Longevity of inkjet Matte papers?

[Bill Tuthill]

Anybody have words of wisdom about longevity of inkjet Matte papers?
According to Wilhelm's testing they are more durable against fading
than glossy "Photo" papers. Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.

Whereas Epson Photo Paper with Epson dye-based inks starts to fade in
my kitchen (filtered sunlight) within months, although it lasts about
a year in my office (flourescent lights) before I notice cyan fading.

I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters. Some net.advice
indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
Canon also offers a matte paper.

 

[frederick]

Anybody have words of wisdom about longevity of inkjet Matte papers?
According to Wilhelm's testing they are more durable against fading
than glossy "Photo" papers. Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.

Whereas Epson Photo Paper with Epson dye-based inks starts to fade in
my kitchen (filtered sunlight) within months, although it lasts about
a year in my office (flourescent lights) before I notice cyan fading.

I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters. Some net.advice
indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
Canon also offers a matte paper.

Epson HWM and Archival Matte / Enhanced Matte contain optical
brighteners which degrade over time / exposure, causing a yellowing
effect (the paper becomes less "white" looking when the OB effect is
expired. Read the fine print on the Wilhelm reports, and this is explained.
A matte finish art paper without OB (Ultrasmooth Fine Art)may be better
for long term display for that reason, but it's also expensive.

The dye ink fading effect you see in your kitchen is probably gas
fading. Wilhelm are testing for this with many standard paper/ink
combinations now. It's a problem far less likely to affect pigment
inks. Epson now list "gas fading resistance" on their Japanese website
for their new dye inksets. I don't know the test method they use, but
display rating is probably for a much less severe environment than a
kitchen.

Heavyweight Matte is probably okay with Canon Dye inks. HWM wasn't
designed for pigment printers - it was for Epson dye printers. In fact
it doesn't work very well (poor saturation/resolution) with the pigment
printers, even though it's included in the driver paper selection..
But, if longevity is an issue, you are probably better using Canon paper
- if some display permanence test data is available. It will probably
have quite poor gas-fading resistance, so would need to be framed behind
glass.

As a general rule, if you want longevity on true matte papers, you need
to use pigment inks.

 

[Joseph Meehan]

I believe it is very difficult to draw any valid conclusions about any
ink, paper or printer without looking at all three together. A paper that
works well in one printer - ink combination may not work well in another.
Likewise for other combinations of the three factors.

Now for longevity, I would say that the two meaningful factors are ink
and paper, but some combinations of those two with different printers may
give unacceptable quality results.

However for fading, you need to factor in the environment as the third
factor. What combinations work well in dark storage, may do poor in light
for example. Different contaminates in the air can also make a difference.

Having said that, I would not totally ignore the experience or test
results you may see. Just remember that different testing may lead to
different results. It is a complex subject.

 

[rafe b]

I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters. Some net.advice
indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
Canon also offers a matte paper.

It does matter. If you're in a position to take fading seriously,
then you should probably be using pigment inks.

The only alternative (such as it is) is to use papers with gelatin
or swellable-polymer substrates. This was Epson's approach
for a while (the 1270/1280 series) and HP's approach on the
DJ-30 and DJ-130 series.

As others have noted, the paper can also degrade longevity
if it's got optical brighteners in it.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Greg \_\]

Anybody have words of wisdom about longevity of inkjet Matte papers?
According to Wilhelm's testing they are more durable against fading
than glossy "Photo" papers. Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.

Whereas Epson Photo Paper with Epson dye-based inks starts to fade in
my kitchen (filtered sunlight) within months, although it lasts about
a year in my office (flourescent lights) before I notice cyan fading.

I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters. Some net.advice
indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
Canon also offers a matte paper.

Prior to acquiring my R1800 I used a 1280 with dye inks, I have
brochures I made on HWM double sided paper that still look good several
years later. All my Epson HWM prints using dyes still look good. But
many on other paper have varying results. Some would have been terrible
if I had actually sold the prints. Some of the glossy papers displayed
showed signs of out gassing several months after displaying matted
behind glass.

So far using the pigment inks of the R1800 I have been very pleased
with color vibrance.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Unfortunately, there is really no hard and fast rule when it comes to
papers. The paper's construction, as well as the ink type are critical
to the fade resistance.

For example, using Epson dye inks I have some Tektronix inkjet paper
that was made probably over 12 years ago. It was designed for their
inkjet plotters. It came in rolls but unfortunately it is rather thin,
but whatever mordants and other technologies they used with it, the
images I printed on it with literally first generation Epson color inks
have stood up to fairly harsh indoor lighting for 8-10 years now with
only moderate loss of yellow and cyan. On the other hand, using the
same inks, an older HP matte paper (designed for the original inkjet
printer/plotter models) faded badly in a matter of months in bright
fluorescent exposure. The older Epson "photo quality" matte paper
didn't fare a heck of a lot better (maybe twice as long), however, the
"heavy weight archival matte" has don't much better. The older Epson
photo a medium gloss paper lost cyans almost completely with exposure to
bright indoor lighting in a matter of a couple of years.

Sadly, other than real or accelerated testing, I don't think one can
make any generalization about any inkjet paper, other than to say that
swellable polymer papers tend to give longer lasting results than
microporous.

Art

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Some of the glossy Epson papers ... showed signs of out gassing
several months after displaying matted behind glass.

Why anybody would go to the trouble of matting and glass-frame mounting
a dye-based Epson inkjet print, is beyond my comprehension. I hope you
don't take that as a personal insult.

Pigment-based Epson prints could be a different matter, but I suspect
they react poorly to being placed in direct sunlight, unlike RA-4 prints
(photo paper) which can survive many years in sunlight without fading.

Note how Wilhelm tests under fluorescent light, the best possible condition
for inkjet longevity, perhaps because he's paid by inkjet manufacturers.
My personal experience says Epson 1280 prints on Photo Paper degrade about
10 times faster in sunlight than under fluorescent light.

 

[Mark²]

Anybody have words of wisdom about longevity of inkjet Matte papers?
According to Wilhelm's testing they are more durable against fading
than glossy "Photo" papers. Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.

It's always a little curious how users "report many years" when the printer
they are reporting on has only existed for about a year.

Whereas Epson Photo Paper with Epson dye-based inks starts to fade in
my kitchen (filtered sunlight) within months, although it lasts about
a year in my office (flourescent lights) before I notice cyan fading.

I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters.

Yes. That matters.
Dye-based inks are simply nowhere near as stable as the pigment-based inks
used by the 2400 and large-format Epson printers.



Some net.advice

 

[Bill Tuthill]

It's always a little curious how users "report many years" when the printer
they are reporting on has only existed for about a year.

Sorry, I meant "Epson 1280" but neglected to back-correct my post.

Yes. That matters.
Dye-based inks are simply nowhere near as stable as the pigment-based inks
used by the 2400 and large-format Epson printers.

Right. I'm not about to buy another Epson product, I just wanted to know
which Matte paper might offer the best longevity with Canon inks.

 

[Skip]

I've had fairly good luck with Ilford Classic Pearl. I couldn't quantify
the length of time before fading, I really don't have any prints that
haven't been stored in boxes, in plastic sleeve and in a portfolio or matted
and framed behind glass. I have one printed on Lumiquest Master Canvas that
hasn't faded in over a year. We use Epson Matte Heavyweight for proof
books, but those aren't exposed to much sunlight, either. Works well, as
far as we can tell with our Canon S9000.

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Right. I'm not about to buy another Epson product, I just wanted to know
which Matte paper might offer the best longevity with Canon inks.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Canon makes a 13x19" pigment-ink inkjet. Unlike the Epson 2400, it doesn't
require a cartridge change to switch between matte and glossy. (In exchange
for which, it only has one gray ink (i.e. gray + black) as opposed to the
2400's two grays (light gray, gray, black).

HP is also making pigment-ink printers as well.

If you care about fading, using dye inks is a bad idea.

I wonder what Wilhelm found to be the worst-case pigment ink + paper
combination was???

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IS&T_2006_09_HW.pdf

The answer is that the worst pigment ink + paper combination (61 years) is
better than the best wet-photographic process print _under UV-cut glass_ (49
years).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[rafe b]

Right. I'm not about to buy another Epson product, I just wanted to know
which Matte paper might offer the best longevity with Canon inks.

----
Heh. I've owned the following inkjet printers in the following order.
I've been all over the map... and right back to Epson.

1. Epson 600 (ca. 1998)
* finally tossed it about a year ago
2. Epson 750 (~1999)
* a friend owns it now. still works, AFAIK
3. Epson 1160, new (~2001)
4. another Epson 1160, store demo
* One of these died after heavy use w/ MIS pigment inks
in a CIS. The other was given up for dead, but sold to
someone who managed to restore it. There was a while
when both were active, side by side.
5. Canon S9000 (~2002)
* Died after about 1.5 years of use with MIS dye inks
in a CIS. Micro-banding even on the best days.
6. HP DesignJet 30 (~2004)
* Sold on eBay after 1 year. Basically worked OK,
but longevity happens only on HP media, which sucks.
Shoddy paper handlig. HP service sucks.
7. Epson 7000
* bought on eBay, still working fine with Epson dye inks
It was ~3 years old when I bought it in 2004.
8. Epson R1800
* first pigment-ink Epson I've owned. I love it (so far.)


Epson still owns the fine-art/photographic inkjet market.
All the others are playing catch-up. Not to say Epson
hasn't made its share of mistakes or acted arrogantly.

Canon and HP have some interesting products, and
it's great that they're in the market -- if only to keep
Epson on their toes.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I find you comments as biased as those you claim Wilhelm is making.

Firstly, an extra glass layer (window glass is the first one in most
cases, can significantly cut UV levels contacting the print, whether dye
or pigment, and since UV activation is a considerable environmental
influence, especially on dye inks, it is completely logical to place dye
ink prints under glass.

Secondly, as far as outgassing goes, the Epson (can't speak for others)
Ultrachrome pigment colorant inks have more glycols in them than the
dye versions, to slow drying and prevent clogging, and they therefore
tend to outglass more and longer than dye ink prints do.

Finally, direct sunlight is not considered by anyone as a legitimate
test for fading of fine art images. It may be for housepaint or outdoor
banners, but it is not the way prints are supposed to be displayed.
Fluorescent lighting is a very logical light source because it is very
typical indoor lighting, and it is much more antagonistic than
incandescent light which contains almost no UV.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I have owned Epson color inkjet printers almost since they came out
about 10 years ago. I have many prints I made with those very first
models, which all used dye inks. I have prints displayed on my walls
(mainly under glass, but some not, which have been in medium household
lighting for at least 8 years, and with the right paper (in this case
the Tektronix I wrote about earlier) the ones under glass have shown
minimal fading. The ones without glass has shown moderate fading.

Using the same inks with other papers, I have had considerably poorer
results. The paper is critical to fading issues. I still have no idea
what Tektronix did with this paper that makes it so resistant to fading
with those inks.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Is that the new Canon with the 12 cartridges?

I agree that people seem to think that wet color process is some magical
permanent media that doesn't fade. Some wet prints have under a decade
before major fading using Wilhelm's testing, and as you say, others last
upward of 40+ years with glass.

Fuji does claim their newer wet lab media are more fade resistance, and
they may be, but pigment inks can still probably surpass them.

Art

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Is that the new Canon with the 12 cartridges?

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Printers/Bubble_Jet/Pixma_Pro9500/index.asp

Oops. Not till next year. 10 colors. And it may be expensive.

I agree that people seem to think that wet color process is some magical
permanent media that doesn't fade. Some wet prints have under a decade
before major fading using Wilhelm's testing, and as you say, others last
upward of 40+ years with glass.

Fuji does claim their newer wet lab media are more fade resistance, and
they may be, but pigment inks can still probably surpass them.

Lots of people (myself included) have had nasty problems with clogging
Epsons, so I can understand the hesitancy to get an Epson. (Actually, I've
not had any serious problems with either the R800 or the 2400.) There's a
dye-ink print on my wall that's grossly faded; I'll never buy another
dye-ink inkjet.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Mark²]

I have owned Epson color inkjet printers almost since they came out
about 10 years ago. I have many prints I made with those very first
models, which all used dye inks. I have prints displayed on my walls
(mainly under glass, but some not, which have been in medium household
lighting for at least 8 years, and with the right paper (in this case
the Tektronix I wrote about earlier) the ones under glass have shown
minimal fading. The ones without glass has shown moderate fading.

Using the same inks with other papers, I have had considerably poorer
results. The paper is critical to fading issues. I still have no
idea what Tektronix did with this paper that makes it so resistant to
fading with those inks.

A lot of the problem at one time (with the Epson 1270/1280 ink set) had to
do with elements in the air, which vary by area and by the elements within a
given building. I've found this to be true in the past, with the dreaded
"orange shift" mess Epson had with the introduction of the 1270...and the
prematurely lofty claims of longevity Epson made with its release.

I had prints turn to total crap in literally two weeks by merely being left
in the open air...but indoors and completely out of sunlight. Others that
were kept under glass (or sealed from the air) remain quite nice to this
day. I think part of the paper factor lies in the degree to which the ink
"sinks" below the top-most surface, where it is nearly "sealed"...compared
to paper that is too porous, or which prevents the ink from sinking a bit.

I wish I still had the full-page print that led me to discover just how bad
the orange shift was. -I left a sheet (by accident) on my shelf for about
two weeks...partially covered by another paper. The covered part of
perfect, while the uncovered portion was an absolute disaster of orange.

They later linked it to varying levels of ozone (no, not some greenie
claim...rather the ozone that is naturally present to varying degrees, also
ozone that can be created on a small scale my air conditioners within a
particular building, etc.).

Mark²

 

[Raphael Bustin]

A lot of the problem at one time (with the Epson 1270/1280 ink set) had to
do with elements in the air, which vary by area and by the elements within a
given building. I've found this to be true in the past, with the dreaded
"orange shift" mess Epson had with the introduction of the 1270...and the
prematurely lofty claims of longevity Epson made with its release.

I had prints turn to total crap in literally two weeks by merely being left
in the open air...but indoors and completely out of sunlight. Others that
were kept under glass (or sealed from the air) remain quite nice to this
day. I think part of the paper factor lies in the degree to which the ink
"sinks" below the top-most surface, where it is nearly "sealed"...compared
to paper that is too porous, or which prevents the ink from sinking a bit.

I wish I still had the full-page print that led me to discover just how bad
the orange shift was. -I left a sheet (by accident) on my shelf for about
two weeks...partially covered by another paper. The covered part of
perfect, while the uncovered portion was an absolute disaster of orange.

They later linked it to varying levels of ozone (no, not some greenie
claim...rather the ozone that is naturally present to varying degrees, also
ozone that can be created on a small scale my air conditioners within a
particular building, etc.).

See Harald Johnson's book, "Mastering Digital Printing"
for a review of this history and *very* thorough coverage
of issues pertaining to print longevity -- including how to
test it yourself. The book is in its 2nd edition (at least)
and worth every penny.

The fact is that airborne oxidants can be just as
damaging to a print as light and heat. And here's
a surprise: airborne oxidants may be *more*
damaging to pigment ink prints than to dye-ink
prints!

Bottom line, for maximum longevity, all prints need
to be framed behind glass or at the very least
coated.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Is that the new Canon with the 12 cartridges?

The Canon Pro 9500 with pigment inks was announced before PMA 2006
and has 10 cartridges. Available "autumn 2006" but still not at B&H.

I agree that people seem to think that wet color process is some magical
permanent media that doesn't fade. Some wet prints have under a decade
before major fading using Wilhelm's testing, and as you say, others last
upward of 40+ years with glass.

If by "wet prints" you mean silver halide photo prints -- I own many
that have lasted over 30 years with minimal fading. Perhaps fading
is measurable but it still seems within acceptable limits. Supposedly
RA-4 (photo paper) technology has improved since then. RA-4 prints are
the conservative choice for people like me who shun the bleeding edge.

Fuji does claim their newer wet lab media are more fade resistance, and
they may be, but pigment inks can still probably surpass them.

Maybe so, but I really don't see why pigment inks would necessarily
last longer. Silver halide prints resist water droplets, which is more
than I can say for inkjet output.

My mind is open to pigment-based inkjet technology, but my wallet is not
for another 10 years or so.

Meanwhile we're using a dye-based printer/FAX/copier that prints faster
than our Epson (10x as fast?), costs less to run, hasn't clogged yet,
and has standard 300 dpi resolution instead of Epson's weird-ass 144.

As long as the Chrismas-card prints we make for friends last one year
when taped on refrigerators, I'll be satisfied. Note: Epson 780 prints
on Photo Paper didn't last that long. On refrigerators in morning sun,
pictures were nearly unrecognizable after one year, and after two years
there was practially no ink left to see.

 

[frederick]

The Canon Pro 9500 with pigment inks was announced before PMA 2006
and has 10 cartridges. Available "autumn 2006" but still not at B&H.

The 12 ink 17" pigment printer (iPF5000) is already shipping.
You can read a short review here:
http://www.inkjetart.com/canon/wide/iPF5000.html#review

If by "wet prints" you mean silver halide photo prints -- I own many
that have lasted over 30 years with minimal fading. Perhaps fading
is measurable but it still seems within acceptable limits. Supposedly
RA-4 (photo paper) technology has improved since then. RA-4 prints are
the conservative choice for people like me who shun the bleeding edge.

HP have released new pigment ink printers with display permanence
ratings (by Wilhelm) of >200 years on all media tested.
Model numbers are B9180 (desktop A3+ model)
Z2100 - wide format 8 colour models
Z3100 - wide format 12 colour models (including gloss optimiser - due
for release over the next couple of months)
The wide format models include a built-in spectrophotometer for
simplified/automated production of custom ICC profiles.

Maybe so, but I really don't see why pigment inks would necessarily
last longer. Silver halide prints resist water droplets, which is more
than I can say for inkjet output.

Pigment ink prints on "RC" type photo papers are extremely water
resistant - effectively waterproof. The printed surface can be wiped
clean with a soft cloth.
Some of the newer dye ink sets from HP and Epson also have reasonable
water resistance and longevity when used on the correct papers.

My mind is open to pigment-based inkjet technology, but my wallet is not
for another 10 years or so.

Meanwhile we're using a dye-based printer/FAX/copier that prints faster
than our Epson (10x as fast?), costs less to run, hasn't clogged yet,
and has standard 300 dpi resolution instead of Epson's weird-ass 144.

As long as the Chrismas-card prints we make for friends last one year
when taped on refrigerators, I'll be satisfied. Note: Epson 780 prints
on Photo Paper didn't last that long. On refrigerators in morning sun,
pictures were nearly unrecognizable after one year, and after two years
there was practially no ink left to see.

You are really missing something. Compared to wet-process prints, the
wider gamut of the newer inkjet prints is very noticeable. The fine
droplet size and drop placement give smooth colour transitions and
dithering patterns not visible to the naked eye. You can choose not to
believe data from Wilhelm, but museums and galleries do accept it.