IP4000-longevity of photos???

  • Thread starter Thread starter MB_
  • Start date Start date
SleeperMan said:
Canon claims their Photo paper Pro (PR-101) is supposely to last over 100
years with their original ink.
But, then again, we discussed this in looong thread "Epson beats them
all"....
read it and make your opinion...
Click to expand...

They told me the only claim 25 years.

--
--
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.
 
SleeperMan said:
If one gets 5 years result and another gets 100 years result, there's very
wrong with both of them...either first one wants to shit on certain brand,
or other one is lying...as simple as that.
Click to expand...

I agree with your second sentence ("either first wants... or second is
lying") but not with your conclusion that "both" must be wrong. If
one is lying (for instance) it does not affect the validity of the other.

But I think your real point is that nobody will run tests that exactly
mirror your specific usage of a picture. That's probably true.

But when it comes to make a decision for a product and the options are
1.) run a test over various products using reasonable and well-defined
conditions 2.) just pick anything where the manufacturer claims
it's doing OK. I still go for 1.). Unless it really doesn't matter.
 
SleeperMan said:
There is WAY bigger risk in having analog negative film stored than digital
CDR. You can't have 10 negatives (originals - there's only one original. If
you copy it, copies won't be as good), while you can have 10 CDR's - all
equal originals.
Now which system has bigger risk? Note that printing a photo is not meant
for last ages, but simply to show people your shots. You can always make
another one from intact original, while you can't make equally good one from
50 years old negative.
Click to expand...

That is a vey good point, SleeperMan.
There's is only ONE original negative film.
The chances of been lost or destroyed are more than a lot of
digital copies.

We must not worry about longevity.
You do your bit by creating copies, and transferring to
new media, and just hope that your descendants will do the same.

Mike.
 
Mike said:
That is a vey good point, SleeperMan.
There's is only ONE original negative film.
The chances of been lost or destroyed are more than a lot of
digital copies.

We must not worry about longevity.
You do your bit by creating copies, and transferring to
new media, and just hope that your descendants will do the same.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised that in 50-100 years that much of anything (i.e.
photographs, documents etc.) will survive in the form of hard copies.
Even today how many of the digital photos we take actually make it to
the print stage? I know in our house it might be 5% of them. IMO,
anyone that wants to make sure their data is saved for future
generations needs to look into on-line data storage services and hope
someone in the family cares enough to maintain the stored data when we
are all taking a dirt nap.

I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I take
pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the pictures
saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a digital
copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for future
generations.
 
I'm afraid I'd agree. Not that Canon are lying necessarily - but it all
depends what they were testing for... I don't know enough about pigment
based inks to know how much better these are, but I'd probably still use a
lab printer to print my most precious prints (I say this - but haven't
actually done it yet!) Digital photography and the use of home printers is
a grave risk to personal photographic history I think that may see a lot of
family photos lost in decades to come.
Click to expand...
Hi Caitlin,

I don't know where you are, but a UK magazine recently did some
"destruction" tests and found that Epson inks in particular, and the
new HP inks almost as good, lasted very well. And these tests were
under non-ideal conditions (in a window that received sunshine for at
least part of the day, half under glass, half not. The results were
very surprising. These same results showed that even the new Lexmark
(yuk!) pigment inks lasted way better than the Canon inks. Canon
print quality was excellent, but longevity was bad to appalling.

For anyone in the UK interested in the article it's in PC Pro Issue
124 Feb 2005.
 
I wouldn't be surprised that in 50-100 years that much of anything
(i.e. photographs, documents etc.) will survive in the form of hard
copies. Even today how many of the digital photos we take actually
make it to the print stage? I know in our house it might be 5% of
them. IMO, anyone that wants to make sure their data is saved for
future generations needs to look into on-line data storage services
and hope someone in the family cares enough to maintain the stored
data when we are all taking a dirt nap.

I've never quite seen the need to care too much about print longevity.
Give the client, or family member, a print and a digital copy and they
can get another print done when the need/want one. Anyone can easily
get a print made from a digital file nowadays. I know that when I
take pictures of vacations or family events I pass out CD's with the
pictures saved on them like penny candy. The more people that have a
digital copy the bigger the chance the photographs will survive for
future generations.
Click to expand...

At last a word of wisdom...
 
Matthias said:
I agree with your second sentence ("either first wants... or second is
lying") but not with your conclusion that "both" must be wrong. If
one is lying (for instance) it does not affect the validity of the
other.

But I think your real point is that nobody will run tests that exactly
mirror your specific usage of a picture. That's probably true.

But when it comes to make a decision for a product and the options are
1.) run a test over various products using reasonable and well-defined
conditions 2.) just pick anything where the manufacturer claims
it's doing OK. I still go for 1.). Unless it really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Ok, but when you read so different results ,you really don't know who to
believe...
like this sentence :
Canon's continuing research and development of photo papers has led to
enhancement of the ozone tolerance level. Photo Paper Pro offers "image
permanence of up to 100 years (when stored in an album) or 25 years (when
stored in a photo frame)."

was taken from Canon's official site...

Still, comparing ip4000 and R800 is a bit odd. Better comparison is ip4000
and R300, but here we 're talking about same type of ink (dye) so, results
are again similar...
 
SleeperMan said:
look at this page
http://bj.canon.co.jp/english/photopaper/knowpaper/knowpaper11.html

i quote from it:

Canon's continuing research and development of photo papers has led to
enhancement of the ozone tolerance level. Photo Paper Pro offers "image
permanence of up to 100 years (when stored in an album) or 25 years (when
stored in a photo frame)."
Click to expand...

If a salesperson says "up to" he actually means "guaranteed no
more than".

Interestingly, this new Japanese BCI-7 ChromaLife seems to claim very
similar figures: 100 years album, 30 years light, but only 10 years
gas. Furthermore, for the new inks Canon claims to use the testing
procedures from Wilhelm Research: http://tinylink.com/?G00HBrFn9E
If this isn't an improvement... ;-)
 
Matthias said:
If a salesperson says "up to" he actually means "guaranteed no
more than".
Click to expand...

Seems logical to me....
Interestingly, this new Japanese BCI-7 ChromaLife seems to claim very
similar figures: 100 years album, 30 years light, but only 10 years
gas. Furthermore, for the new inks Canon claims to use the testing
procedures from Wilhelm Research: http://tinylink.com/?G00HBrFn9E
If this isn't an improvement... ;-)
Click to expand...

i think that if those bci7 carts would be any improvement, they would be
widely available already.
 
Hecate said:
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:38:49 +0100, "SleeperMan"

What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
tests in "real world" conditions.
Click to expand...

Canon's century rating is for album use (a real use I think) and that
means 99.999% of the time it's dark (album closed) and probably under
clear plastic stuff (sealed from gas).
This is how Livick came up with 2-years?

Mike
 
Anoni said:
Canon's century rating is for album use (a real use I think) and that
means 99.999% of the time it's dark (album closed) and probably under
clear plastic stuff (sealed from gas).
This is how Livick came up with 2-years?

Mike
Click to expand...

True. It does state so.
in any case when photos are in album, most of the people are looking them
very rarely, so this 99 % time is quite reasonable.
 
Canon's century rating is for album use (a real use I think) and that
means 99.999% of the time it's dark (album closed) and probably under
clear plastic stuff (sealed from gas).
This is how Livick came up with 2-years?
Click to expand...
Using real lighting for display purposes - or are you assuming
everybody locks their pictures away and hardly ever uses them? Maybe,
if you're a Christmas tree photographer (one roll of film or
equivalent containing your holiday pictures with this years and the
previous years Christmas tree at either end of the roll).
 
Hecate said:
Using real lighting for display purposes - or are you assuming
everybody locks their pictures away and hardly ever uses them? Maybe,
Click to expand...

No. Like most people on these lists I assume everybody is
like me! :-) I've taken as many as a thousand or so 35mm
images in as little as a week (on trips, in particular) and
have forty years of picture taking. I don't have even a
significant percentage mounted on walls in the sun for them
to fade. Most are in albums or in piles in dark boxes or
envelopes that one gets from the finishers.

With printer-printed photos, it's true that much fewer of taken
images will go into albums (because most just don't get printed
when they're digital camera ones), but still I tend to have only the
more
recently printed ones out for show and ones done earlier go into
storage. Ones I print for others probably go straight there
in their storage.

But you make a good point. If one only prints three images a year,
then most may 'stay' displayed. Mine get de-displayed not for
fade reasons, but because the images are being replaced by newer
ones. :-)

If I only printed a few a year, buying a Canon i9900 printer
might not have been all that good of a deal cost-per-print wise.

Mike
 
No. Like most people on these lists I assume everybody is
like me! :-) I've taken as many as a thousand or so 35mm
images in as little as a week (on trips, in particular) and
have forty years of picture taking. I don't have even a
significant percentage mounted on walls in the sun for them
to fade. Most are in albums or in piles in dark boxes or
envelopes that one gets from the finishers.

With printer-printed photos, it's true that much fewer of taken
images will go into albums (because most just don't get printed
when they're digital camera ones), but still I tend to have only the
more
recently printed ones out for show and ones done earlier go into
storage. Ones I print for others probably go straight there
in their storage.

But you make a good point. If one only prints three images a year,
then most may 'stay' displayed. Mine get de-displayed not for
fade reasons, but because the images are being replaced by newer
ones. :-)

If I only printed a few a year, buying a Canon i9900 printer
might not have been all that good of a deal cost-per-print wise.
Click to expand...
Hi Mike,

<g> Some of us here (try too <g>) make a living from our work and
printing is an important part of it. Consequently, print longevity is
rather more important ;-)
 
Maybe not so wise.

The one thing that for literally thousands of years that has been
consistent, is our ability to "see" hardcopy, as long as it survived the
forces of nature. We still have good examples of cuneiform, papyrus
scrolls, paper based letter and books, etc. As long as the substrate
and the colorant held up, it is usually at least veiwable, if not
interpretable. The same holds true for silver based photographs (I'm
referring to black and white where real silver is left behind). I have
many images in my family archives that date back over 100 years.

However, I have "digital files" of letters, music, images, etc, that
date back only 5 years are are no longer accessible. Not just because
the media has failed, and in some cases it has, but more often because
the format, the media type or the program needed to interpret it is no
longer functional or available. I have letters and graphics I produced
on my Commodore 64, my Atari 800XL, my Amiga. In some cases, the
equipment might still work, if I could find all the parts and cables,
and set it up to read the disks... now where did I put my version of
Word Perfect for the Amiga? And what the heck was the NAME of the word
processor I used for my C-64??

LUCKILY, I made a habit of almost always printing out a hard copy of a
letter I sent for filing, because i have needed to refer back to some,
and needed copies, which I was able to make from the copy I kept.
Otherwise, I really don't think I would be spending the 4-6 hours to
find and set up my C-64 and hunt down the 5.25" floppy and cross my
fingers that it works.

If you were working with computers as long as I have (my very first
programs were done at university, on punch cards on a mainframe, on a
terminal connected with a telephone coupling modem) you'd rapidly see
the value of having real tangible hard copy. Try to find a microfilm
machine today, even better see how much luck you have locating a
functional microfiche machine. Media changes all the time, I have at
least 8 different storage methods here, not including the hard drives
which changed interfacing half a dozen times. I have some 10" Bernoulli
drives in storage, I have syquest 10, 20, 44meg removable, PD, 8"
floppy, 5.25" floppy (single and double sided and density, 3.5 single
and double sided and density (HD), zip disks, CD-R, CD-RW, and soon
DVD-R and RW (and the dual layer).

And that doesn't even discuss the dozens of compression and archiving
systems that came about and differing file formats. Oh yeah, what about
several dozen operating systems, and computer types. Apple, Atari,
Atari (FM?) 16 bit, Commodore, Amiga, IBM, PC, Mac...

So the supposed "wisdom" is flawed. My film negatives just need a light
source and maybe a lens to view and reproduce, my paper letters the
same. But digital requires the ability for those zeros and ones to be
interpreted into something. A file header is damaged, and you may not
know if you are looking at a midi file, an image, a movie, a word
processing file, part of an old copy of software, or part of a split
file. Even a photo with a scratch and a tear in it, can be pretty well
reconstructed.

So, sorry, but I'll take film and hard copy image over a digital file
for archiving, and that's were it would be "nice" if it didn't fade away
in 5 years or so...

Art
 
I love those words "up to"... reminds me of the after Christmas sales:

EVERYTHING IN STOCK up to 50% OFF!

Art

SleeperMan wrote:
 
We now define the difference between display art prints and snapshots.

I agree, most snapshots end up either in a drawer or in a photo album,
although certainly many end up on fridges and display boards, and framed
on desks and pianos ;-)

However, art prints, sometimes selling for hundreds, if not thousands of
dollars, end up on walls, usually framed under glass, but often exposed
to indoor, possibly halogen (high UV content), and some filtered
(through glass) sunlight.

And that's where it is of particular import that the image doesn't fade
away.

Art
 
Arthur said:
I love those words "up to"... reminds me of the after Christmas sales:

EVERYTHING IN STOCK up to 50% OFF!

Art
Click to expand...
yeah, well, if at least 50% is true, it's still 50 years...
 
Arthur said:
We now define the difference between display art prints and snapshots.

I agree, most snapshots end up either in a drawer or in a photo album,
although certainly many end up on fridges and display boards, and
framed on desks and pianos ;-)

However, art prints, sometimes selling for hundreds, if not thousands
of dollars, end up on walls, usually framed under glass, but often
exposed to indoor, possibly halogen (high UV content), and some
filtered (through glass) sunlight.

And that's where it is of particular import that the image doesn't
fade away.
Click to expand...
Yep. you have the point here.
So, at the end, if we want hi quality long lasting print, we must buy
expensive one ... Since Epson has to be R800 if you want pigment ink for
long lasting...
Like i already said a few times...maybe some day my second Canon will force
me to begin to hate it and switch to another brand. THEN i'll bear in mind
Epson. At the end, you can only choose between Canon, HP and Epson...what
else remains? Lexmark...no, thank you, i rahter draw my photos with a
pencil...
 
Back
Top