Longevity of inkjet Matte papers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill Tuthill
  • Start date Start date
Bill said:
Done, as already stated. I left an RA-4 print on the dashboard of my car
for two summers, May 2001 to September 2003. I'm in San Jose California.
Afterwards I compared it to a 4x6 double-print produced at the same time.
The photograph was of a Macbeth chart with 18 color and 6 gray patches.
I could not detect any fading whatsoever. This was Agfa Prestige paper,
which in Wilhelm's tests didn't fare as well as Fuji Crystal Archive.
Click to expand...
But are you in Florida?
 
Yellow is critical in any image, regardless. All reflective images use
yellow dye, toner, pigment, whatever, as do most slides and negs. One
exception was the Polaroid instant slide film which used RGB
interference lines to create the color image. There may have been other
exceptions.

Photographs use CMY layers in most cases.

I can only go on my personal experience. I have had fading issues with
dye inks with some papers, and not with others. I've had fading with
color silver halide. Certain Agfa slide films were horrible with
fading, even in the dark (processed by Agfa Germany).

Pigment inks tend, overall to have slower fading, and the newer ones
seem to outlive most photographic (color silver halide) dye images.
However, they all seem to have different sensitivities, and issues like
humidity, light levels, and reducing gases can damage them.

Your experience with RA-4 paper seems to indicate they are very stable
in high levels of sunlight, so perhaps they are more stable than pigment
inkjet. Certain dyes are quite stable, but most can't hold a candle to
quality pigments.

Art
 
One of the posters on this thread asserted that Wilhelm often tests
prints
unprotected by glass, but I've never seen a PDF with those data.
Click to expand...


Well, since I am that "one of the posters", may I suggest you haven't
read many of Wilhelm's reports. He first started reporting bare bulb
stats at least 10 years ago (I checked my archives and found an article
from 1995) Here are some much more recent links. You will notice, just
as I stated, he supplies three ratings for light exposure, Framed print
using regular glass, Framed print using glass with UV filter, and
Displayed print unframed (bare bulb).

I hope this resolves any doubts you had regarding that statement.

Art


http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/3800.html

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep3800_2006_09_25.pdf


http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/PM280.html

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_EpPM280_2006_10_30.pdf


http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/PhotosmartProB9180.html

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_B9180_2006_09_10.pdf


http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/8750.html

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_8750_2005_02_18.pdf


http://www.wilhelm-research.com/lexmark/P6250.html

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/lexmark/WIR_Lex_P6250_2005_06_22.pdf


http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R2400.html

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R1800_2005_02_14.pdf


If those aren't enough, go to www.wilhelm-research.com for many more.

Art
 
Arthur said:
Only if San Jose California is in Florida... Ask Jeb, he may know ;-)

Art
Click to expand...

Does Jeb know the way to San Jose?
I've been away so long. I may go wrong and lose my way.
:-)
 
I use both Epson HWM and Ilford Classic Pearl with Canon OEM ink. I was
tempted (and still am) to try Ilford Smooth Pearl due to its fast drying
and more water resistance but Ilford states that when using dye based
ink with Smooth the photo is subject to rapid gas fading even if stored
in an album or behind glass. It seems that is the case of many
micropourous papers.

Now Ilford states that the classic, which takes a while to dry and
should not be handled for a few hours (or framed for 24 hours) is far
less subject to gas or other fading but I find it is too fragile. So I
spray it with the new (and relatively expensive) Krylon Preserve It. It
is sold in both matte and glossy. The gloss is about the same amount of
gloss as the pearl so it works out well.

One of the keys to the good results is the use of Canon factory ink.
 
David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Arthur Entlich" <[email protected]> wrote:



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.


While I have read many postings from various sources that draw the same conclusions I have not had that problem using Canon OEM ink on either Canon, Ilford, or Epson paper.  That said,  I am torn between dye and pigment on my next wide format printer.  I want the greater resistance to fading provided by pigment ink but at the same time I am fearful of giving up the brilliance, punch and ability to achieve better results on glossy and pearl (pearl is considered gloss by most mfg.) produced by dye ink.  So I am just sitting on the fence regarding this issue.


David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan



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
 
measekite said:
While I have read many postings from various sources that draw the same
conclusions I have not had that problem using Canon OEM ink on either
Canon, Ilford, or Epson paper. That said, I am torn between dye and
pigment on my next wide format printer. I want the greater resistance to
fading provided by pigment ink but at the same time I am fearful of giving
up the brilliance, punch and ability to achieve better results on glossy
and pearl (pearl is considered gloss by most mfg.) produced by dye ink.
So I am just sitting on the fence regarding this issue.
Click to expand...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The R800 and R1800 color glossy prints look very good (especially on the
Epson "Crispia" paper (that's the Japanese market name, I don't know what
it's called elsewhere); I don't think you are giving up much.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
measekite said:
I use both Epson HWM and Ilford Classic Pearl with Canon OEM ink. I was
tempted (and still am) to try Ilford Smooth Pearl due to its fast drying
and more water resistance but Ilford states that when using dye based ink
with Smooth the photo is subject to rapid gas fading even if stored in an
album or behind glass. It seems that is the case of many micropourous
papers.

Now Ilford states that the classic, which takes a while to dry and should
not be handled for a few hours (or framed for 24 hours) is far less
subject to gas or other fading but I find it is too fragile. So I spray
it with the new (and relatively expensive) Krylon Preserve It. It is sold
in both matte and glossy. The gloss is about the same amount of gloss as
the pearl so it works out well.
Click to expand...

I just read about a new Moab product called, "Desert Varnish." It's
supposed to enhance water and UV resistance on both dye and pigment inkjet
prints. I'm going to search out some and try it.
 
Thanks, I finally had time to look at these. It appears that prints under
"bare bulb" (fluorescent) last 1/4 to 1/2 as long as those behind glass
or better yet, UV filter.

The footnote says that fluorescent light has significant UV radiation
at 313 nm and 365 nm (maybe in between as well, it's hard to interpret).
Sunlight has significant UV radiation in a wider spectrum, I assume.
 
Yes, bare bulb certainly shows more rapid fading, which goes to show
that even plain window glass or framing with glass can make a large
difference.

Fluorescent lamps, unfortunately, vary considerably. If you look at the
spectral analysis for most there are a lot of hot spots and more vacant
frequencies. However, no light source mimics daylight on a continual
basis, and sunshine is so variable in quality and quantity it can't be
used in valid testing.
 
Back
Top