly frustrating to me because it was their claims of
> longevity that convinced me to by

**Should read, "convinced me to **buy...**"
:) 
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 6:10:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:
> "alacriti" posted:
> "...
> It would be nice to make something that would be around for the grandkids.
> ..."
>
> If so .. the Epson R800 uses the Ultrachrome pigmented inks. These are the
> closest thing to archival that anyone has come up with ... to date, anyway.
> Print life ratings seem to be well into the three-digit range.
>
> You can find out more at Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc.
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
> An article and ratings on the R800 are at
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_...
>
> Oh ... and FWIW: the tests I have seen for the Canon do not appear to be
> anywhere near as long.

I don't have access to WWW right now, so can you tell me if those links mention
print longevity in an album (which is what the OP was asking basically)?

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

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

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 7:20:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

peter clarkson wrote:
> alacriti@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<1107906283.378062.149860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>
>>I am considering purchasing either the Epson R800 or the Canon i9900
>>printer. I'm planning on mounting prints I make in a photo album. I
>>understand the Canon prints have a lifetime of something like 30 years
>>under glass in display conditions. What does this translate to if the
>>photos are mounted in a photo album? It would be nice to make
>>something that would be around for the grandkids.
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>
> Sorry, can't answer Your question directly.However, Epson claim print
> life of 75 years with r800 and relevant paper.I have R800 and I can
> recomend print quality.I would have thought that prints 'sealed' in a
> modern photo album with plastic inserts and in relative darkness most
> of time, would last as least as long as anything hanging on a wall.
> Peter.

Wouldn't plastic inserts be a bad idea if you're looking for longevity?

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

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

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 7:20:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:20:03 GMT, Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate>
wrote:


>Wouldn't plastic inserts be a bad idea if you're looking for longevity?


Works for me.

The main thing you want to do is keep
them away from atmospheric contaminants,
heat, and strong light.

Best thing you can do to preserve a print
is frame it, under glass or plexi, using
a proper mat.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:25:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:JWgOd.45986$0u.24322@fed1read04...
<snip>
My personal experience is that Willhelm has been very very wrong in the
> past...specifically with regard to Epson's 1270/870 printers and ink.
> They had horrible shift problems (and I'm an Epson guy!)...even after
> fabulous claims of longevity from Willhelm.
<snip>

It's interesting, but I still have, and use, my 1270 daily. I have NEVER
had a color shift, even on unprotected prints on the wall. We've lived in
Austin, Orlando and Harrisburg, three pretty different places and nothing.

Tom
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 11:42:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:22:25 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:


>The orange shift was particularly frustrating to me because it was their claims of
>longevity that convinced me to by the *then* top-of-the-line Nikon film scanner...and 1270
>printer. What a disappointment to find that I couldn't rely on ANY of my prints!! It was
>a real damper on my photographic enthusiasm, because I love to provide prints for
>others--but did NOT want to necessarily include a long list of do's and don'ts for
>handling/protecting the prints.


I remberer it well. The issue occupied the
Epson listserv for months, as you can imagine.

It was especially frustrating because it was
the first time that Epson had even made
specific longevity claims for their prints.

Anyway -- I was glad for once that I didn't
have the latest greatest and newest printer.


rafe b
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 12:29:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Has anyone had problems with inkjet prints sticking to the plastic
sheets that are typically found in photo albums? I ask this because
ink jet ink is different than regular photo-process material and I
have heard a few reports of ink jet ink sticking/smearing to the
inside of glass in a frame (thus the recommendation to matte framed
prints which keeps the ink from contacting the glass) - so it seems
that the ink might also have a liklihood of sticking to the plastic
sheeting especially if under the normal "pressure" that closed albums
can encounter.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:53:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not defending Wilhelm particularly.
> OTOH, I've seen ordinary dye ink prints
> last a lot longer than anyone says they
> ought to.

Au contraire, I notice fading (especially cyan)
within 2 years on Epson Photo Paper, less if exposed
to direct sunlight, despite Wilhelm's 4 year rating.
Heavyweight Matte shows better longevity.

Maybe I'm just more sensitive to color than you.
February 9, 2005 4:18:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <a66dnVgBw-s1s5ffRVn-tA@giganews.com>, please_reply@news.group
says...
> Has anyone had problems with inkjet prints sticking to the plastic
> sheets that are typically found in photo albums? I ask this because
> ink jet ink is different than regular photo-process material and I
> have heard a few reports of ink jet ink sticking/smearing to the
> inside of glass in a frame (thus the recommendation to matte framed
> prints which keeps the ink from contacting the glass) - so it seems
> that the ink might also have a liklihood of sticking to the plastic
> sheeting especially if under the normal "pressure" that closed albums
> can encounter.
>

I have had this problem ONLY when using paper that wasn't suited to the ink I
was using...

I printed some 8x10s on Glossy OfficeMax Paper and the ink NEVER fully dried
on that paper. (I think Office Max may now use a different supplier for their
"house brand" paper)

Though the prinst LOOKED dry, they were sticking to the glass and self
destructing when I framed them.

This was a full day after printing them. Investigation showed that the
printed surface was still "tacky" even 48 hours after printing. These were
prints done with a Canon S820, and an Epson 785 EPX BOTH using OEM ink.

Pictures printed on My HP dried just fine on this paper.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 8:17:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:AQsOd.11$oK2.3@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:JWgOd.45986$0u.24322@fed1read04...
> <snip>
> My personal experience is that Willhelm has been very very wrong in the
>> past...specifically with regard to Epson's 1270/870 printers and ink. They had horrible
>> shift problems (and I'm an Epson guy!)...even after fabulous claims of longevity from
>> Willhelm.
> <snip>
>
> It's interesting, but I still have, and use, my 1270 daily. I have NEVER had a color
> shift, even on unprotected prints on the wall. We've lived in Austin, Orlando and
> Harrisburg, three pretty different places and nothing.
>
>Tom

I'm not surprised to hear that.
I still use my 1270 (trying to use up ink on non-critical, short-term-use stuff)...and
I've seen hideous orange shift at home...while little to none at my work. Seems to be
quite different in different buildings even.

I once had a scanned image of a 8x10 landscape I had printed on my 1270--where a paper had
been lying accross part of it for a week or two. When the paper was picked up, the
portion exposed to the air was almost completely orange, while the portion covered with
another paper was fine.

It was quite revealing!

It does seem that Epson's newer papers (newer versions of the same paper, like Premium
Glossy Photo, etc.) do better than they used to. Still...it will never keep up with the
Ultra Chrome inks of my Epson 4000.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 12:30:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Yes; one of the categories they give a rating for is "Album/dark
> storage". For those conditions, *all* of the papers they tested the
> Epson R800 with rate over 100 years, and most rate over 200 years.
>
> Since you say "right now", perhaps
> <http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html&gt; will be useful to
> you later, or to other people.

Thanks David.

Is all their info only in PDF format? I've got 30MB of WWW access per month from
work, and as there's no file size mentioned I'm reluctant to click on the link.

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

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

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 12:42:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas wrote:
> RSD99 wrote:
>> "alacriti" posted:
>> "...
>> It would be nice to make something that would be around for the
>> grandkids. ..."
>>
>> If so .. the Epson R800 uses the Ultrachrome pigmented inks. These
>> are the closest thing to archival that anyone has come up with ...
>> to date, anyway. Print life ratings seem to be well into the
>> three-digit range.
>>
>> You can find out more at Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc.
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
>> An article and ratings on the R800 are at
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_...
>>
>> Oh ... and FWIW: the tests I have seen for the Canon do not appear
>> to be anywhere near as long.
>
> I don't have access to WWW right now, so can you tell me if those
> links mention print longevity in an album (which is what the OP was
> asking basically)?

You have access to newsgroups but not the web? Weird!

--

Travis in Shoreline Washington
Uses a Kodak DC4800
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 1:30:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Travis wrote:
> Ben Thomas wrote:
>
>> RSD99 wrote:
>>
>>> "alacriti" posted:
>>> "...
>>> It would be nice to make something that would be around for the
>>> grandkids. ..."
>>>
>>> If so .. the Epson R800 uses the Ultrachrome pigmented inks. These
>>> are the closest thing to archival that anyone has come up with ...
>>> to date, anyway. Print life ratings seem to be well into the
>>> three-digit range.
>>> You can find out more at Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc.
>>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
>>> An article and ratings on the R800 are at
>>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html
>>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_...
>>>
>>> Oh ... and FWIW: the tests I have seen for the Canon do not appear
>>> to be anywhere near as long.
>>
>>
>> I don't have access to WWW right now, so can you tell me if those
>> links mention print longevity in an album (which is what the OP was
>> asking basically)?
>
>
> You have access to newsgroups but not the web? Weird!

You can't download many megabytes a minute with news groups (as the binary
groups are blocked), so my employer allows newsgroups but limited WWW.

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

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

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 2:39:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Good question, PVC inserts are awful, polyethelene inserts are OK. Scrapbook
folks are amazingly savy about this, much more so than most photographers. The
Wilhelm web site has articles on this.

Tom

In article <fr2cuc.2t2.ln@192.168.11.2>, nosp@m.thanks.mate says...
>
>peter clarkson wrote:
>> alacriti@hotmail.com wrote in message
news:<1107906283.378062.149860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>>
>>>I am considering purchasing either the Epson R800 or the Canon i9900
>>>printer. I'm planning on mounting prints I make in a photo album. I
>>>understand the Canon prints have a lifetime of something like 30 years
>>>under glass in display conditions. What does this translate to if the
>>>photos are mounted in a photo album? It would be nice to make
>>>something that would be around for the grandkids.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Sorry, can't answer Your question directly.However, Epson claim print
>> life of 75 years with r800 and relevant paper.I have R800 and I can
>> recomend print quality.I would have thought that prints 'sealed' in a
>> modern photo album with plastic inserts and in relative darkness most
>> of time, would last as least as long as anything hanging on a wall.
>> Peter.
>
>Wouldn't plastic inserts be a bad idea if you're looking for longevity?
>
>--
>--
>Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>
>My Digital World:
>Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
>Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
>Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
>Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>
>Disclaimer:
>Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
>relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
>given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 2:47:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Been spending time on the Wilhelm web site, for a talk I'm giving. HW seems
very embarased and suitably humbled by the orange shift fiasco. Who would have
known microporous paper would hold ozone as well as ink! Anyway in New England
I have't run anyone who had the problem, interesting it was regional. Wilhelm
is the only act out there. No one else is publishing hard data. Spent a couple
of hour trying to find life expectancies for the Xerox 8400 solid ink printer.
Found Xerox doesn't have any data, best I could get was an engineer saying
slight fading after 3 years. I'm appriciating Wilhelm.

Tom

In article <OSiOd.48267$0u.4479@fed1read04>,
mjmorganlowestevennumberhere@cox..net says...
>
>
>"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:idaj01dpni2tntlscu71p6qhnfmvgqoptc@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:10:05 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ne6j01hrdosdnj5c9eqvr778r61oeu8okc@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:12:09 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Epson's Ultra Chrome inks are pigment-based, and will outlast ANY
dye-based system
>>>>>currently available for desktop printing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. The HP DesignJet 30 and 130 (and a
>>>> few other HP models) get an 82 year Wilhelm rating
>>>> on selected HP media.
>>>>
>>>> Not disputing your *general* point that pigment
>>>> inks will yield better longevity than dyes. But
>>>> the HP ink/paper system is a specific exception.
>>>
>>>My personal experience is that Willhelm has been very very wrong in the
>>>past...specifically with regard to Epson's 1270/870 printers and ink. They
had horrible
>>>shift problems (and I'm an Epson guy!)...even after fabulous claims of
longevity from
>>>Willhelm.
>>>
>>>I do understand that he is widely regarded as the longevity guru...but I
would be very
>>>cautious when considering ANY ink-based system that is not behind glass, or
where future
>>>handling cannot necessarily be predicted (which definitely includes albums).
>>
>>
>> Yes, the "orange shift" fiasco was a
>> bit of an embarassment, and not just
>> for Henry Wilhelm. On the other hand it
>> led to refinements in the testing regime
>> and further qualifications -- notice
>> how the longevity figures are now quoted
>> for prints *under glass.*
>>
>> I'm not defending Wilhelm particularly.
>> OTOH, I've seen ordinary dye ink prints
>> last a lot longer than anyone says they
>> ought to.
>>
>> A healthy skepticism is wise, but give
>> some credit where it's due -- there aren't
>> too many doing what Wilhelm does.
>
>I completely agree with this last statement in particular.
>Wilhelm is a good guy doing good work.
>The orange shift was particularly frustrating to me because it was their
claims of
>longevity that convinced me to by the *then* top-of-the-line Nikon film
scanner...and 1270
>printer. What a disappointment to find that I couldn't rely on ANY of my
prints!! It was
>a real damper on my photographic enthusiasm, because I love to provide prints
for
>others--but did NOT want to necessarily include a long list of do's and don'ts
for
>handling/protecting the prints.
>
>I *am* an Epson fan, however (now that I've over my serious fits of anger at
them...), and
>am an extremely happer user of their fantastic Epson 4000 17" wide format
Ultra Chrome
>printer. What a fabulous machine this is!
>
>Anyway... I am generally in agreement with you on the above regarding
Wilhelm.
>-Mark
>
>
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:23:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> writes:

> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:12:09 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>
>>The Epson's Ultra Chrome inks are pigment-based, and will outlast ANY dye-based system
>>currently available for desktop printing.
>
>
> Not necessarily. The HP DesignJet 30 and 130 (and a
> few other HP models) get an 82 year Wilhelm rating
> on selected HP media.
>
> Not disputing your *general* point that pigment
> inks will yield better longevity than dyes. But
> the HP ink/paper system is a specific exception.

The R800 version of the Ultrachrome inks has a Wilhelm rating of 110
years to >200 years depending on paper.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:30:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Yes; one of the categories they give a rating for is "Album/dark
>> storage". For those conditions, *all* of the papers they tested the
>> Epson R800 with rate over 100 years, and most rate over 200 years.
>> Since you say "right now", perhaps
>> <http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html&gt; will be useful to
>> you later, or to other people.
>
> Thanks David.
>
> Is all their info only in PDF format? I've got 30MB of WWW access per
> month from work, and as there's no file size mentioned I'm reluctant
> to click on the link.

The R800 6-page pdf file is 112KB. There's a link on the web site
labeled "full page screen view" that lets you view the data directly
-- but it turns out that's implemented as an image file, which is
twice the size of the pdf!

They don't seem to post real HTML pages of anything. I suppose it
keeps them from worrying about certain types of errors. Those pages
are big complex tables, so that's a more realistic worry for them than
for some people, at least.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
!