Lasting Quality of Photo Paper

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that the
paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home market,
and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a really
important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.

However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?

Thanks very much for your advice.

Susan
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No one knows how well prints from say the Epson 2200 will last. All of the
fade tests done have been faked (accelerated) which in my opinion means
nothing. Also, if you look at the foot notes for such tests most clearly
state that the life is based on almost museum storage standards, means you
would have to hang them in a climate controlled room, etc. etc. Again
meaning less.

I think you took the best route for what you want to do. To be honest if I
was interested in purchasing one of your images and I found out that you
printed them on any thing other than a commercial printer I would not buy
it.

If you want something that is going to give you good life that you can print
yourself then look in a dye sub printer. I have about thirty prints from an
old Alps hanging on my wall that gets bright sun most of the day and they
are still perfect with no fading what so ever. However, every print I have
that was done on an inkjet has either turned color or has faded often both
and that includes a couple from the Epson 2200. Also, the Epson 2200 is the
slowest printer I have ever seen.

Just my 4 cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation.)

John


"Susan B" <susanb@susanb.org> wrote in message
news:d7vjd.323$3U4.33815@news02.tsnz.net...
>I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
> the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home
> market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a
> really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
> papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Susan B wrote:
> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
> the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home
> market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a
> really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
> papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan

No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut corners
by buying third party ink or paper.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Susan B wrote:

> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan
>
>

Canon's latest A3 printer is the i9900 (or i9950 outside the USA).
Canon claim 25 years for print life if you use their most expensive paper called
Canon Photo Paper Pro. This printer uses dye based inks.

I think the Epson printers use pigment based inks and they last a lot longer.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Susan B wrote:

>However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
>printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
>that are as good as those used commercially?

Yes, there are several.

> Are there any A3 sized
>photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
>relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
>paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?

Again yes, but I think you need to consider costs and quality, since
this is for personal gain. I've yet to see any photo printer that can
match or get close to the costs of going to a lab, and still resist
fading over many years.

I've made my own prints at home that rivals lab quality and costs. But
the issue is will they really last?

Using original ink and photo paper, I can get good results that should
last for decades, but the cost is prohibitive - it's much cheaper to
take my digital photos to the lab for development.

So in order to get my costs down to reasonable levels, I needed to
refill my ink cartridges and use third-party photo papers. The quality
is very good, and so far (16 months) the images have not faded or shown
signs of wear. But in another few years the photos may not look as good,
and only time will tell.

Now, if your profit margin is high enough to allow printing at home
using original supplies, then have at it. They should last as long, if
not longer, than lab prints.
:)
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would suggest visiting www.wilhelm-research.com You will find lots of
good archival information. The Epson papers and pigment inks seem to last a
very long time. Longer than some traditional prints.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Susan B wrote:


> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
> papers that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan

As far as I know, none of the available home printers use photographic
paper. What home printers use may be called photo paper or photo-quality
paper, but it's still a non-light-sensitive paper designed to receive
sprayed ink droplets, sublimated dyes or heated wax/resin. The commercial
labs often use true photographic paper, i.e. light sensitive papers
designed to be exposed from a light source such as a lamp, lcd screen, or a
computer-controlled laser head, then developed with standard colour
processing chemistry. These materials have very different aging
characteristics from ink-jet, dye-sublimation or wax-thermal papers
available for home printers and are much more waterproof than the ink-jet
papers or dye-sub. I've used all four types of printers (ink-jet, dye-sub,
and wax-thermal at home, and a laser-head photographic printer at work),
and I prefer the quality of the last. Mind you the price of that printer is
about 3 orders of magnitude higher than the average home printer... As far
as the relative keeping qualities are concerned, none of the currently
produced papers have been around long enough to really tell.
I have standard photographic prints from 30+ years ago that look fine and
more recent ones that have faded or changed colour, which tells me the only
real way to know is to wait and see......

Al Preston
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Try permajet
http://www.permajet.com/html/products_permaflow.html
They use pigment inks and have a continuous flow system so you never run out of ink.


"Susan B" <susanb@susanb.org> wrote in message news:<d7vjd.323$3U4.33815@news02.tsnz.net>...
> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:


> No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
>best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut corners
>by buying third party ink or paper.

On the contrary, good quality third part inks (the ones I use are
Permajet) may be *better* than the Epson inks. It's only the cheap
ones that are worse.

And as for papers, there are a lot of better, and more archival,
papers around than those Epson produces.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:31:03 GMT, "Safetymom123"
<safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:

>I would suggest visiting www.wilhelm-research.com You will find lots of
>good archival information. The Epson papers and pigment inks seem to last a
>very long time. Longer than some traditional prints.
>
And I'd suggest you visit http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
where you'll get more *accurate* information.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dinto01al5hf9ljr6bk0957co3qshj81o0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:31:03 GMT, "Safetymom123"
> <safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>I would suggest visiting www.wilhelm-research.com You will find lots of
>>good archival information. The Epson papers and pigment inks seem to last a
>>very long time. Longer than some traditional prints.
>>
> And I'd suggest you visit http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
> where you'll get more *accurate* information.

Henry Wilhelm is a noted researcher in the area of print permanence, having
been doing research in this area for decades. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html. What data do you have to back
up your claims?

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:3cnto0hesscd0stndsl3dnn2jsntc6hfuj@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
>>best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut corners
>>by buying third party ink or paper.
>
> On the contrary, good quality third part inks (the ones I use are
> Permajet) may be *better* than the Epson inks. It's only the cheap
> ones that are worse.

Hear, hear. There are third-party inks that are marketed to the
professional market; their raison d'etre is to be at least as good as the
manufacturer's ink overall, and better in some specific attribute.

There are other third-party inks whose only purpose is to be cheap.

> And as for papers, there are a lot of better, and more archival,
> papers around than those Epson produces.

Could be; I don't know.

> veni, vidi, reliqui

"I came, I saw, I abandoned something?"

Do you mean "veni, vidi, abivi"?

:)
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Epson 2200/2100 is an A3 printer using Ultrachrome inks which are
pigmented and fade and waterproof (they are tested for at least 80
years). There rae a number of Epson papers that are waterproof, and
with the pigmented inks, will last for many decades.

In this sized printer, most of the other companies are using dye inks
with poorer stability. Epson printers (all inkjet type) can usually
also use 3rd party inks, including a number of archival pigmented types,
so even if you were to buy something like an 1280, which is a less
costly model, it can be fitted with pigmented inks. There are also CIS
(continuous inking systems) available for these printers.

Epson is going to be releasing an 8 color A3 printer with Durabrite
pigmented inks shortly (I believe it is now out in Japan) based upon the
same system used in the R800 which is an A4 model.

Art


Susan B wrote:

> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home market,
> and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a really
> important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>
> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>
> Thanks very much for your advice.
>
> Susan
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You make a good many assumptions, all the way across your response, John.

Who knows what materials were used by this commercial printing company.
What inks, what paper? And if it is some other printing method, other
than inkjet, the odds are even less sure.

Secondly, you suggest dye sub. In fact, most dye sub prints are known
to be much more fugitive than pigmented inks. Your ALPS images may be
an exception, but being that the ALPS are no longer made, and I believe
they were slower than the 2200, I wouldn't consider it in the running
(you forgot to mention that only one type of paper could be used in it
for the dye sub output).

Lastly, I am sure Epson would be very interested in knowing of rapidly
fading 2200 prints that were done using OEM inks.

Pretty much all aging tests are done with accelerated aging models,
since most of us can't wait 100 years to find out the results. ;-)

Art


John Doe wrote:

> No one knows how well prints from say the Epson 2200 will last. All of the
> fade tests done have been faked (accelerated) which in my opinion means
> nothing. Also, if you look at the foot notes for such tests most clearly
> state that the life is based on almost museum storage standards, means you
> would have to hang them in a climate controlled room, etc. etc. Again
> meaning less.
>
> I think you took the best route for what you want to do. To be honest if I
> was interested in purchasing one of your images and I found out that you
> printed them on any thing other than a commercial printer I would not buy
> it.
>
> If you want something that is going to give you good life that you can print
> yourself then look in a dye sub printer. I have about thirty prints from an
> old Alps hanging on my wall that gets bright sun most of the day and they
> are still perfect with no fading what so ever. However, every print I have
> that was done on an inkjet has either turned color or has faded often both
> and that includes a couple from the Epson 2200. Also, the Epson 2200 is the
> slowest printer I have ever seen.
>
> Just my 4 cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation.)
>
> John
>
>
> "Susan B" <susanb@susanb.org> wrote in message
> news:d7vjd.323$3U4.33815@news02.tsnz.net...
>
>>I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
>>15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
>>company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
>>the
>>paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
>>lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home
>>market,
>>and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading. This is a
>>really
>>important issue when you are selling photographs to the public.
>>
>>However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
>>printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
>>papers
>>that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
>>photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
>>relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
>>paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>>
>>Thanks very much for your advice.
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message news:<o1Jjd.132698$9b.80260@edtnps84>...

> Secondly, you suggest dye sub. In fact, most dye sub prints are known
> to be much more fugitive than pigmented inks. Your ALPS images may be
> an exception, but being that the ALPS are no longer made, and I believe
> they were slower than the 2200, I wouldn't consider it in the running
> (you forgot to mention that only one type of paper could be used in it
> for the dye sub output).

Well, actually there were two. You also could use Tektronix dyesub paper
but that usually wasn't economical. 🙂

Note that the ALPS dye-sub really was a pigment-sub. An ALPS employee
talked (in chemist lingo) what materials its "ink" was made from quite
some time ago. Point of all that was that it used pigments rather than
dyes (which probably also is why it's gamut wasn't the biggest one might
have seen).

Mike

P.S. - No the ALPS printer wasn't fast, but from times I hear on the 2200,
it may have been faster that that. 🙂 It actually printed quite
quickly, only problem is that it'd have to do it four times as it
did each "ink" only one at a time.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hecate wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
>> best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut
>> corners
>> by buying third party ink or paper.
>
> On the contrary, good quality third part inks (the ones I use are
> Permajet) may be *better* than the Epson inks. It's only the cheap
> ones that are worse.

Not only the cheap ones, some of the expensive ones are also no good, or
not as good. I might add that I would not be surprised if some of the cheap
ones were as good, but without standards and knowledge, the only way for
most people to be sure is to stick with those that have been tested and that
are unlikely to have changed formula and that pretty much limits it to the
original inks.

>
> And as for papers, there are a lot of better, and more archival,
> papers around than those Epson produces.

But it is not just the paper quality, but rather it is the combined
quality. The paper and the ink do not stand alone, but rather work together
and interact.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> The Epson 2200/2100 is an A3 printer using Ultrachrome inks which are
> pigmented and fade and waterproof (they are tested for at least 80
> years).

Did they really start testing back in the 1920's? :)

> There rae a number of Epson papers that are waterproof, and
> with the pigmented inks, will last for many decades.
>
> In this sized printer, most of the other companies are using dye inks
> with poorer stability. Epson printers (all inkjet type) can usually
> also use 3rd party inks, including a number of archival pigmented types,
> so even if you were to buy something like an 1280, which is a less
> costly model, it can be fitted with pigmented inks. There are also CIS
> (continuous inking systems) available for these printers.
>
> Epson is going to be releasing an 8 color A3 printer with Durabrite
> pigmented inks shortly (I believe it is now out in Japan) based upon the
> same system used in the R800 which is an A4 model.
>
> Art
>
>
> Susan B wrote:
>
>> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of
>> about
>> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
>> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
>> the paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far
>> better lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the
>> home market, and will last for up to 50 years without noticeable fading.
>> This is a really important issue when you are selling photographs to the
>> public. However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a
>> home A3
>> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic
>> papers
>> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
>> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
>> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the
>> photographic
>> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?
>>
>> Thanks very much for your advice.
>>
>> Susan

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SUwjd.4043$_3.46666@typhoon.sonic.net...

> If you want something that is going to give you good life that you can
print
> yourself then look in a dye sub printer. I have about thirty prints from
an
> old Alps hanging on my wall that gets bright sun most of the day and they
> are still perfect with no fading what so ever. However, every print I have
> that was done on an inkjet has either turned color or has faded often both
> and that includes a couple from the Epson 2200. Also, the Epson 2200 is
the
> slowest printer I have ever seen.

If you have a noticeable deterioration in print quality ALREADY from a print
done by an Epson 2200 printer, then have you sent this photo to Epson? Could
it be that there is a fault in your particular printer? I think that Epson
should be given a chance to comment before everyone concludes that this
could happen with UltraChrome pigment inks. This surely would be the
exception rather than the rule after such a short time?

Susan
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I totally agree. This type of fading should not be occurring with the
Ultrachrome inks, regardless of the paper used.

I have made Epson prints using their older dye formulations of an older
Tektronix paper, and although they are not in direct sunlight, some are
a good 8 years old now and show minimal fading, even when not under
glass. Under glass they haven't changes enough to even notice. This
particular paper seems to have very good permanence, but it isn't made
anymore.

Art

Susan B wrote:

> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:SUwjd.4043$_3.46666@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>
>>If you want something that is going to give you good life that you can
>
> print
>
>>yourself then look in a dye sub printer. I have about thirty prints from
>
> an
>
>>old Alps hanging on my wall that gets bright sun most of the day and they
>>are still perfect with no fading what so ever. However, every print I have
>>that was done on an inkjet has either turned color or has faded often both
>>and that includes a couple from the Epson 2200. Also, the Epson 2200 is
>
> the
>
>>slowest printer I have ever seen.
>
>
> If you have a noticeable deterioration in print quality ALREADY from a print
> done by an Epson 2200 printer, then have you sent this photo to Epson? Could
> it be that there is a fault in your particular printer? I think that Epson
> should be given a chance to comment before everyone concludes that this
> could happen with UltraChrome pigment inks. This surely would be the
> exception rather than the rule after such a short time?
>
> Susan
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Susan B" <susanb@susanb.org> wrote in message
news:d7vjd.323$3U4.33815@news02.tsnz.net...
> I have been framing and selling some digital prints, up to a size of about
> 15 inches x 10 inches. To date, I have used a commercial photoprinter
> company to do the printing for me. This is because I have been told that
the
> paper used on expensive commercial photo printing machines has far better
> lasting qualities than any of the photo papers produced for the home
market,

Have you considered having photo prints made from silver halide paper, from
online labs such as OFOTO.COM? They are "real" prints, done up on
doubleweight RC paper. No archival surprises--they last as long as regular
prints, because they ARE real photo prints.

I use them exclusively, and I do not even own an inkjet printer, because of
concerns over fading. And the cost of "real" prints is less than the cost
of those "do-it-yourself" inkjet prints.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3
> printer produced by say, Epson, HP, or Canon, that uses photographic papers
> that are as good as those used commercially? Are there any A3 sized
> photographic papers that are produced for the home market that are
> relatively waterproof and have lasting qualities equal to the photographic
> paper used by the expensive commercial photoprinting machines?

Any inkjets that'll match a true photographic print for
waterproofness? Nope, but the closest you'll come for longevity out of
the box may be the Epson wide-body printers with the encapsulated inks.

Other than that, the technologies are different enough (and unproven
since they haven't existed over 15 years) that you won't know until
you've printed and hanged them for years.

Home inkjets certainly won't last more than a few years, so don't bother
with these to start.

www.inkjetmall.com has 3rd archival inks and papers to consider.

Also, FujiFilm Pictrography printers, albeit expensive, do produce photo
prints that will have similar characteristics as regular photo prints,
so that may be the way to go commerically (either get one cheap off
ebay.com or find a local lab where you can send your print jobs).

Longevity of home inkjet printers - forget it!

http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/

http://wilhelm-research.com/ (but with a grain of salt since they
changed all of their testing methods after the orange fading crisis)

Realistically, these tests occur in 'ideal' environments and
conditions, and in real life, I would not bet my life or business on any
inkjet print to last more than 10 years (nor provide a warranty longer
than that either). Although you can keep inkjet prints perfectly fine
in cold-storage w/o light (ie. in a folder in a cabnet where some of my
original HP Paintjet prints from 10+ years ago still look fine), once
the prints are out under light and environmental display conditions, you
can toss the longevity thing out the door.

(which is why even Epson offered a 100% full price buyback of the
Epson 870 during the orange fading crisis just a few years ago; which is
why every year, every inkjet printer maker from Epson to Canon to HP
toots 'even longer print life' than the printer they released just 1
year before. Everyone knows that unless it's pigmented or solid-dye,
most of these non-pigmented dyes will fade fast over time.)

Naturally, time will lead to new developments which will lengthen
print life from inkjets, but don't bet a business on it yet.

For the time being, dye-sub (solid dye) printers or FujiFilm
Pictrography printers are the two best alternatives for long-life prints
that should last a decent amount of time (again, don't bet a business on
their lifespans since they haven't been out in real-life as long as film
prints, so who knows the actual stability over 100 years?).

Here, Fujifilm Pictrography prints are my #1 pick -- feels, looks,
and acts just like a real photo print, nothing that would make a client
look otherwise at the paper/medium itself, and superb prints that look
just like film prints.

Step down from there, going cheaper, look into printers using
pigmented/encapsulated dyes such as the Epson Stylus Pro 4000, Epson
Stylus Photo 2200, Epson PX-G5000 (just released in Japan, coming soon
to USA), etc.

If you're doing B&W prints, the B&W Piezography system is the way to
go: http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/bw-buy.html
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Michael A. Covington wrote:

> Hear, hear. There are third-party inks that are marketed to the
> professional market; their raison d'etre is to be at least as good as the
> manufacturer's ink overall, and better in some specific attribute.
>
> There are other third-party inks whose only purpose is to be cheap.

How do you find out which is which?

I've heard good things about resolution ink and it's not as cheap as some other
non-OEM inks but price is not always a reliable guide.
--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

BenOne© wrote:

>Michael A. Covington wrote:
>
>> Hear, hear. There are third-party inks that are marketed to the
>> professional market; their raison d'etre is to be at least as good as the
>> manufacturer's ink overall, and better in some specific attribute.
>>
>> There are other third-party inks whose only purpose is to be cheap.
>
>How do you find out which is which?

You ask around for opinions.
:)

>I've heard good things about resolution ink and it's not as cheap as some other
>non-OEM inks but price is not always a reliable guide.

Quite right...I've seen some "universal inks" that were more costly than
most others, but they were lousy.

Good recommendations for quality ink seem to come from vendors that use
Formulabs. I have used and recommend AtlanticInkjet in Canada and the
US. Good service and good ink. There are several others recommended here
as well.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 00:38:58 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
<look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote:


>> veni, vidi, reliqui
>
>"I came, I saw, I abandoned something?"
>
>Do you mean "veni, vidi, abivi"?
>
LOL! No, it's from an old Latin comedy and means I came, I saw, I went
away again ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:16:52 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hecate wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
>> <sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No one really knows. Even the commercial products vary greatly. The
>>> best in any of those three should do a good job. Don't try to cut
>>> corners
>>> by buying third party ink or paper.
>>
>> On the contrary, good quality third part inks (the ones I use are
>> Permajet) may be *better* than the Epson inks. It's only the cheap
>> ones that are worse.
>
> Not only the cheap ones, some of the expensive ones are also no good, or
>not as good. I might add that I would not be surprised if some of the cheap
>ones were as good, but without standards and knowledge, the only way for
>most people to be sure is to stick with those that have been tested and that
>are unlikely to have changed formula and that pretty much limits it to the
>original inks.

I disagree. There are plenty of reviews, plus "word of mouth".
Personally, I'd recommend Permajet to anyone in preference to the
Epson inks - as long as you can afford the initial outlay for the CIS
system with the 2200. Their Blax system for B&W is exceptional and
their colour system excellent.
>>
>> And as for papers, there are a lot of better, and more archival,
>> papers around than those Epson produces.
>
> But it is not just the paper quality, but rather it is the combined
>quality. The paper and the ink do not stand alone, but rather work together
>and interact.

Yes, they do. But that's true of any ink/paper combination and doesn't
make OEM paper a requirement or even the best solution.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom