S
SleeperMan
So, R300 uses dye ink? Great...in that case,it's photos doesn't last 100William said:
years--only ones from R800...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
years--only ones from R800...
M
MikeK
(SNIP previous statements for brevity)
That is very easy to say, but which ones would you choose? The
selection of photos that survived from my relatives are very few and I
am certain that no one "selected" these photos, they were just some
that happened to survive the years.
I doubt many here will create such an archive since we could not know
which photos anyone might find of great interest. In any case you say
you will go to a photo lab for long lasting prints which is fine but
you do realize that the Epson 800 prints photos using Epson ink and
Epson paper that are projected to last in a photo album anywhere
between 110 years to greater than 400 years depending upon which Epson
paper is used? See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_12_03.pdf .
Unless you use a good quality photo album (archival paper, archival
corners to hold prints, etc), you're more likely to kill your prints
with the album than with the printing method.
M
MikeK
Second thing...i wonder why all people say that lab photos are not so
time resistive...i have some veeeery old lab photos and they are still
more or less same as they used to be. Lab photos doesn't contain ink
,so they are not so sensitive to fading...(or are they?).
The hint above is "more or less." You don't know, do you? Because you
have no dark-stored print to compare with, or no freshly-printed print
to compare with. The archival keeping qualities of color photos is
determined not by fading but by UNEVEN fading. When the colors shift
enough that a noticeable tint has been accomplished, the fading test is
over.
Everything that contains color is sensitive to fading. Your old color
prints use dyes that replaced the silver in the paper when the
processing was done. Hence, your color prints are very similar to dye
inkjet prints in that respect. (also fabrics that use dyes, which will
also fade even in storage) OTOH, pigment inkjets are more similar to
color silkscreen or plate lithography, which use pigment inks to print
on fine art (rag) papers.
But any of these will fade if displayed under less than optimal
lighting. Wilhelm's fade tests are based on what he perceives as typical
office or home lighting, while Kodak's tests use a more museum-standard
lighting. If you hang your images under glass in a low lighting
situation similar to museums (avoid ultraviolet light like sunlight,
moderate temps and humidity), you can expect your prints to last a nice
long time. Lifetimes? No, but then if you hang your grandmother's quilt
in the same situation you can expect it to fade as well.
Read the stuff at Wilhelm's site, especially the footnotes and criteria.
It will make sense, even if you disagree with his results, his
suggestions are worth following.
R
Richard
MikeK said:Unless you use a good quality photo album (archival paper, archival
corners to hold prints, etc), you're more likely to kill your prints
with the album than with the printing method.
I thought that was a given, but I guess everything must be spelled out
for clarity. Thanks for the excellent point!
Richard
S
SleeperMan
MikeK said:The hint above is "more or less." You don't know, do you? Because you
have no dark-stored print to compare with, or no freshly-printed print
to compare with. The archival keeping qualities of color photos is
determined not by fading but by UNEVEN fading. When the colors shift
enough that a noticeable tint has been accomplished, the fading test
is over.
Everything that contains color is sensitive to fading. Your old color
prints use dyes that replaced the silver in the paper when the
processing was done. Hence, your color prints are very similar to dye
inkjet prints in that respect. (also fabrics that use dyes, which will
also fade even in storage) OTOH, pigment inkjets are more similar to
color silkscreen or plate lithography, which use pigment inks to print
on fine art (rag) papers.
But any of these will fade if displayed under less than optimal
lighting. Wilhelm's fade tests are based on what he perceives as
typical office or home lighting, while Kodak's tests use a more
museum-standard lighting. If you hang your images under glass in a
low lighting situation similar to museums (avoid ultraviolet light
like sunlight, moderate temps and humidity), you can expect your
prints to last a nice long time. Lifetimes? No, but then if you hang
your grandmother's quilt in the same situation you can expect it to
fade as well.
Read the stuff at Wilhelm's site, especially the footnotes and
criteria. It will make sense, even if you disagree with his results,
his suggestions are worth following.
IF i start to read reccomendations...oh well... they say album, but not any
album...possibly NOT with plastic covers etc....
in short, so many NOT's, that i rather print photo again after 5 years or
so...but, i guess similat was (or still is) reccomended for lab photos,
too...
Nothing last forever, i guess...
A
Arthur Entlich
SleeperMan wrote:
The R300 uses dye colorant inks, while the R800 uses pigment colorant
inks which are much more stable against fading.
Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do fade.
Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the years.
Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for fading in
sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve them.
Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand normal
indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark keeping
(like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment colorants may
have an even longer fade resistance.
All accelerated fading tests are somewhat inaccurate because that's just
not how the prints will be stored, but they do provide some basis for
comparing the qualities of the inks and papers. However, the problem I
have seen is that I didn't have to wait 10 or even 5 years, I looked at
Canon prints that Canon provided as demo images in stores which had
fluorescent lighting and before the printers even were in the "replaced
by" modality (which in the printer industry is usually about 6 months to
a year) the prints were considerably faded, and that was without even
doing an A:B comparison, it was that obvious.
I would love to see Canon come up with a pigment colorant ink, or at
least a long life dye ink, that would work well with their heads. Maybe
they will.
Art
It's interesting how all do the testing of all kind of other printers,
papers etc...but i didn't see yet any review with Canon's best Photo Pro
paper (which has Alumna layer)... someone posted one test earlier elsewhere
and there was only one canon tester on god knows which paper, while there
were number of Epsons. It's hard to tell the difference.
BTW...i guess r800 do have gloss optimizer, right? And how is R800 priced
against. let's say ip4000? I think ip4000 would be more comparable with R300
(in price), which doesn't have gloss optimizer, so photos are not of such
high gloss - am i right?
The R300 uses dye colorant inks, while the R800 uses pigment colorant
inks which are much more stable against fading.
Second thing...i wonder why all people say that lab photos are not so time
resistive...i have some veeeery old lab photos and they are still more or
less same as they used to be. Lab photos doesn't contain ink ,so they are
not so sensitive to fading...(or are they?).
Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do fade.
Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the years.
Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for fading in
sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve them.
Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand normal
indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark keeping
(like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment colorants may
have an even longer fade resistance.
It's just...you know...all those testers claim 100, years, 400
years...etc...remember what they (used) to say for CDR's? 100 years, 1000
years...while now it turned out that same can last only a few years. That's
why i say it's impossible to predict so long period. You can't possibly
compare lab results with reality. OK, maybe i do believe that pigmented inks
do last longer, but dye ones make better photos. So, regarding longevity,
Epson wins, regarding quality, Canon wins...and that's not above test
result, but pure fact - not because of Canon, but because Canon uses dye
ink.
All accelerated fading tests are somewhat inaccurate because that's just
not how the prints will be stored, but they do provide some basis for
comparing the qualities of the inks and papers. However, the problem I
have seen is that I didn't have to wait 10 or even 5 years, I looked at
Canon prints that Canon provided as demo images in stores which had
fluorescent lighting and before the printers even were in the "replaced
by" modality (which in the printer industry is usually about 6 months to
a year) the prints were considerably faded, and that was without even
doing an A:B comparison, it was that obvious.
I would love to see Canon come up with a pigment colorant ink, or at
least a long life dye ink, that would work well with their heads. Maybe
they will.
Art
S
SleeperMan
Arthur said:SleeperMan wrote:
Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do
fade. Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the
years. Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for fading
in
sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve them.
Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand normal
indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark keeping
(like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment colorants may
have an even longer fade resistance.
i wonder...are lab photos still made the same way - by exposing photo paper
to light and developing...
All accelerated fading tests are somewhat inaccurate because that's
just not how the prints will be stored, but they do provide some
basis for comparing the qualities of the inks and papers. However,
the problem I have seen is that I didn't have to wait 10 or even 5
years, I looked at Canon prints that Canon provided as demo images in
stores which had fluorescent lighting and before the printers even
were in the "replaced by" modality (which in the printer industry is
usually about 6 months to a year) the prints were considerably faded,
and that was without even doing an A:B comparison, it was that
obvious.
I would love to see Canon come up with a pigment colorant ink, or at
least a long life dye ink, that would work well with their heads. Maybe
they will.
Art
Supposely they did in Japan - BCI7---
M
MikeK
i wonder...are lab photos still made the same way - by exposing photo
paper to light and developing...
Yes, although many labs use lasers or LEDs to expose the image, because
instead of projecting light through a negative, they scan the neg and
then "write" the image to the paper. This is why these labs can take
your disk and make prints as well. The processing is still the same, and
the result is the same (in many ways better).
S
SleeperMan
MikeK said:Yes, although many labs use lasers or LEDs to expose the image,
because instead of projecting light through a negative, they scan the
neg and then "write" the image to the paper. This is why these labs
can take your disk and make prints as well. The processing is still
the same, and the result is the same (in many ways better).
Aha...so, we're again at the beginning...to choose WHAT to choose...
A
Arthur Entlich
Regardless of if the light source is white light, LEDs, laser or
whatever, to my knowledge the vast majority of photos are still produced
using a wet chemical process where paper where the silver in the paper
is replaced with organic dyes via dye couplers.
Art
whatever, to my knowledge the vast majority of photos are still produced
using a wet chemical process where paper where the silver in the paper
is replaced with organic dyes via dye couplers.
Art
S
SleeperMan
Arthur said:Regardless of if the light source is white light, LEDs, laser or
whatever, to my knowledge the vast majority of photos are still
produced using a wet chemical process where paper where the silver in
the paper is replaced with organic dyes via dye couplers.
Art
Aha...so only thign that has changed is type of light...OK