Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Yes, that not keeping the print under glass (which reduces the amount of
surface exposure to air "molecules") allows the print to fade more
rapidly. Also, a great deal of the result with dye inks particularly,
have to do with the type of paper surface or chemistry involved.

Further, unless you have a way to do an A:B comparison, how can you be
sure the print has lost no color or vibrancy? I thought the same of
some Cibachrome prints I did about 20 years ago, until I removed them
from the frames and mat and discovered they had lost about 15-20%
density where they were exposed to light. They still looked great, and
in fact some slightly underexposed ones looked better, but the loss was
still real, but my memory of the original wasn't quite a good as I had
thought.

Art

Taliesyn wrote:


> I have an 8x10 Canon print (behind glass) in the kitchen - kitchen fumes
> and all. It's been exactly 2 years (not six months) and it hasn't lost
> any of its color or vibrancy. So what exactly does this test prove -
> that my photo would have faded had I kept it in a dark drawer????
>
> -Taliesyn
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hopefully, Canon will introduce some more stable inks soon. The
pressure is on for them to do so. I understand they has done so in
Japan but not released them outside of Japan yet. Maybe they are havng
osme issues with then, or they are testing there first.

Art

measekite wrote:

> I do not see it at this point. Hopefully they will last. I would hate
> to go to Epson and have to spend much more on ink and expose myself to
> the greater probability of ink clogs. I would also miss my duplex
> printing with twin paper feeds and the speed.
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:04:52 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
>> <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Henry Wilhelm's tests of gas fading on inkjet prints and papers show
>>> Canon ink on Canon Photo Paper (2nd best in its range??) to be the
>>> worst combination of all the tested media (which included Epson and
>>> HP dye prints). After 24hrs in just 1ppm ozone (the level you could
>>> spend an entire lifetime in without any health effect, and probably
>>> quite clean compared to most urban environments, but enough to
>>> accelerate the oxidation issue) the Canon print lost 61% of its cyan
>>> density, 35% of the magenta and 6% of the yellow! That is more than
>>> 10x the Epson R300 on its worst media and about 30x worse than the
>>> Epson SP4000 on Epson fine art paper. I'll leave you to search the
>>> results to find the best... but it wasn't Canon!
>>>
>>> This isn't, as you argue, an issue for professionals - there is
>>> little point in printing at all if the result is only marginally less
>>> fugitive than the image on an LCD screen!
>>>
>>
>>
>> PC Pro, in the UK recently did a "destruction" test on inkjet inks.
>>
>> Two prints were made from a range of printers from a range of makers.
>> One print was kept in a drawer. The other was placed in a window for
>> six months, half the image being covered.
>>
>> Pigment inks (i.e. Epson), even when placed in a window, still showed
>> little fading over six months.
>>
>> For the dye inks, the best were HP, followed by the latest Lexmark
>> inks (shame the same can't be said about their printers).
>>
>> Coming up the rear were Canon prints which faded *even when kept in a
>> drawer and not exposed to light*.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Hecate - The Real One
>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I swear I did not read Kennedy's posting until AFTER I wrote mine a few
minutes ago!

Art

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>
>>
>> I have an 8x10 Canon print (behind glass) in the kitchen - kitchen fumes
>> and all. It's been exactly 2 years (not six months) and it hasn't lost
>> any of its color or vibrancy. So what exactly does this test prove -
>> that my photo would have faded had I kept it in a dark drawer????
>>
> No, it demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between a
> test and a situation. A test requires a control!

<snip>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
<taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>
>>> I have an 8x10 Canon print (behind glass) in the kitchen - kitchen fumes
>>> and all. It's been exactly 2 years (not six months) and it hasn't lost
>>> any of its color or vibrancy. So what exactly does this test prove -
>>> that my photo would have faded had I kept it in a dark drawer????
>>>
>
>
>Stop telling me I have a "problem"

Your problem is that you don't read, so why should believe any evidence
you provide based on using your eyes in any other way?

Should you make an effort to correct your visual deficiency, you might
try reading the first paragraph of my previous posts detailing why your
comment was irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
>
>I don't display my prized prints to the open air

Just "in the kitchen" - hardly a prized print then is it?

>and I don't use Canon
>papers nor inks.

Directly contradicting words 5 and 6 of your opening paragraph in this
thread.

As a proven liar, by your own evidence, you have nothing else to offer
to this thread, which is discussing FACTS.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>

> As a proven liar, by your own evidence, you have nothing else to offer
> to this thread, which is discussing FACTS.


Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?

I have not observed any unnaturally fast fading. If you don't like my
"FACTS", so be it. I will be more than tickled pink now to leave this
thread which is only permitted to discusses your "FACTS". Sheeesh!
Get me out of here...... . . . .

-Taliesyn
__________________________________________________________
The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:
>
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> > In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> > <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
> >
> >> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> >>
>
> > As a proven liar, by your own evidence, you have nothing else to offer
> > to this thread, which is discussing FACTS.
>
> Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>
> I have not observed any unnaturally fast fading. If you don't like my
> "FACTS", so be it. I will be more than tickled pink now to leave this
> thread which is only permitted to discusses your "FACTS". Sheeesh!
> Get me out of here...... . . . .

Nobody holds you! We know that not everybody got, or will get a fading
problem of the same extend with the same product.

You put yourself into a mental trap "I do not have this problem, thus
it does not exist," instead of rather assuming "others observe a problem,
I might be next in some circumstances."

This is analogous to the typical news article in a software group, where
A reports that his/her computer crashes with the newest version of Marvel
Software by Fabulous Inc, and B writes "Nonsense, it does not crash for
me, I am so happy with Fabulous Inc."

But of course Marvel will not crash with everybody, it would not be on
the market. Of course some paper/ink combinations of Canon product will
not fade as fast as mine did. But the fact is that a growing number of
customers report such problems and that *you* might be next.

Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta
dye and look like this example image which I have posted and made public,
*after* the hit counter was zero for 3 weeks, as it was not public and
known to Canon support only. I asked them again and again to at least
take a look at these images. Shame on them.

These all faded images were made on Photo Paper Plus. This seems to be
the common denominator in this equation. At least listen to the warning
and do not use this paper.

Thomas

>
> -Taliesyn
> __________________________________________________________
> The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ThomasH wrote:
>
[...]
> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta

oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta!
Sorry about the mistake.

> dye and look like this example image which I have posted and made public,
> *after* the hit counter was zero for 3 weeks, as it was not public and
> known to Canon support only. I asked them again and again to at least
> take a look at these images. Shame on them.
>
> These all faded images were made on Photo Paper Plus. This seems to be
> the common denominator in this equation. At least listen to the warning
> and do not use this paper.
>
> Thomas
>
> >
> > -Taliesyn
> > __________________________________________________________
> > The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Hopefully, Canon will introduce some more stable inks soon. The
> pressure is on for them to do so. I understand they has done so in
> Japan but not released them outside of Japan yet.

If that is the case, then the 3rd party inks will have to play catch
up. Until then, they will be second rate when compared.



> Maybe they are havng osme issues with then, or they are testing there
> first.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> I do not see it at this point. Hopefully they will last. I would
>> hate to go to Epson and have to spend much more on ink and expose
>> myself to the greater probability of ink clogs. I would also miss my
>> duplex printing with twin paper feeds and the speed.
>>
>> Hecate wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:04:52 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
>>> <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Henry Wilhelm's tests of gas fading on inkjet prints and papers
>>>> show Canon ink on Canon Photo Paper (2nd best in its range??) to be
>>>> the worst combination of all the tested media (which included Epson
>>>> and HP dye prints). After 24hrs in just 1ppm ozone (the level you
>>>> could spend an entire lifetime in without any health effect, and
>>>> probably quite clean compared to most urban environments, but
>>>> enough to accelerate the oxidation issue) the Canon print lost 61%
>>>> of its cyan density, 35% of the magenta and 6% of the yellow! That
>>>> is more than 10x the Epson R300 on its worst media and about 30x
>>>> worse than the Epson SP4000 on Epson fine art paper. I'll leave
>>>> you to search the results to find the best... but it wasn't Canon!
>>>>
>>>> This isn't, as you argue, an issue for professionals - there is
>>>> little point in printing at all if the result is only marginally
>>>> less fugitive than the image on an LCD screen!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PC Pro, in the UK recently did a "destruction" test on inkjet inks.
>>>
>>> Two prints were made from a range of printers from a range of makers.
>>> One print was kept in a drawer. The other was placed in a window for
>>> six months, half the image being covered.
>>>
>>> Pigment inks (i.e. Epson), even when placed in a window, still showed
>>> little fading over six months.
>>>
>>> For the dye inks, the best were HP, followed by the latest Lexmark
>>> inks (shame the same can't be said about their printers).
>>>
>>> Coming up the rear were Canon prints which faded *even when kept in a
>>> drawer and not exposed to light*.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Hecate - The Real One
>>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>
>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
news:423DC61E.9373CBDB@comcast.net...
snip
>
> Canon changed inks just around the time as they have launched
> their S9nn series, now known as i9xx. They hailed their new inks
> as archival class holding up to 28-30 years. It was much less
> than Epson, but for me good enough, and I took the S9000 and not
> the Epson 2200. Well, now we known that there was a "small print"
> attached to this claim.
>
> Thomas
>

They may hail them as archival, but I had very similar experience to what was
quoted from PC Pro with an s900 printer using canon's own inks and media --
clearly obvious fading in less than a month in still air without exposure to
sunlight or any other bright light source. I have had much better life from
epson printers [even from epson dye printers] using epson inks and media and
from hp printers using hp inks and media. I've no experience with lexmark, but
of the three printer families I have used over the years [four families if you
count an oly 400 and a 410 dye-sub], sadly, I'd have to put canon on the bottom
of my list [despite owning three of their cameras and several of their lenses].

Yes, the canon prints looked great when printed and the print speed was
fantastic, but all of that is of little use if I can't expect reasonable life
from the prints.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net> wrote:

>ThomasH wrote:
>>
>[...]
>> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
>> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
>> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
>> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta
>
>oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta!
>Sorry about the mistake.
>
Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
be quite subtle at first.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that case,
who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that Canon will
develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a tendency for
longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter and the print
results will be the overriding factor.

Hecate wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>ThomasH wrote:
>>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
>>>zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation, fantastic
>>>results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over a 100
>>>images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta
>>>
>>>
>>oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta!
>>Sorry about the mistake.
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
>claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
>lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
>be quite subtle at first.
>
> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>Hecate@newsguy.com
>Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <3a5st7F6890iuU1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
<taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>
>Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>
Your facts!

>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>I have an 8x10 Canon print

then

In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
<taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>and I don't use Canon
>papers nor inks.

By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need be
discussed.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still
a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it. There's
a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick with
manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven shortcomings. There
will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.

BPotter




Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> spouted in news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9
@kennedym.demon.co.uk:

> In article <3a5st7F6890iuU1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>
>>Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>>
> Your facts!
>
>>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>I have an 8x10 Canon print
>
> then
>
> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>and I don't use Canon
>>papers nor inks.
>
> By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need be
> discussed.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <423DD261.C6E60855@comcast.net>, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net>
writes
>ThomasH wrote:
>>
Thomas, I don't know your nationality, but in the UK this guy is known
collectively as a tosser!

Ignore him - he can't even understand that displaying under glass
changes the environment!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <5pl%d.3588$191.3388@trnddc02>, SamSez
<samtheman@verizon.net> writes
>
>Yes, the canon prints looked great when printed and the print speed was
>fantastic, but all of that is of little use if I can't expect reasonable life
>from the prints.
>
Printer manufacturers seem to have lost touch with reality - these days,
if the print won't last, why not just use the computer display?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <423DC61E.9373CBDB@comcast.net>, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net>
writes
>
>After this big recall action by Epson the issue of fading became
>public. Epson resolved it and provided a fully new generation
>of inks with a very good longevity.

Unfortunately when they introduced it and offered it as a replacement
many of Epson's faithful users felt so let down by dye ink that they
refused to trust their claims that the new pigment inks would be any
better. Enough time has now passed to prove that to be a needless
concern - but Canon haven't learned: because they didn't get the pain.

Only 5 years behind Epson, and counting!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <uDp%d.20616$Pz7.7459@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<measekite@yahoo.com> writes
>I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it.

And, if you never do, does it matter?

Of course if you are the only person that ever view your images then why
print them?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have agree with Kennedy here.

You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it was
made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.

I hope that Wilhelm doesn't consider every print coming out of a Epson,
Canon, HP or Lexmark printer as representative of that printer's
longevity. Heck, if that was the case, he should put the printer under
the age acceleration lights, not the print.

If I printed a photo that happened to be photographed with a Canon camera
with an Epson printer, using MIS inks and Fuji paper, could I call it a
"Canon print"? Just wondering.

Art


Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have an 8x10 Canon print (behind glass) in the kitchen - kitchen
>>>> fumes
>>>> and all. It's been exactly 2 years (not six months) and it hasn't lost
>>>> any of its color or vibrancy. So what exactly does this test prove -
>>>> that my photo would have faded had I kept it in a dark drawer????
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Stop telling me I have a "problem"
>
>
> Your problem is that you don't read, so why should believe any evidence
> you provide based on using your eyes in any other way?
>
> Should you make an effort to correct your visual deficiency, you might
> try reading the first paragraph of my previous posts detailing why your
> comment was irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
>
>>
>> I don't display my prized prints to the open air
>
>
> Just "in the kitchen" - hardly a prized print then is it?
>
>> and I don't use Canon
>> papers nor inks.
>
>
> Directly contradicting words 5 and 6 of your opening paragraph in this
> thread.
>
> As a proven liar, by your own evidence, you have nothing else to offer
> to this thread, which is discussing FACTS.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Taliesyn,

You completely misrepresented your "facts".

You made a print with some non-Canon inks, on non-Canon paper, and tried
to use it to "prove" Canon inks don't fade. What kind of facts are those?

How does your experience with that print prove anything about Canon inks
when your "evidence" is made without them?

You know your statement has nothing to do with this thread, since the
discussion is about the problem with Canon inks. If I used Canon inks
in my Epson printers (assuming they would work) I really couldn't
complain that the ink faded because it was an Epson printer, could I?

Art


Taliesyn wrote:

> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>
>>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>>
>
>> As a proven liar, by your own evidence, you have nothing else to offer
>> to this thread, which is discussing FACTS.
>
>
>
> Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>
> I have not observed any unnaturally fast fading. If you don't like my
> "FACTS", so be it. I will be more than tickled pink now to leave this
> thread which is only permitted to discusses your "FACTS". Sheeesh!
> Get me out of here...... . . . .
>
> -Taliesyn
> __________________________________________________________
> The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Some of the test results indicate the current Canon inks offered outside
of Japan may be less stable for fading than 3rd party products available
for Canon printers.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Hopefully, Canon will introduce some more stable inks soon. The
>> pressure is on for them to do so. I understand they has done so in
>> Japan but not released them outside of Japan yet.
>
>
> If that is the case, then the 3rd party inks will have to play catch
> up. Until then, they will be second rate when compared.
>
>
>
>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper, not to
mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't it just make
more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't fade for 100 years or
so, and be done with it, even if it uses more ink in cleaning cycles to
do so? Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to
consider having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its useful
life. Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years old
from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country". If they had
been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they would have been gone
long before now.

We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence of
image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.

I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some maintenance
issues still being worked out, but considering that for literally under
$100 a person can own a printer that produces full color photo quality
prints that are waterproof and last over 90 years, we've come a long way.

The Epson Picturemate, as a 4x6" printer has resolved many of the
problems already. It uses Ultrachrome inks, (about 100 years fade
resistance) with the gloss optimizer fro high gloss prints, the waste
ink from cleaning goes back in the old cartridge, and costs are frozen
at $.39 or less, ink and paper, still too expensive in my book, but a
good start as a design.

I expect the next 5 years will offer rapidly printed and amazing
archival results from home printers at very reasonable prices and few
maintenance issues. We've come a long way already. The answer may be
inkjet or laser or something else, who knows.

Art


measekite wrote:

> I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that case,
> who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that Canon will
> develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a tendency for
> longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter and the print
> results will be the overriding factor.
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ThomasH wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
>>>> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation,
>>>> fantastic
>>>> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected over
>>>> a 100
>>>> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their magenta
>>>>
>>>
>>> oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta! Sorry about the
>>> mistake.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
>> claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
>> lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
>> be quite subtle at first.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Hecate - The Real One
>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper, not to
> mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't it just
> make more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't fade for 100
> years or so, and be done with it, even if it uses more ink in cleaning
> cycles to do so?


No. I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.

> Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to consider
> having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its useful life.


That issue is debatable. Let me ask you if you have actually seen any
prints made by an Epson Photo inkjet printer using Epson Paper and Epson
ink that is 100 years old. How about 90 years. OK how about 50 years.
I even doubt if you have see result that are even 20 years old? Tests
are simulations.

> Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
> numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years old
> from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country".

And I have prints made by professional photographers that are 30 years
old and they have faded.

> If they had been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they would
> have been gone long before now.
>
> We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence of
> image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.
>
> I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some maintenance
> issues still being worked out, but considering that for literally
> under $100 a person can own a printer that produces full color photo
> quality prints that are waterproof and last over 90 years,

Will not be really proven beyond a reasonable doubt for another 80
years. I hope that you can find a way to let me know at that time.

> we've come a long way.
>
> The Epson Picturemate, as a 4x6" printer has resolved many of the
> problems already. It uses Ultrachrome inks, (about 100 years fade
> resistance) with the gloss optimizer fro high gloss prints, the waste
> ink from cleaning goes back in the old cartridge, and costs are frozen
> at $.39 or less, ink and paper, still too expensive in my book, but a
> good start as a design.
>
> I expect the next 5 years will offer rapidly printed and amazing
> archival results from home printers at very reasonable prices and few
> maintenance issues. We've come a long way already. The answer may be
> inkjet or laser or something else, who knows.
>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that
>> case, who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that
>> Canon will develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a
>> tendency for longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter and
>> the print results will be the overriding factor.
>>
>> Hecate wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ThomasH wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
>>>>> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation,
>>>>> fantastic
>>>>> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected
>>>>> over a 100
>>>>> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their
>>>>> magenta
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta! Sorry about the
>>>> mistake.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
>>> claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
>>> lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
>>> be quite subtle at first.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Hecate - The Real One
>>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>
>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I have agree with Kennedy here.
>
> You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it was
> made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.
>

So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
and tires. It's still a Honda drive I get. Likewise, if I get better
performance using non-OEM papers and inks, it's still a Canon print I
receive. Call it semantics, call it what you like. I call printing
reality. I don't have any complaint against Canon. No one is forced to
use Canon's own after products. And my prints don't fade in dark drawers
in six months, which is the point of my whole argument. Personally,
keeping photos in one's drawers is a bit uncomfortable. . .

> If I printed a photo that happened to be photographed with a Canon camera
> with an Epson printer, using MIS inks and Fuji paper, could I call it a
> "Canon print"? Just wondering.
>

You needn't wonder any longer.

Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
or even be Canon made.

-Taliesyn
__________________________________________________________
The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed.

When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and their
fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper print a
"Canon print" is nothing but a red herring.

It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly call
it a 'Canon print' in this context.

Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass accomplishes
two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to the print
considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink surface with
gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the surface.

All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of course,
no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be framed with glass
directly on the surface of the print.

So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably within
about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting were, to the
best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with Canon inks and
papers, and were not under glass or otherwise adulterated.

Art


Brian Potter wrote:

> As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still
> a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it. There's
> a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick with
> manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven shortcomings. There
> will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.
>
> BPotter
>
>
>
>
> Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> spouted in news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9
> @kennedym.demon.co.uk:
>
>
>>In article <3a5st7F6890iuU1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>
>>>Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?
>>>
>>
>>Your facts!
>>
>>
>>>>In article <3a436uF63j2j4U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>>>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>>I have an 8x10 Canon print
>>
>>then
>>
>>In article <3a5fhdF665dq8U1@individual.net>, Taliesyn
>><taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>>
>>>and I don't use Canon
>>>papers nor inks.
>>
>>By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need be
>>discussed.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

As I mentioned earlier, we have images that are several generations old,
and I'm glad we do. Not everyone thinks that way.

As to the issue of whether the accelerated aging tests are valid, they
are only one part of the data. It isn't like mankind developed dye and
pigment knowledge 4 years ago. There rare literally thousands of years
of historical data to draw from. We have cloth and paintings from back
as far as cave paintings, including manuscripts, illuminations, oil and
water color images, and so on to provide much of the information.

Certainly, the atmosphere has had some changes to it, heck, we may have
a nuclear radiation or new molecules floating around in the environment
that will change how all these things respond, but baring any major
disruption, and using the accelerated aging tests as a back up, we can
make some pretty reasonable interpolations about the relative aging
processes of different dyes and pigments. It isn't perfect, but it also
isn't a complete guess.

What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the electronic storage data
we use currently will not last and the software and reading devices will
become obsolete and difficult, if not impossible, to procure. That is
where the print really shines, because it only requires light to view.
Not only will DVDs and CD be history long before a good print will fade
away, but the media used for recording will fail. It already does in a
matter of years.

How much of anyone's historical documents are significant is hard to
say. They say a person can never truly understand his/her impact in
their own lifetime. Maybe your offspring will burn down your estate, or
shred all your images because they don't want to be bothered with them.

However, I'd prefer people have a choice, not limited by the materials,
but more by historic precedence and value.

In the end, the cost of a bit extra ink needs to be weighed for each of
us in determining what types of documents we believe ourselves to be
generating.

Art


measekite wrote:
>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper, not to
>> mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't it just
>> make more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't fade for 100
>> years or so, and be done with it, even if it uses more ink in cleaning
>> cycles to do so?
>
>
>
> No. I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.
>
>> Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to consider
>> having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its useful life.
>
>
>
> That issue is debatable. Let me ask you if you have actually seen any
> prints made by an Epson Photo inkjet printer using Epson Paper and Epson
> ink that is 100 years old. How about 90 years. OK how about 50 years.
> I even doubt if you have see result that are even 20 years old? Tests
> are simulations.
>
>> Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
>> numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years old
>> from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country".
>
>
> And I have prints made by professional photographers that are 30 years
> old and they have faded.
>
>> If they had been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they would
>> have been gone long before now.
>>
>> We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence of
>> image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.
>>
>> I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some maintenance
>> issues still being worked out, but considering that for literally
>> under $100 a person can own a printer that produces full color photo
>> quality prints that are waterproof and last over 90 years,
>
>
> Will not be really proven beyond a reasonable doubt for another 80
> years. I hope that you can find a way to let me know at that time.
>
>> we've come a long way.
>>
>> The Epson Picturemate, as a 4x6" printer has resolved many of the
>> problems already. It uses Ultrachrome inks, (about 100 years fade
>> resistance) with the gloss optimizer fro high gloss prints, the waste
>> ink from cleaning goes back in the old cartridge, and costs are frozen
>> at $.39 or less, ink and paper, still too expensive in my book, but a
>> good start as a design.
>>
>> I expect the next 5 years will offer rapidly printed and amazing
>> archival results from home printers at very reasonable prices and few
>> maintenance issues. We've come a long way already. The answer may be
>> inkjet or laser or something else, who knows.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that
>>> case, who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that
>>> Canon will develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a
>>> tendency for longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter and
>>> the print results will be the overriding factor.
>>>
>>> Hecate wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH <henrymot@coco.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ThomasH wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper jams,
>>>>>> zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation,
>>>>>> fantastic
>>>>>> results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected
>>>>>> over a 100
>>>>>> images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their
>>>>>> magenta
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta! Sorry about the
>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
>>>> claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
>>>> lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
>>>> be quite subtle at first.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Hecate - The Real One
>>>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>
>>>>
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS