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How much of anyone's historical documents are significant is hard to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...
>>>>
>>>>