Patrick said:
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
