Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
SleeperMan wrote:
> It's interesting how all do the testing of all kind of other printers,
> papers etc...but i didn't see yet any review with Canon's best Photo Pro
> paper (which has Alumna layer)... someone posted one test earlier elsewhere
> and there was only one canon tester on god knows which paper, while there
> were number of Epsons. It's hard to tell the difference.
> BTW...i guess r800 do have gloss optimizer, right? And how is R800 priced
> against. let's say ip4000? I think ip4000 would be more comparable with R300
> (in price), which doesn't have gloss optimizer, so photos are not of such
> high gloss - am i right?
The R300 uses dye colorant inks, while the R800 uses pigment colorant
inks which are much more stable against fading.
>
> Second thing...i wonder why all people say that lab photos are not so time
> resistive...i have some veeeery old lab photos and they are still more or
> less same as they used to be. Lab photos doesn't contain ink ,so they are
> not so sensitive to fading...(or are they?).
Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do fade.
Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the years.
Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for fading in
sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve them.
Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand normal
indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark keeping
(like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment colorants may
have an even longer fade resistance.
> It's just...you know...all those testers claim 100, years, 400
> years...etc...remember what they (used) to say for CDR's? 100 years, 1000
> years...while now it turned out that same can last only a few years. That's
> why i say it's impossible to predict so long period. You can't possibly
> compare lab results with reality. OK, maybe i do believe that pigmented inks
> do last longer, but dye ones make better photos. So, regarding longevity,
> Epson wins, regarding quality, Canon wins...and that's not above test
> result, but pure fact - not because of Canon, but because Canon uses dye
> ink.
All accelerated fading tests are somewhat inaccurate because that's just
not how the prints will be stored, but they do provide some basis for
comparing the qualities of the inks and papers. However, the problem I
have seen is that I didn't have to wait 10 or even 5 years, I looked at
Canon prints that Canon provided as demo images in stores which had
fluorescent lighting and before the printers even were in the "replaced
by" modality (which in the printer industry is usually about 6 months to
a year) the prints were considerably faded, and that was without even
doing an A:B comparison, it was that obvious.
I would love to see Canon come up with a pigment colorant ink, or at
least a long life dye ink, that would work well with their heads. Maybe
they will.
Art
SleeperMan wrote:
> It's interesting how all do the testing of all kind of other printers,
> papers etc...but i didn't see yet any review with Canon's best Photo Pro
> paper (which has Alumna layer)... someone posted one test earlier elsewhere
> and there was only one canon tester on god knows which paper, while there
> were number of Epsons. It's hard to tell the difference.
> BTW...i guess r800 do have gloss optimizer, right? And how is R800 priced
> against. let's say ip4000? I think ip4000 would be more comparable with R300
> (in price), which doesn't have gloss optimizer, so photos are not of such
> high gloss - am i right?
The R300 uses dye colorant inks, while the R800 uses pigment colorant
inks which are much more stable against fading.
>
> Second thing...i wonder why all people say that lab photos are not so time
> resistive...i have some veeeery old lab photos and they are still more or
> less same as they used to be. Lab photos doesn't contain ink ,so they are
> not so sensitive to fading...(or are they?).
Color photographs made in a lab use organic dyes, which can and do fade.
Like inks, the quality of the dyes have improved over the years.
Color photos from the 1950's, 60s and 70s were notorious for fading in
sunlight. In the 80s and 90s great strides were made to improve them.
Fuji and Kodak each came out with dyes designed to withstand normal
indoor exposure for up to 100 years, and much longer in dark keeping
(like photo albums). But, it is believed some pigment colorants may
have an even longer fade resistance.
> It's just...you know...all those testers claim 100, years, 400
> years...etc...remember what they (used) to say for CDR's? 100 years, 1000
> years...while now it turned out that same can last only a few years. That's
> why i say it's impossible to predict so long period. You can't possibly
> compare lab results with reality. OK, maybe i do believe that pigmented inks
> do last longer, but dye ones make better photos. So, regarding longevity,
> Epson wins, regarding quality, Canon wins...and that's not above test
> result, but pure fact - not because of Canon, but because Canon uses dye
> ink.
All accelerated fading tests are somewhat inaccurate because that's just
not how the prints will be stored, but they do provide some basis for
comparing the qualities of the inks and papers. However, the problem I
have seen is that I didn't have to wait 10 or even 5 years, I looked at
Canon prints that Canon provided as demo images in stores which had
fluorescent lighting and before the printers even were in the "replaced
by" modality (which in the printer industry is usually about 6 months to
a year) the prints were considerably faded, and that was without even
doing an A:B comparison, it was that obvious.
I would love to see Canon come up with a pigment colorant ink, or at
least a long life dye ink, that would work well with their heads. Maybe
they will.
Art
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram