?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=
Michael said:
How do you find out which is which?
I've heard good things about resolution ink and it's not as cheap as some other
non-OEM inks but price is not always a reliable guide.
How do you find out which is which?
I've heard good things about resolution ink and it's not as cheap as some other
non-OEM inks but price is not always a reliable guide.
B
Bill
BenOne© said:
You ask around for opinions.
Quite right...I've seen some "universal inks" that were more costly than
most others, but they were lousy.
Good recommendations for quality ink seem to come from vendors that use
Formulabs. I have used and recommend AtlanticInkjet in Canada and the
US. Good service and good ink. There are several others recommended here
as well.
H
Hecate
LOL! No, it's from an old Latin comedy and means I came, I saw, I went
away again ;-)
H
Hecate
I disagree. There are plenty of reviews, plus "word of mouth".
Personally, I'd recommend Permajet to anyone in preference to the
Epson inks - as long as you can afford the initial outlay for the CIS
system with the 2200. Their Blax system for B&W is exceptional and
their colour system excellent.
Yes, they do. But that's true of any ink/paper combination and doesn't
make OEM paper a requirement or even the best solution.
H
Hecate
Read the information on the site and you'll see. The problem with
Wilhelm is the light source amongst other things.
D
David Chien
However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
Any inkjets that'll match a true photographic print for
waterproofness? Nope, but the closest you'll come for longevity out of
the box may be the Epson wide-body printers with the encapsulated inks.
Other than that, the technologies are different enough (and unproven
since they haven't existed over 15 years) that you won't know until
you've printed and hanged them for years.
Home inkjets certainly won't last more than a few years, so don't bother
with these to start.
www.inkjetmall.com has 3rd archival inks and papers to consider.
Also, FujiFilm Pictrography printers, albeit expensive, do produce photo
prints that will have similar characteristics as regular photo prints,
so that may be the way to go commerically (either get one cheap off
ebay.com or find a local lab where you can send your print jobs).
Longevity of home inkjet printers - forget it!
http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/
http://wilhelm-research.com/ (but with a grain of salt since they
changed all of their testing methods after the orange fading crisis)
Realistically, these tests occur in 'ideal' environments and
conditions, and in real life, I would not bet my life or business on any
inkjet print to last more than 10 years (nor provide a warranty longer
than that either). Although you can keep inkjet prints perfectly fine
in cold-storage w/o light (ie. in a folder in a cabnet where some of my
original HP Paintjet prints from 10+ years ago still look fine), once
the prints are out under light and environmental display conditions, you
can toss the longevity thing out the door.
(which is why even Epson offered a 100% full price buyback of the
Epson 870 during the orange fading crisis just a few years ago; which is
why every year, every inkjet printer maker from Epson to Canon to HP
toots 'even longer print life' than the printer they released just 1
year before. Everyone knows that unless it's pigmented or solid-dye,
most of these non-pigmented dyes will fade fast over time.)
Naturally, time will lead to new developments which will lengthen
print life from inkjets, but don't bet a business on it yet.
For the time being, dye-sub (solid dye) printers or FujiFilm
Pictrography printers are the two best alternatives for long-life prints
that should last a decent amount of time (again, don't bet a business on
their lifespans since they haven't been out in real-life as long as film
prints, so who knows the actual stability over 100 years?).
Here, Fujifilm Pictrography prints are my #1 pick -- feels, looks,
and acts just like a real photo print, nothing that would make a client
look otherwise at the paper/medium itself, and superb prints that look
just like film prints.
Step down from there, going cheaper, look into printers using
pigmented/encapsulated dyes such as the Epson Stylus Pro 4000, Epson
Stylus Photo 2200, Epson PX-G5000 (just released in Japan, coming soon
to USA), etc.
If you're doing B&W prints, the B&W Piezography system is the way to
go: http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/bw-buy.html
Any inkjets that'll match a true photographic print for
waterproofness? Nope, but the closest you'll come for longevity out of
the box may be the Epson wide-body printers with the encapsulated inks.
Other than that, the technologies are different enough (and unproven
since they haven't existed over 15 years) that you won't know until
you've printed and hanged them for years.
Home inkjets certainly won't last more than a few years, so don't bother
with these to start.
www.inkjetmall.com has 3rd archival inks and papers to consider.
Also, FujiFilm Pictrography printers, albeit expensive, do produce photo
prints that will have similar characteristics as regular photo prints,
so that may be the way to go commerically (either get one cheap off
ebay.com or find a local lab where you can send your print jobs).
Longevity of home inkjet printers - forget it!
http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/
http://wilhelm-research.com/ (but with a grain of salt since they
changed all of their testing methods after the orange fading crisis)
Realistically, these tests occur in 'ideal' environments and
conditions, and in real life, I would not bet my life or business on any
inkjet print to last more than 10 years (nor provide a warranty longer
than that either). Although you can keep inkjet prints perfectly fine
in cold-storage w/o light (ie. in a folder in a cabnet where some of my
original HP Paintjet prints from 10+ years ago still look fine), once
the prints are out under light and environmental display conditions, you
can toss the longevity thing out the door.
(which is why even Epson offered a 100% full price buyback of the
Epson 870 during the orange fading crisis just a few years ago; which is
why every year, every inkjet printer maker from Epson to Canon to HP
toots 'even longer print life' than the printer they released just 1
year before. Everyone knows that unless it's pigmented or solid-dye,
most of these non-pigmented dyes will fade fast over time.)
Naturally, time will lead to new developments which will lengthen
print life from inkjets, but don't bet a business on it yet.
For the time being, dye-sub (solid dye) printers or FujiFilm
Pictrography printers are the two best alternatives for long-life prints
that should last a decent amount of time (again, don't bet a business on
their lifespans since they haven't been out in real-life as long as film
prints, so who knows the actual stability over 100 years?).
Here, Fujifilm Pictrography prints are my #1 pick -- feels, looks,
and acts just like a real photo print, nothing that would make a client
look otherwise at the paper/medium itself, and superb prints that look
just like film prints.
Step down from there, going cheaper, look into printers using
pigmented/encapsulated dyes such as the Epson Stylus Pro 4000, Epson
Stylus Photo 2200, Epson PX-G5000 (just released in Japan, coming soon
to USA), etc.
If you're doing B&W prints, the B&W Piezography system is the way to
go: http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/bw-buy.html
H
Hecate
And real photo prints have the same problems of fading.
J
Jon O'Brien
[email protected] (Bob said:
I agree with Hecate. I have far more confidence in the testing method used
by Stephen Livick than in that used by Wilhelm, no matter how long he's
been doing his research or how 'noted' he is.
As a bonus, Stephen Livick has also done tests on coatings which increase
print life. His site is a must for anyone concerned with inkjet print
longevity.
Jon.
S
Susan B
I looked at this page and it says that if the Epson 2200 printer works as
well as early reports indicate, it may be the current best solution for
someone who needs a moderately priced photo printer capable of high quality
AND long life output.
Although several posters have referred to Fujifilm Pictrography prints, I
haven't seen any information that says these may have better archival
properties than Epson's Ultrachrome pigment based archival inks. Does anyone
have such information? In the Steves Digicams review of the Epson Stylus
Photo 2200 it says that this is the ideal printer for those wanting the same
longevity in their digital prints as conventional film prints.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/epson_2200.html
Do you think that the quality of the printed image of a pictrography print
is noticeably better than that from the Epson UltraChrome pigment inks?
On Epson's web site about the Epson Stylus Photo 2200, it claims that Epson
Premium Glossy Photo Paper is light resistant up to 85 years. Even if this
was overstated by 15 years, I think that most buyers of a photograph would
be very happy with a claimed life of 70 years. The archival quality of photo
paper is a very important issue, so I wouldn't think that a major company
such as Epson would grossly exaggerate such a claim? The photos I sell are
professionally framed under glass, so this would be in line with the
expectations of Epson when making their longevity estimates. I think most
purchasers realise that photographs should be kept out of direct sunlight,
but perhaps I could include a notice to this effect with the prints I sell.
I am impressed with the postings of Bill Hilton and his reference to the
Boston Museum of Fine Arts, which settled on the Epsons for their fine art
replications. In addition, I found a review by Michael Reichmann which says
that inkjet printing has now reached a level of maturity that requires no
excuses or apologies. When referring to the Stylus Photo 2200 and
ultrachrome inks, he says that quality archival inkjet printing has truly
arrived!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml
After reading the replies to my questions, I think the main problem with
selling inkjet prints, rather than commercial lab prints, is the perhaps
outdated perceptions of the public that inkjet prints are not in the least
waterproof or fadeproof. It would be mainly for this reason that I would
continue to use the photo lab to do my prints. However, there is a huge
convenience factor in doing your own prints, such as being able to reprint
the photo without losing a lot of time if it is not quite what you wanted.
You can also print non-standard shapes and sizes, something that some labs
will not do without a big increase in their normal costs for the standard
photo sizes. Thanks very much to all who have posted replies to my
questions, I have learned a great deal, I think I am almost confident enough
to sell Epson ultrachrome pics!
Regards, Susan
S
Susan B
Arthur Entlich said:
Thanks Art for this information, it is very interesting. Can anyone tell me
what the main differences are between Durabrite pigmented inks, and the
current UltraChrome inks? Do you think it would be worth waiting for the new
A3 Durabrite printer, rather than purchasing the Epson 2200/2100 printer?
Would the Durabrite pigmented inks have better archival / lightfast
qualities than the present inks used on the Epson 2200/2100? I wonder if the
picture quality would be as good with the Durabrite pigmented inks as it
would with the ultra chrome inks?
Regards, Susan
A
Arthur Entlich
Joseph said:Did they really start testing back in the 1920's?
Give or take a year or two ;-)
Obviously, all inkjet inks are tested with accelerated aging testing.
It's hardly a perfect science. It's a bit like saying if a piece of
paper bursts into flames and becomes ashes in 2 minutes at 452 degrees
F, that it will do the same thing in 40 years if it is kept at 70
degrees F. The variables aren't equal. Subjecting an ink and paper
combination to very high intensity lighting and equating that to years
of low intensity lighting may not really tell us what we need to know.
However, as a study of comparative qualities of different ink/paper
combinations, it may give us some valuable information.
However, there are issues like oxidation, other radiation, volatiles and
gases, humidity, air movement, and combinations of factors which are
very difficult to measure for.
There are a few knowns. Pigments, in general, tend to be less fugitive
because they are often compounds which have a known history and are
physically larger than dye molecules. Certain mordants in paper
coatings tend to lock dye molecules into the paper surface better than
others. Protection from UV radiation tends to reduce energizing of dye
molecules or pigments which otherwise causes them to fly off the paper
more easily, so glass or UV screening helps. Brighter light sources
accelerate fading. Keeping any type of colored image out of direct
sunlight, and away from ozone tends to lessen fading. Even pigments
will fade over time if exposed to direct unfiltered sunlight.
Mid-day sun is considerably brighter than the light used in most
accelerated fade testing, and also considerably brighter than most
indoor settings. Fluorescent bulbs give off a fair amount of UV.
A
Arthur Entlich
Yes, I believe the ALPS printing process was really more of a thermal
transfer process than anything (either wax or pigment). Dye-sub is
short for dye sublimation.
Sublimation is the process of something going from a solid to a gaseous
state without having a liquid state. (Dry ice to CO2 is an example).
True dye sub printing involves the heating of a dye coated mylar sheet
with different levels of heat (usually 128 or 256). The dye is
sublimated into a gas, and that gaseous form reformulates into a solid
on a receptor sheet that is in near contact with the dye sheet.
The process also involves using 3 or 4 different sheets (CMY or CMYK)
and sometimes an additional UV filtering layer to protect the print from
rapid fading. Keep in mind the whole process is using dyes which
sublimate with heat, and they tend to be a bit fugitive.
Dye sub is a costly process overall, because usually, regardless of the
size print you make or how much of the print has color on it, the whole
set of dye sheets is used (each set are one time use only). Also, you
must use the paper designed to receive the dye, and they aren't cheap
either.
In general, inkjet will be more economical and offer more options, and
with pigmented inks, probably provides pretty good permanence, as well.
Art
transfer process than anything (either wax or pigment). Dye-sub is
short for dye sublimation.
Sublimation is the process of something going from a solid to a gaseous
state without having a liquid state. (Dry ice to CO2 is an example).
True dye sub printing involves the heating of a dye coated mylar sheet
with different levels of heat (usually 128 or 256). The dye is
sublimated into a gas, and that gaseous form reformulates into a solid
on a receptor sheet that is in near contact with the dye sheet.
The process also involves using 3 or 4 different sheets (CMY or CMYK)
and sometimes an additional UV filtering layer to protect the print from
rapid fading. Keep in mind the whole process is using dyes which
sublimate with heat, and they tend to be a bit fugitive.
Dye sub is a costly process overall, because usually, regardless of the
size print you make or how much of the print has color on it, the whole
set of dye sheets is used (each set are one time use only). Also, you
must use the paper designed to receive the dye, and they aren't cheap
either.
In general, inkjet will be more economical and offer more options, and
with pigmented inks, probably provides pretty good permanence, as well.
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
Hi Susan,
I believe I have mis"spoke" somewhat, as the new R800 wide-carriage
product, like the R800 will be using the Ultrachrome inks, not the
Durabrite inks.
The Ultrachrome inks, as I recall, use a finer pigment particle and they
also changed the ink formulas using different yellows. The problem with
the Durabrite inks were that they suffered from metamorism (where the
color relationships changes under different light sources). To provide
more accurate color and reduced metamorism, Epson developed a new yellow
ink, which, it would appear, is less stable. The original Durabrite ink
set was rated at an anticipated 200 years, while the Ultrachromes are
about 80. The Ultrachrome inks are supposed to be brighter and provide
a broader gamut by not penetrating as deeply into the paper surface, but
this led to a slight surface texture on glossy papers.
The R800 ink set has two main features. One, they added a blue ink, so
it has 8 colors, CcMmYBKk. Secondly, they also added a gloss optimizer.
Due to the nature of pigments, they tend to dull the surface of glossy
papers. The gloss optimizer coats the inks after they are set down to
improve their surface reflective characteristics. The Durabrite inks
have some similar issues, although less so. I imagine all of these
cartridges add to the print costs.
Personally, I don't like mirror gloss prints these days. Although I
used to product Ciba/Ilfo/Chromes I have moved toward more tactile
papers, and I even prefer photo prints with a nice velvety surface.
But, you have a look you are going for and know your market.
The reports I have seen on the R800 prints are pretty gushing. The extra
blue ink helps to tame some of the inherent problems in CMYK printing
with controlling blue/purple color balance, which has always been a bit
tricky on Epson printers.
I would suggest you contact Epson and ask them to send you some sample
prints from both the 2200 and R800. If possible, ask them for similar
subject matter to your own, and on the type of paper surface you plan to
use. They will give you some idea of the differences between the two
printers.
The 2200 has an interchangeable black ink. One is designed for glossy
applications and the other for other paper types (it has more density,
but it is fairly matte).
Art
I believe I have mis"spoke" somewhat, as the new R800 wide-carriage
product, like the R800 will be using the Ultrachrome inks, not the
Durabrite inks.
The Ultrachrome inks, as I recall, use a finer pigment particle and they
also changed the ink formulas using different yellows. The problem with
the Durabrite inks were that they suffered from metamorism (where the
color relationships changes under different light sources). To provide
more accurate color and reduced metamorism, Epson developed a new yellow
ink, which, it would appear, is less stable. The original Durabrite ink
set was rated at an anticipated 200 years, while the Ultrachromes are
about 80. The Ultrachrome inks are supposed to be brighter and provide
a broader gamut by not penetrating as deeply into the paper surface, but
this led to a slight surface texture on glossy papers.
The R800 ink set has two main features. One, they added a blue ink, so
it has 8 colors, CcMmYBKk. Secondly, they also added a gloss optimizer.
Due to the nature of pigments, they tend to dull the surface of glossy
papers. The gloss optimizer coats the inks after they are set down to
improve their surface reflective characteristics. The Durabrite inks
have some similar issues, although less so. I imagine all of these
cartridges add to the print costs.
Personally, I don't like mirror gloss prints these days. Although I
used to product Ciba/Ilfo/Chromes I have moved toward more tactile
papers, and I even prefer photo prints with a nice velvety surface.
But, you have a look you are going for and know your market.
The reports I have seen on the R800 prints are pretty gushing. The extra
blue ink helps to tame some of the inherent problems in CMYK printing
with controlling blue/purple color balance, which has always been a bit
tricky on Epson printers.
I would suggest you contact Epson and ask them to send you some sample
prints from both the 2200 and R800. If possible, ask them for similar
subject matter to your own, and on the type of paper surface you plan to
use. They will give you some idea of the differences between the two
printers.
The 2200 has an interchangeable black ink. One is designed for glossy
applications and the other for other paper types (it has more density,
but it is fairly matte).
Art
C
Clyde
Arthur said:
You need to check your facts out better. I'm not talking about your
facts on longevity; although they certainly need checking too.
The Epson R800 adds a red ink as well as the blue ink. The extra black
isn't a light black or even used at the same time as the other black.
One black is "Matte Black" for plain paper and matte papers. The other
is "Gloss Black" for glossy papers. It seems to be used on semi-gloss too.
The "Gloss Optimizer" only kicks in on glossy papers. It is an option in
the driver to turn off on glossy papers. You can't turn it on for matte
papers though. BTW, this really doesn't add to the glossiness of the
print. What it does is make the glossiness even. If you print without it
you will see that the different amounts of ink makes an uneven
glossiness in the right light. "Gloss Optimizer" makes it all the same.
BTW, the R800 is NOT wide-carriage either. It will only print 8.5" wide
paper.
OK, on your longevity facts... Do you have any better science for
testing the longevity of prints? If so, kindly share it. Don't tell me
that I have to wait 30-100 years either. That isn't practical. None of
the paper formulations will last for years, let alone decades. I need to
know what to print on today.
BTW, do you have any color "C" type prints from the 1970s? Have any of
those faded? If you do, they have. Heck I have lots of faded Ektachrome
slides from the 70s too. (Plenty of unfaded Kodachrome from the 40s and
50s though.) Photographic (light sensitive) color products have NOT had
a good history of fade resistance. Ilfochrome has been the best, but
never widely used. The odds are that my R800 prints will last way longer
than those did. I suppose we could all resurrect true Dye Transfer
printing and get real longevity, but that died for a reason.
Clyde
A
Anoni Moose
Arthur Entlich said:
Could be, not sure about that name. The process the ALPS printer
uses follows your description below other than not being dye-based.
I'm not sure one can sublimate pigments, but that seems to be what
was claimed by the ALPS employee.
The ALPS "head" used a semiconductor "bar" (presumably a trannie array,
but I don't know the details) for the high placement accuracy of it's
thermal "spots" and for control of their heat levels.
In "dye-sub" mode, it used CMY plus glossy overcoat. A friend of mine
who designs printers at Xerox (former Tek division) noted how good the blacks
were for a CMY printer. I used to be a design engineer at Tek for about
fifteen years (but not in the Printer divsion) so I know a good many people
there who work on Phaser printers (now Xerox).
In truth, this isn't totally unlike an inkjet in that you only use
its dyes (in the ink) one time as well. There is more waste in the
dyesub methods, and some printers were really horrible in their
waste of "ink". ALPS' methods were actually pretty good. As I've
mentioned before, it's runtime costs were similar to inkjets at the
time I bought it (compared to an inkjet using top OEM photo paper).
It's capital costs were two or three hundred dollars higher. Even
if the efficiency of "ink-use" by ALPS may have been a lower than
an inkjet, there are sufficent margins in the selling of the cartridges
so that the user's cost can be equivalent even if ALPS' margin ended up
less extremely high as compared to others. I don't think they were
running in "Gilette" mode, which I think was one of their downfalls in
the printer market.
This certainly is true now that inkjets have improved dramatically.
Back when my ALPS printer was new, it blew away inkjets in terms of
print quality. Wasn't even close. Now, my Canon i9900 prints
better than the ALPS printer.
Mike
H
Hecate
Try putting a dry Epson 2100/2200 print in a bowl of water. You'll
find it doesn't run. Leave it in there for a week, It still won't have
run.
S
Safetymom123
No guarantee that a printer that is in Japan will come to the US market
either. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a replacement for the 2200.
either. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a replacement for the 2200.
A
Arthur Entlich
Even using some Epson standard dye inks, with the right Epson papers
will make a waterproof image.
The photo quality matte, and the heavy weight matte fall into that category.
This has nothing to do with fading... those papers will fade with dye
inks over time.
Art
will make a waterproof image.
The photo quality matte, and the heavy weight matte fall into that category.
This has nothing to do with fading... those papers will fade with dye
inks over time.
Art