Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: luxborealis on December 12, 2011, 02:05:36 pm
-
One thing I've noticed since doing some research into print permanence and printer/ink selection: the most popular printer that most pro photographers recommend - various models of Epson with pigment inks - has the lowest print permanence ratings of the three big guns, HP and Canon being the other two (see: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/canson_infinity.html amongst others). HP, on the other hand, consistently has significantly higher ratings - more than twice as long as the same paper with K3 w/Vivid Magenta, Epson's latest greatest ink set. For example,
- Canson Satin RC = 221years for HP; 116 years for Canon and 88 years for Epson;
- Canson Baryta Photographique = 160 years for HP; 69 years for Canon; 45 years for Epson.
Please do not respond with "that's longer than I'll ever live" because that's not the point. When we sell prints, they are meant to last for as long as the owner has it, not how long we live!
So, this begs three questions:
How much of your decision about which printer to purchase is based on print permanence? Should we collectively be placing more emphasis on it that we have been?
Are those who use Epson (including myself) at a significant disadvantage? If by recommending Epson, are we putting brand name ahead of the real-life data? Or is print permanence really not an issue? i.e. Is 45 years for Canson Baryta long enough? (99 years under UV filtered glass).
How much of your decision regarding paper is based on print permanence? I realize that there is more to paper-selection than permanence (e.g. D-max,base colour, etc.; the paper has to suit the photo), but I notice, for e.g. that Canson RC paper has longer permanence (Satin = 88 years) than Rag Photographique (69 years), Platine (53 year) or Baryta (45 years) - three favourites of the print-selling crowd. Obviously, UV filtration makes a huge difference, but overall permanence is still relatively longer with RC.
What gives?? This data flies in the face two "maxims" I continue to read about from pro printers: that of whole-hearted endorsement of Epson and that of the "museum quality" 100% cotton rag, no OBAs schtick. Comments?
-
It partly depends on what you do with your prints. Do you frame them? If so with what kind of glass? Where will they be displayed? Under what conditions? Or, do you keep them in dark storage and look at them periodically. Take a look on the page you linked at the huge range of estimates depending on the usage conditions. Since you are asking us whether these statistics entered into decision-making about printers and papers, I can relate my thinking. As most of my prints are in print storage boxes or bound as books, I'm not the least bit concerned with this issue. I bought an Epson 4900 because it has the combination of features and print quality that I like, and I mostly use Ilford Gold Fibre Silk in it, because it is such a rich and nearly neutral media for both colour and black and white. Whatever I do with these prints, they will be permanent enough. Looking at all this with a bit of historical perspective, it was a much different story for users of desktop printers before Epson introduced the 2000P only about 12 years ago.
-
First off I consider aardenburg-imaging (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/) to be a more authoritative source for print permanence ratings. Its a bit more involved to understand, but the results are IMO and many others considered to be better tests for determining the archival characteristics of ink/prints. The first thing you will notice is that AI estimates are far lower than Wilhelm-roughly about half. That is because what WH considers noticeable fade is faaaaaar to generous-most FA printers would completely freak at fading long before it reaches WH's test failure.
You will also notice that paper is as important as ink and that the dreaded OBAs are not as dreadful as we thought-it depends on where they are in the paper.
HP does indeed have good ratings but not always and they are not alone. The best by far at the moment is the Cone Carbon inkset on Hannemule Photo Rag. (if I remember right).
-
It's all relative! Today's color inkjet prints are so much more resistant to fade compared to chromogenic photographic papers, it's not even funny.
Epson would like you to think that they traded their print life numbers for a slightly larger printing gamut. For most photographic prints this really doesn't matter that much. Kind of depends on your photographic style.
I've been using an HPZ3100 (with the limited gamut red) and have been totally satisfied with the gamut it delivers. The reason I switched from Epson to HP had nothing to do with the print life numbers, but rather ink consumption, reliability and consistency of prints the HP offered. In the nearly 4 years I've had the printer, I never run nozzle checks (as most Epson users are used to doing before printing). I've replaced the print heads only once since I've had the printer, costing me about $350--user replaceable.
I print a lot of art reproduction prints for artists, and it's essential that I get consistency, which the HP delivers.
There are a lot more things to consider that the relative life of prints. And remember, these numbers only reflect the life if kept on display the whole while, illuminated 12 hrs per day, at a fairly high level of light. Another concern, that we can not anticipate is the life of the media. As you may or may not know, RC media when it first was introduced, was very susceptible to degradation. The media is much more stable today, but remember, it has only been around since the 1970's.
-
It's all relative! Today's color inkjet prints are so much more resistant to fade compared to chromogenic photographic papers, it's not even funny.
Some are, some are not ;).
I know. You probably meant those prints using OEM pigmented color ink sets. In that case, as a general rule, often, but again, sometimes not. It all depends on how critically one evaluates the printer/ink/media/(coating?) combination and also the contribution of image content (i.e., the specific tones and colors in the image) to the visual perception of change in the print over time.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Take a look at these new WR Canson rag media figures with the HP Vivera inks - >450 years for color? Which is twice what HP stated for their rag paper tests.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/canson_infinity.html
I wish we had put in more of the Canson papers to test at Aardenburg. It's going to take years of accelerated time to find out if this is accurate or not.
It does seem encouraging for these papers though. He has tests for the Hahnemuhle Hp Photorag at half of this for some odd reason, and we know Photorag is holding very well in other tests.
Both the Cone Carbon (warm) inkset and the HP Vivera BW tests that I and others sent to Aardenburg are hardly changing at all, they are a lot of 100 % numbers down the line, actually only the white paper base has moved at all and that is very little, on Photorag 308. But we still have to wait years to get to >450 Wilhelm years :-).
A client of mine asked me the other day, ... how do we know that "interpolated" testing equals real world long term results? I didn't have a good convincing answer for that, maybe Mark does.
John
-
A client of mine asked me the other day, ... how do we know that "interpolated" testing equals real world long term results? I didn't have a good convincing answer for that, maybe Mark does.
John
This question of course has been around for quite a while and there is a considerable discussion of it, including by Henry Wilhelm himself - one key issue for predictive testing being the risk of reciprocity failure. I don't know whether there is a generally agreed view amongst the specialists about whether current testing methods can address this with a high degree of reliability.
-
An early flight to Portland, Oregon tomorrow morning, and I'm still not ready... I will try to weigh in more on this thread when I regain a wifi spot on the road and some spare time , perhaps tomorrow evening.
As some of you know, I have spent most of my career conducting research on photographic print permanence, so I have an active interest in the subject and believe it's as relevant a subject as ever, but I meet more and more photographers these days who think it's a non issue. Their rationale is that it's easy to reprint at will from the digital file. Under some circumstances their approach is no doubt quite true. It's all those other circumstances where print durability still matters.
cheers,
Mark
-
I was referring to Mark at Aardenburg who is the authority, if any one is.
It's not a non-issue for me. There are a million reasons why a photographer can't reprint an image and we could spend a hour on that alone. But the two that come quickly to mind are 1. an entire limited edition portfolio is sold to a client, gallery, or museum 2. the photographer is dead ( yea that will eventually happen, no matter how hard you attempt to avoid it).
john
-
Hi,
Interpolation is good science, extrapolation is black magick. Permanence testing is probably a mix of both, but the best we have. Else you can wait 400 years?
I would guess the old masters would be happy having Henry Wilhelm's permanence data. Actually, there is a lot of color shift to a couple hundred years old art, but we have never seen the original colors.
Best regards
Erik
This question of course has been around for quite a while and there is a considerable discussion of it, including by Henry Wilhelm himself - one key issue for predictive testing being the risk of reciprocity failure. I don't know whether there is a generally agreed view amongst the specialists about whether current testing methods can address this with a high degree of reliability.
-
Actually, there is a lot of color shift to a couple hundred years old art, but we have never seen the original colors.
No source at hand so this may be pure bogus, but I remember having heard of one of Van Gogh's iris paintings (http://www.montmartre-paris-france.com/images/Vangogh-iris_2.jpg) as having initially a very delicate rose background (as described in the painter's correspondence), yet today it is a drab beige.
About the original question, yes there is an already good enough permanence for prints optimally stored, but wouldn't it be more gratificating to be able to expose the prints as we like, with enough lighting, without any fear of damaging it?
-
The old masters could in some cases build on expertise of older masters and the surviving samples of art in bad or excellent condition. There were old masters that wished to experiment and we should be grateful for that. Of course not all their work survived due to the experimental character. There were old masters that had no money to buy the best media and pigments available then. There were older masters who did not give a damn and there are modern masters that do not give a damn. Da Vinci belonged to the experimental guys. Van Eyck too but he had more luck with his experiments. Van Gogh had poor times and was not always sane. Vermeer was meticulous in every aspect of his art. Modern masters become masters by art critics, Saatchi and other mechanisms that have little to do with knowledge of media and methods. Media that also went through revolutionary changes like the art it carries. On one hand it became more difficult to create lasting art pieces, on the other hand science could be a big help now. Aardenburg is a good source for the art printing shops if they care for this aspect of printing. Suggesting that today's digital prints can be replaced with the same prints ten years later is naïve, processes and media change faster than ever and musea, artists, collectors, insurance companies etc are not always happy with the idea to replace older art with a new one. Outside that circuit things are different but prices too so it may not be wise to sell at a bottom price with the promise to repeat the job when the old print fades away.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
-
Hi,
Interpolation is good science, extrapolation is black magick. Permanence testing is probably a mix of both, but the best we have. Else you can wait 400 years?
I would guess the old masters would be happy having Henry Wilhelm's permanence data. Actually, there is a lot of color shift to a couple hundred years old art, but we have never seen the original colors.
Best regards
Erik
Erik - yes of course. The best we have is far better than nothing - in fact very far better; and the contributions of Henry Wilhelm, Mark McCormack-Goodhart and other scientists working in this field - are enormous. The intent of my remark was simply to point out that perhaps there are good reasons not to be TOO hung-up on the notion of precision to the numbers - especially for predictive as opposed to comparative purposes - and be happy that we are no longer in the pre-Epson 2000P era as far as inkjet printing is concerned.
-
In many cases, I think the printer decision is somewhat similar to the camera decision. You buy into a brand and generally stay with that brand. Switching printers is certainly easier than switching camera systems. But there's still a new learning/testing curve to go through.
Epson was the first mainstream pigment ink option for digital printing. I'd guess than many hopped on that bandwagon and have stayed on. Canon and HP were later to the pigment ink game. They had to go through their pigment ink growing pains. If a user was with Epson through its pigment ink growing pains, they may not want to go through it again with another manufacturer. So if they want to switch, they may wait for the 2nd or 3rd generation printers to come out when the other companies have improved their technology.
For a long while HP printers didn't play well with third party papers and the paper selection from HP was fairly poor. For a long while paper manufacturers weren't producing profiles for as many of the Canon and HP printers as they were for Epson.
All the talk of 'print permanence' and 'archival quality' of prints is just that; talk. Colour prints today are lasting far longer than colour prints from film did. The exception may be dye transfer but I'm not sure even those last as long as well made inkjet prints. Black and white prints, similarly, now have ratings that rival or surpass darkroom prints.
Providing any sort of assurance or guarantee of longevity or permanence or (the dreaded word) archivability to a print buyer is a fool's game. It's a contrived notion that the 'art set' came up with to try and justify the ability to sell a new (and for many suspect) product.
-
..............
All the talk of 'print permanence' and 'archival quality' of prints is just that; talk. .........................
Providing any sort of assurance or guarantee of longevity or permanence or (the dreaded word) archivability to a print buyer is a fool's game. It's a contrived notion that the 'art set' came up with to try and justify the ability to sell a new (and for many suspect) product.
Bob, as much as one needs to keep a very open mind about the limits of scientific endeavours, I think this really doesn't do justice to the state-of-the-art that has been achieved in this field and the honest interest of most fine-art print makers to sell to their clients works that buyer and seller hope and expect to have long-lasting value.
-
Epson was the first mainstream pigment ink option for digital printing. I'd guess than many hopped on that bandwagon and have stayed on. Canon and HP were later to the pigment ink game. They had to go through their pigment ink growing pains. If a user was with Epson through its pigment ink growing pains, they may not want to go through it again with another manufacturer. So if they want to switch, they may wait for the 2nd or 3rd generation printers to come out when the other companies have improved their technology.
For a long while HP printers didn't play well with third party papers and the paper selection from HP was fairly poor. For a long while paper manufacturers weren't producing profiles for as many of the Canon and HP printers as they were for Epson.
First water based pigmented inks (GO) were probably used in Novajet models with thermal heads, end of 80's and certainly before Epson introduced the Archival pigment ink in the 10000/9500/7500. HP used black pigment inks in many of its printers, from office to CAD models, all a long way back. The HP Designjet 5000 had a pigment set (UV) choice that tested excellent at Wilhelm 6 years ago. 5000s are still running everywhere and I have not seen horrible stories about their use in practice. The pains suffered by the users of Epsons and pigment inks are not totally gone yet while HP Z model users may complain about anything from software, drive belts to formatters but not about ink/head issues. You are right that users stick to the brand they are used to but it really has nothing to do with other manufacturers being behind in technology.
On third party papers; I can not judge that for the HP's before the Z models but there are no other printer models that make the use of third party media as easy as the Z models. They became available at the end of 2006. The difference is not just the integrated calibration + profiling but also the creation of custom media presets and the support of HP in documents describing their media presets and how to use third party papers in that context.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
All the talk of 'print permanence' and 'archival quality' of prints is just that; talk.
Exactly, Bob. Until it's a hundred years from now, it's all just hearsay.
I do know that my near decade-old Epson inkjet prints are far outlasting my Cibachrome prints displayed under similar conditions.
-
I do know that my near decade-old Epson inkjet prints are far outlasting my Cibachrome prints displayed under similar conditions.
Hmmmm isn't that what the accelerated testing would suggest? Maybe its not just talk.
-
Oh, I'm not suggesting the advances in either printing or testing technology and methodology are bad. Not at all. I'm all for having prints that last as long as possible. I want my buyers to be able to enjoy the prints they purchase for many years.
I tell buyers what ink/paper combination is used in the print. If any overcoating was applied I tell them what it is and why it's used. But I don't provide any guarantees as to longevity. The concept of 'archival' wrt inkjet prints is, in many respects, akin to the equally contrived term 'giclée'. That too is a word that was made up by the 'art set' to replace inkjet because buyers were skeptical of 'inkjet prints' as an art medium.
Far too much time is spent in obfuscation and far too little time being honest with and in educating buyers, gallery operators and others. There is a growing movement to greater honesty about these products but it needs to go futher still. And quoting Wilhelm or Aardenburg longevity numbers (as I've seen some photographers do) is simply another form of that obfuscation because most buyers won't know what those numbers are or what they mean. That's not to denigrate the work of those gentlemen at all. It's a condemnation of the photographers and the 'art set' who continue to toss around these nebulous concepts and words.
I don't really understand the wringing of hands and knashing of teeth over the numbers comparing this paper to that or this inkset to another. The numbers are what they are - estimates - and nothing more; despite the advanced testing methodology. In this very thread there's a blatant disrespect of Wilhem's methodology by one commenter. So are the numbers really all that reliable? Is someone going to switch from HP to Epson if, tomorrow, Epson comes out with a new inkset that is tested to last 25% longer than HP? Not likely. Just as someone isn't going to switch from Canon to Pentax because the latest Pentax Kx5Ds100m has more dynamic range and then switch back when Canon comes out with a product that bests the Pentax and then.......
Buying a printer based solely on the testing data is, in my view, a bad way to decide on a printer. All three of the major manufacturers make products that are, now, able to produce very good prints on a wide variety of media; both in colour and black & white. The fact that we have as much choice as we do is terrific. The fact that we have organisations like Aardenburg and Wilhelm that are doing this type of testing is great. But the bottom line should be that we have the capability to produce colour prints that can last much longer than in the past and b&w prints that can last as long and longer. If a buyer used to buy a Ciba that would last 20 years and can now buy a well made Epson inkjet print that will last 50, does it really matter if Canon's will last 60? Or HP's 80?
The ability, or not, to reprint is a bit of a red herring. Reprints could have been made in the days of film as well. Death doesn't stop reprinting. There are still people producing prints from the film of dead photographers. Arguably, with film, the print made by the photographer (or his/her printer) made a greater difference than it does today. There could be wide variations in a print made by someone other than the original printer with film. It was the completion of the story to make the print. Digital? The greater telling of the story is in the making and editing of the image. Because nothing can be done in the printing process to change it, the print is almost secondary. Anyone can click 'Print'. Proofing is simply a way to get as close a representation in the printed image as onscreen. It's not photographer dependent.
-
I think it depends somewhat on where one is in the market too. If I were selling 8x10 prints for $50 I wouldn't much worry about their longevity. But I am selling 8x10 prints for $400 and the prints to a degree are investments for the collector. So I do get into educating my clients about print longevity-it is part of the marketing and my pride in craft.
-
Exactly, depends on the client and the buyer. I do work for museums and galleries all the time time and they damn sure do care about what the known science is. They would be fools and not doing their jobs if they didn't care.
If seen a lot of my friends type C and Polaroid portfolios turn to crap withing the last 20 years and that stuff isn't coming back.
The bottom end is being taken care of by Walmart and Kinkos so that is not my concern and there is nothing I can do about that even if I wanted to.
Doing ad work that will be trashed in a 6 months is another story as well. (and there is nothing wrong with specializing in that either)
Doing portraits of people who may what them to last as long as a drawing or painting would under similar conditions, to pass down as something to preserve, is another client base factor.
Lumping all this stuff together as one thing, like the manufactures tend to do, is not realistic.
To say a client can just reprint a portfolio or image they have purchased 50 years from now when they don't even have the file or the original materials or the artist around is just silly.
j
I think it depends somewhat on where one is in the market too. If I were selling 8x10 prints for $50 I wouldn't much worry about their longevity. But I am selling 8x10 prints for $400 and the prints to a degree are investments for the collector. So I do get into educating my clients about print longevity-it is part of the marketing and my pride in craft.
-
If seen a lot of my friends type C and Polaroid portfolios turn to crap withing the last 20 years and that stuff isn't coming back.
Yes, it's true. But depending on how bad and other circumstances not all may be lost - it can "come back" - by scanning the original film in the case of the Type C prints, and using digital rescue applications on the Polaroids. Then one would print the new digital files using today's long-lasting inkjet technology.
-
Ernst, I didn't say 'the first' pigment inkjet printer, I said the 'first mainstream' inkjet printer. That would have been the Epson 2200 and the introduction of (I believe) the first Ultrachrome inkset; with all its wonderful flaws. I know the 7500/9500/10000 came out a few years before but price and end user takeup would, to me, not make them 'mainstream'. By 'mainstream' I'm talking widely accessible in terms of availability and price and widely taken up by end users; in this case photographers. Many printers have used pigment black inks for far longer, including desktop document printers.
Kirk, I think that's a bit misleading. Not every photographer can sell an 8x10 for $400 (or more). And there are a variety of reasons for that. Market they work/sell in, how well known they are, etc. But there's no reason the person selling the 8x10 for $50 should care any less about the quality of what they're putting out than the person selling the 8x10 for $400.
-
The first desktop pigment PHOTO printer was the Epson 2000P - if my memory serves me correctly - mid-2000. I was concerned about longevity by the late 1990s when I was scanning film and wanted to make inkjet prints. There was nothing for the desktop but dye-based printers offering nothing more than several years of unfaded prints.
-
Kirk, I think that's a bit misleading. Not every photographer can sell an 8x10 for $400 (or more). And there are a variety of reasons for that. Market they work/sell in, how well known they are, etc. But there's no reason the person selling the 8x10 for $50 should care any less about the quality of what they're putting out than the person selling the 8x10 for $400.
I sell 8x10s of my commercial work for $50. Nobody asks because nobody really cares how long they last. If they last just a few years fine. A $400 investment (and that is nothing in the art world) is still another playing field altogether and buyers always have questions about permanence.
I don't understand your point in this discussion. You seem to be questioning why anyone would wring their hands over this issue and then say everyone should care about it.
BTW The tests have not been completed comparing inkjet papers/inks and traditional B&W photography. The results will be enlightening. And also if you look at the data there are some ink/paper combinations that are terrible and will not outlast C prints. These tests are important. Wilhelm's estimates are exaggerated because they are based on a gross amount of fading that no FA printer in any price range would find acceptable.
-
there are countless examples of photographs that, when they were made seemed utilitarian or artistically meaningless or whatever, that later became historically/culturally significant. This tends to be left out of these discussions, and may be one of the more important arguments for the importance of the topic.
Tyler
-
The first desktop pigment PHOTO printer was the Epson 2000P - if my memory serves me correctly - mid-2000. I was concerned about longevity by the late 1990s when I was scanning film and wanted to make inkjet prints. There was nothing for the desktop but dye-based printers offering nothing more than several years of unfaded prints.
The 2000P was introduced together with the 10000/9500/7500. We were already running 9000's with Mediastreet Generation pigment ink at that time. Not the quality and gamut of today's pigments but way better than the original Epson dye inks of the 9000's. 100 years on Photorag according to Wilhelm. I do not think it would still get that result in the upgraded tests but at least we tried to use the best.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
The 2000P was introduced together with the 10000/9500/7500. We were already running 9000's with Mediastreet Generation pigment ink at that time. Not the quality and gamut of today's pigments ...........
Then again, the 2000P with Epson's own pigmented inks didn't have the gamut of today's Epson inks either - quality has come a long way in a very short period of time.
-
The issue of print/negative permanence has been around ever since the beginning of photography. On only needs to go back and look at how both negative carrier and the chemistry developments progressed since the first glass plates were prepared in the 1800s. One can find lots in the scientific literature of photography on film stock and processing chemicals as concerted efforts were made to improve the stability and permanence (if one can call it that given that we continue to rely on limited data sets). Huge efforts were made by both Kodak and AGFA in the 1920s to improve the reliability of B/W processing and you can find countless developer/fixer combinations that were tested. The development of ink jet printing is really no different but it's fair to say as Mark Segal pointed out in a post, that manufacturers have made huge steps in a relatively short period of time. We do know some of the contributors to image deterioration: UV light, non-conservation mat and framing materials, and pollutants in the air. These are things that can be controlled and it's useful to tell your customers this (e.g., don't hang a $400 print on a wall with lots of direct sun exposure or if you are shipping rolled prints tell them to get it properly matted and framed).
-
Interesting discussion, of course there are several threads about it, and to each their own. My maxim is I'm not going to sacrifice how great a print looks for the next 20 or 30 years just so it might look better in 100 years ... because I just don't think anyone will care then. They do care now.
Interestingly enough there are those who should care about how their work will look down the road, because they really have established some sort of "collectibility" factor, and yet they persist on chromogenic prints (Peter Lik, Rodney Lough are two examples that come to mind).
I always felt this was an interesting read about the subject from a different perspective. If I ever accomplished #1 on the list, I might feel differently.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/06/eight-ways-to-preserve-your-pictures.html
-
No, that's not what I'm saying, Kirk. Not even close. And yes I know there are current ink/paper combinations that don't match up to wet prints. But I'm not going to get into a pointless urinating contest along the lines of 'well these three papers with these three inks....' My point was that we have a plethora of options that can give very high quality prints that should last a very long time. And that when test estimates put the life of those prints at as long as or longer than wet prints then whether one particular combination is expected to last for 200+ years and another is expected to last 300+ years doesn't really matter. None of us here, I'd wager, are going to end up in the permanent collections of the Louvre or the Tate or the MoMa or other similar institutions. So that extra hundred years really doesn't matter because in all probability, what we produce today will likely have been sold in whatever the next century's version of a garage sale is. Some may be arrogant enough to think otherwise but the number of those whose value will be as long lasting as the prints is very, very few.
Of course no 'actual' tests of inkjet prints compared to wet prints have been done because there hasn't been the time for inkjet prints to be tested in real time. But based on the estimates and past knowledge of the life of Cibas or other traditional colour prints it's a reasonable statement to make. Similarly the current estimates of digital b&w prints compared to traditional b&w prints.
Mark, again, I didn't say first.
-
Of course no 'actual' tests of inkjet prints compared to wet prints have been done because there hasn't been the time for inkjet prints to be tested in real time. But based on the estimates and past knowledge of the life of Cibas or other traditional colour prints it's a reasonable statement to make. Similarly the current estimates of digital b&w prints compared to traditional b&w prints.
However, one can do such tests. I have had 12 prints hanging in the hallway of my old office (been retired for 16 months now) for just over three years. They are exposed to light for 12 hours (maybe more depending on the last one out of the office) a day. Visually there appears to be no fading at all (Epson K3 ink with both color and B/W prints on display; papers include Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, Museo Silver Rag, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth). I've taken a couple of identical prints that have been stored in a closed archival box to compare. Although this is not as exact a test as the color patch testing that Aardenburg uses, it does at least give some indication of how prints can stand up in real life situations. Clearly one would want to know a little more about the wavelength and intensity of the lights the prints are exposed to.
From a chemistry point of view, I discount some of the estimates given to B/W prints. A properly fixed and selenium toned silver gelatin print is darn stable and only discoloration of the paper would be expected. Third party carbon black inksets might offer the same level of stability but I suspect the Epson B/W prints using small amounts of colored pigments might not be quite as stable (though it is arguable whether deterioration would be visible or not).
-
Oh sure. I think a decent number of photographers do just that, Alan. I've done similar. But we're still a long way from the 50, 60, 100 or more years that some of the tests indicate for longevity. That was really all I was getting at.
-
Oh sure. I think a decent number of photographers do just that, Alan. I've done similar. But we're still a long way from the 50, 60, 100 or more years that some of the tests indicate for longevity. That was really all I was getting at.
Bob, I think it's fine to approach certain things with *healthy* skepticism - a questioning mind wouldn't do otherwise; but at the same time, with this particular domain, I also think there's a great deal of state-of-the-art science behind the history of work that's been done on this topic, not only by Wilhelm and MMCH, but other serious scientists as well - to the extent that if you think we're so far away from numbers such as 60 to 100 years before *significant* fading shows-up, the onus is on you to explain how you know that notwithstanding the papers that have been published on this subject.
-
The other scientific basis that can be extrapolated from is the use of pigment colors in painting which has an extremely long history. There is a lot of literature regarding what causes color deterioration (and in some cases it is the varnish that was used to overlay the actual painting. We clearly know that pigments are much more color fast than dyes for the most part and in the case of Epson inks we know that yellow is the weak link in their color set (I don't know if this is the same for Canon or HP inks).
I don't have anything hanging in museums and probably never will but I do want those who have my prints hanging in homes and offices to have the best possible print that I can make which means that OBA content has an impact on paper choice. Even though I can reprint, I don't want someone in California complaining to me about OBA burnout three or four years from now (depending on the paper and where the print was hung).
-
None of us here, I'd wager, are going to end up in the permanent collections of the Louvre or the Tate or the MoMa or other similar institutions.
Museums are actually the last place you have to worry about light fading as 99.99% of the time they are stored in complete darkness and only pulled out once or twice in a generation for a show and hung even then in dim light. Very few museums ever hang art that is potentially light sensitive for very long or often. That is why a museum isn't afraid to pay millions for a Gursky C print. What you have to worry about is when they are hanging in homes and offices year after year and perhaps in the case of a home collection passed down with generation after generation in light.
Having said that. For my own pride in craft, I do pay attention to it regardless of the end point. Since long before injet, archival processing and materials has been integral to the art of photography. If I can make a print that is stable for a stressful environment then good environments like museums are well covered. I have nearly 200 prints purchased for and in museum collections (not the Louvre or Tate or MOMA)-the vast majority silver prints, a few Cibas and for the last 6 years inkjet. Not once was I questioned about the archival properties of a print before purchase, because (I think) they assume if you are an accomplished photographer you know what you are doing and use procedures and materials that are archival.
-
Museums are actually the last place you have to worry about light fading
You've missed my point entirely.
Having said that. For my own pride in craft, I do pay attention to it regardless of the end point. Since long before injet, archival processing and materials has been integral to the art of photography. If I can make a print that is stable for a stressful environment then good environments like museums are well covered. I have nearly 200 prints purchased for and in museum collections (not the Louvre or Tate or MOMA)-the vast majority silver prints, a few Cibas and for the last 6 years inkjet. Not once was I questioned about the archival properties of a print before purchase, because (I think) they assume if you are an accomplished photographer you know what you are doing and use procedures and materials that are archival.
I'm not suggesting you don't take pride in your craft or that you shouldn't. What I am saying is that someone who isn't as well known as you or doesn't/can't sell for as high a price as you shouldn't take the same pride in what they produce and sell.
Bob, I think it's fine to approach certain things with *healthy* skepticism - a questioning mind wouldn't do otherwise; but at the same time, with this particular domain, I also think there's a great deal of state-of-the-art science behind the history of work that's been done on this topic, not only by Wilhelm and MMCH, but other serious scientists as well - to the extent that if you think we're so far away from numbers such as 60 to 100 years before *significant* fading shows-up, the onus is on you to explain how you know that notwithstanding the papers that have been published on this subject.
Mark, I'm not questioning the science. I'm not saying now, and haven't anywhere in this discussion, said that we're so far off those numbers. I've said the exact opposite actually. I think the numbers are valid. As valid as they can be based on lab testing. And yes, I think that's pretty damn valid. There's no standardised test though; as is clear by the difference between, as noted in this discussion, Wilhem and Aardenburg numbers. But it's not real world. Lots of things test well in a lab but don't perform up to the test in real world conditions. Medications are one example. But that's getting off topic. Despite all that, I'm still not going to tell someone a print I sell them will last 100+ years. Simply not going to do it. Why? Because, as Kirk rightly points out, we have no idea what happens to that print once it's left our hands. If the buyer decides to reframe it, we have no idea what kind of materials will be used. We may use nothing but conservation grade materials but have no idea what they or their chosen frame shop may use.
What I've been saying in this discussion is that we now have methods and materials that will allow us to make prints that will last as long and/or longer than wet prints. So if longevity is being compared to a traditional wet print, we're already better than that (depending on paper/ink combinations). If we're already better than that, then it matters little whether we're talking about 100+ years or 200+ years. The reason it matters little is despite what Lux noted in his opening about the print 'being around longer than we'll be alive' not mattering and that 'the print needs to be around as long as the buyer is around'; when we're talking century or two century lifespans, I think we're pretty well covered on both fronts. Plus the fact that, as I've pointed out and as, I believe, Wayne pointed out, what the vast majority of us sell is going to be scrapped long before it fades away.
-
Hi,
I see that some art is sold as decoration. That kind of art would hang on display, possibly in intense lighting, but not for very long times (like > 50 years).
Art that is sold to collectors would probably stored in dark conditions, hardly continuos 400 Lux lighting assumed in the aging tests. So I guess that the humble permanence figures for the Epsons actually quite OK.
Best regards
Erik
-
That's not necessarily true. I wish we could control where people display prints but we can't. Unfortunately "collectors", aka, the wealthy people who buy expensive photography, more often than not, in my experience, put them on the wall right beside a big window or under a skylight. They usually have a house full of color work hanging in fairly bright light, and certainly enough to burn out these brightening agents in short order. The issue, as Mark has pointed out a million times, is the it is very common to have much, much greater intensity than 450 lux for short periods of time than it is ever as moderate dosages. Short bursts of real intensity can really quickly damage them, like from here in Atlanta, or California, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, etc, etc. I've seen it happen, and I've seen the C prints and Iris prints go green or red right there in their homes. It isn't a theoretical issue for me, I've seen it first hand. And I've seen friends Epson Ultrachrome prints turn gray in the whites on the old "archival matte" garbage right in the middle of a show in a public space under sky lights, in a couple of weeks. And these were for sale. I also recommend uv glass for any client that is going to have anything in bright light for any period of time. That is the easiest way to cover you self.
john
quote author=ErikKaffehr link=topic=60227.msg486025#msg486025 date=1323897961]
Hi,
I see that some art is sold as decoration. That kind of art would hang on display, possibly in intense lighting, but not for very long times (like > 50 years).
Art that is sold to collectors would probably stored in dark conditions, hardly continuos 400 Lux lighting assumed in the aging tests. So I guess that the humble permanence figures for the Epsons actually quite OK.
Best regards
Erik
[/quote]
-
there are countless examples of photographs that, when they were made seemed utilitarian or artistically meaningless or whatever, that later became historically/culturally significant. This tends to be left out of these discussions, and may be one of the more important arguments for the importance of the topic.
Tyler
Very well said. Thank you Tyler.
Add to historically significant photos, photos that are merely sentimental family photos but having enduring value nonetheless even if only to one's own family. Many are in albums but many are framed and continuously displayed, and still handed down from generation to generation. I'm visiting family in Portland, Oregon this week. I'm surrounded by prints on display that span 5 generations. They are a joy to look at and many are in excellent condition after 25, 50, 75, and even 100 years. They connect me to my family's past and give me a sense of my own place within my family tree. I value very old prints as do many others who care for family photos, and I strive to make prints that will be viewed and appreciated by my great grand children in much the same way. One of the tools I rely on is accelerated testing results to help me make more informed choices about which modern print processes to use, and to evaluate whether the processes I choose will age gracefully or not. I do my best to share my information about print permanence with fellow photographers and printmakers. There are days where it seems to me like no good deed goes unpunished, but every now and then I know I've connected with someone who feels similarly about these matters as I do.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I approach the questions of print longevity with a response that "best current day practise" has been implemented. Whether that be ink onto cotton or baryta papers, or wet process properly bleached/fixed and washed. All handled with care and presented / finished appropriately. Over the years the only prints that have ever been returned to me for attention have been physically damaged RA4 and/or inkjet prints or "completely" faded early days encad dye based prints :'(. That is not to say that there are prints out there that should be returned or reprinted that were initially produced using technology that at the time looked acceptable- ( think early ink or even internegative prints)
It seems that correct print handling, open discussion, appropriate action and a willingness to question and investigate with our own eyes rather than rely on repetitive "web speak" when required will see us through most situations.
-
...Add to historically significant photos, photos that are merely sentimental family photos but having enduring value nonetheless even if only to one's own family...
this significance can't be understated. The importance of my family's photo history to myself and others is huge. I often thought in the rush to digital in it's earlier days, when storage was not given a lot of attention, particularly for the casual user, and prints were all inkjet dyes, that there would later be large gaps in people's personal image history. I find that tragic in a way, my old shoebox with my father's WW2 Alaska basic training days, his photos he sent back to connect, will still be there when another family member's new baby born in 1995, those images may be gone.
Another far more mundane point, the boring assignment photography I made in the 90s for annual reports... worthless now in the marketplace.. are becoming of interest to a local museum that focus on regional industry.
There's no way of knowing how images may become important in the future on a wide variety of levels. It's interesting how a community well aware of this, and keeping some concern alive on some levels, has changed so dramatically and quickly. I don't mean that as a judgment, but it does seem confusing...
Tyler
-
.. It's interesting how a community well aware of this, and keeping some concern alive on some levels, has changed so dramatically and quickly. I don't mean that as a judgment, but it does seem confusing...
Tyler
Yes, digital imaging has radically changed the perception of photographic prints as keepsakes, but not the reality. The hardcopy print may well be more important now than at anytime in the history of photography, because we really don't know how the attrition process of digital files (i.e., loss for all reasons including simply being thrown away) will compare in the long run to the loss of film as the original source content. That said fewer and fewer people share my concern about the importance of human readable hardcopy prints.
Mark
-
Hi!
I understand that some issues may come less from the pigments than from the optical brighteners that may "wear out" under intense illumination.
Best regards
Erik
That's not necessarily true. I wish we could control where people display prints but we can't. Unfortunately "collectors", aka, the wealthy people who buy expensive photography, more often than not, in my experience, put them on the wall right beside a big window or under a skylight. They usually have a house full of color work hanging in fairly bright light, and certainly enough to burn out these brightening agents in short order. The issue, as Mark has pointed out a million times, is the it is very common to have much, much greater intensity than 450 lux for short periods of time than it is ever as moderate dosages. Short bursts of real intensity can really quickly damage them, like from here in Atlanta, or California, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, etc, etc. I've seen it happen, and I've seen the C prints and Iris prints go green or red right there in their homes. It isn't a theoretical issue for me, I've seen it first hand. And I've seen friends Epson Ultrachrome prints turn gray in the whites on the old "archival matte" garbage right in the middle of a show in a public space under sky lights, in a couple of weeks. And these were for sale. I also recommend uv glass for any client that is going to have anything in bright light for any period of time. That is the easiest way to cover you self.
john
quote author=ErikKaffehr link=topic=60227.msg486025#msg486025 date=1323897961]
Hi,
I see that some art is sold as decoration. That kind of art would hang on display, possibly in intense lighting, but not for very long times (like > 50 years).
Art that is sold to collectors would probably stored in dark conditions, hardly continuos 400 Lux lighting assumed in the aging tests. So I guess that the humble permanence figures for the Epsons actually quite OK.
Best regards
Erik
-
<<The hardcopy print may well be more important now than at anytime in the history of photography, because we really don't know how the attrition process of digital files>>>>
Here, here Mark!
That has been my matra for quite a while.
"the best photograph is a print"
"the best camera, is the one you have with you"
-
Hi!
I understand that some issues may come less from the pigments than from the optical brighteners that may "wear out" under intense illumination.
Best regards
Erik
I've had Epson Archival Matte - as it was called then - prints hanging on my fridge door for years. The colours are fine, the OBA gradually faded - evenly- so I now see the underlying paper white. Not a big deal.
-
I've had Epson Archival Matte - as it was called then - prints hanging on my fridge door for years. The colours are fine, the OBA gradually faded - evenly- so I now see the underlying paper white. Not a big deal.
Mark, I'm not sure how long you mean by "for years" but it certainly isn't decades. So your print has changed in a relatively short time. Can you say with certainty that some colours haven't shifted?
While that may be OK with you in this instance but if you had paid a significant amount for a print would you be happy watching your investment deteriorate?
-
Mark, I'm not sure how long you mean by "for years" but it certainly isn't decades. So your print has changed in a relatively short time. Can you say with certainty that some colours haven't shifted?
While that may be OK with you in this instance but if you had paid a significant amount for a print would you be happy watching your investment deteriorate?
OK, years here is three or four. No, I can't say with certainty some colours haven't shifted because I didn't measure specific spots all over the print when I hung it up, nor therefore could I do so now and produce any scientifically valid data. Colour change becomes a problem when you look at a print and it doesn't look right any longer. That happened with prints on the fridge door made a bit earlier with an HP inkjet using non-pigmented inks. It was pretty clear in that case when the prints became unacceptable.
The main point I was making is that the kind of OBA fading I observed simply DID NOT make the print "unacceptable". The presence or absence of the OBA turns out to be no big deal, and the manner in which it faded turned out to be no big deal. If it had faded in a manner leaving uneven blotches - different story, but it didn't happen.
-
Well I have "archival matte" prints all over my studio and they all have deteroirated horribly. Actually I've thrown most of them away by now.
It totally efffects all the light values in a print and changes their color and tonal value, as so the garbage red river "premium" papers the Premiere bright junk papers etc.
This is an issue most of us agreed on about 6 or 7 years ago. Old news.
The major issue is, as my Dad used to say when he was still with us, is that we are living in a "throw away society". That is only accelerating geometrically and the corporations are certainly aware of that fact. With photo being taken over by I phones and toy cameras and the like, not to mention video and the web.
But as long as humans will be around there will be this tiny little segment of the population that will care about longevity of flat art. But it's a small group for sure and getting smaller.
j
-
Truly high quality "archival matte" prints off the desktop became possible with the Epson 4000 back in 2004. I bought that printer when it first became available and it was a huge improvement over the path-breaking 2000P. I have many hundreds of prints made in that printer on "archival matte" paper. Clearly, much depends on how they are stored. My letter-size prints are bound in books (as described in my article on this website) and my larger prints are kept in print storage "Century" boxes. Reading your post, I just wandered over to my shelf and looked through some of those 2004/2005 volumes. They really are fine. The OBA hasn't deteriorated (to judge from the face of the print versus the back) and the colour is just as I remember it being when I made them. As for the stuff on the fridge, well I've explained that. So my experience is clearly different from yours and perhaps leads to some different conclusions, but perhaps much more time needs to go by before we jump to conclusions. Let's revisit this 10 years from now, "inchallah".
-
There is a wide variety of OBA use in papers. The papers that have just enough to make their already good paper white more neutral and the OBAs applied in a way that they last longer have their place in printing. The papers that rely on the OBAs and little else for their paper white, score up to b -11 from neutral and are prone to fading the way they are made, are a xxx* anyway. Most of the profiling done these days is done with UV cut instruments which does not trigger the OBA effect and by that is not taking any OBA influence on the colors into account. Display conditions vary; glass of different qualities, even more illumination varieties, 24 hour changes in illumination. OBAs being more or less effective, colors changing accordingly. That kind of paper whites are prone to fading, both from light and ozone. So print permanence is just one of the reasons to avoid them. There are papers around that have little or no OBA but a high white reflectance and not all of them fall in the expensive category. Several tested well at Aardenburg but more have to be tested. Spending some time and money on a wise selection of papers should not bankrupt a print shop and could do a lot for the public image of this industry. John's excellent "the best photograph is a print" asks for an approach like that.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Looking back through my family photograph archives (which were kept in a messy selection of albums, envelopes, boxes etc) the common factor is that prints survived, but not many negatives did. There is a very patchy representation of the original negatives, which makes those paper prints all the more important. The next noticeable factor is that early colour prints from the 1960s have mostly faded or taken on a magenta cast, where the monochrome ones are fine. And the other thing I notice is that the older monchrome prints are often better than the more recent ones - I have studio work from the early 1900s which is in perfect condition. None of these prints have been particularly cared for, fussed over or curated, but they seem to have made it OK.
If the family snapshot has really migrated to the i-phone and the laptop screen then there is likely to be a massive hole in most folks family records in the future, because the average family PC user generally has no backup stragegy in place whatever.
John
-
Add to historically significant photos, photos that are merely sentimental family photos but having enduring value nonetheless even if only to one's own family.
Ditto! I really enjoyed to see my father in law, born 1930, posing on a big motorbike at age 3 prouder and cooler than James Dean, and photographs of my own family in Tunisia in the thirties and fourties, and stereo glass plates of my grandfather's youth in the beginning of last century...
And these family photos do also show the 60's-70's discoloring syndrome, some barely readable, leaving a few decades much worse documented (including my own early childhood).
So yes, print permanence does matter, even for more casual shots.
I do my best to share my information about print permanence with fellow photographers and printmakers. There are days where it seems to me like no good deed goes unpunished, but every now and then I know I've connected with someone who feels similarly about these matters as I do.
Mark, I really feel we can't thank you enough for your work!
Looking back through my family photograph archives (which were kept in a messy selection of albums, envelopes, boxes etc) the common factor is that prints survived, but not many negatives did.
Yes, and digital files (especially raw files) might share the same fate : anything that is not evidently a photograph is much more at risk, especially once the author is not there anymore to look for it.
It's part of a good conservation job to add meaningful captions to photographs to give them sense, and to present them in a well-looking way to give them value (ie more in a portfolio print box with title or album than in a shoebox).
-
Looking through the various posts, I'm not sure we ever fully answered Luxborealis's three questions, so I'll make a go of it here.
So, this begs three questions:
How much of your decision about which printer to purchase is based on print permanence? Should we collectively be placing more emphasis on it that we have been?
When I choose papers I generally consider several factors not always in this order: 1) price and availability 2) surface finish (i.e, gloss/matte level and texture), 3) media color (cool, neutral, or warm) and brightness/lightness values), 4) Dmax/Lmin, 5) Color gamut with chosen printer and inks 6) media thickness/flexibility 7) any available print permanence data.
Image content plus intended purpose for the final print (i.e, is it going on the family fridge or into a gallery for sale) influence how I weight these factors into my final decision.
Because knowledgeable printmakers can discern the first six factors on their own, meaningful results on print permanence remain the toughest information to obtain. I believe that if print permanence information was more readily available, more printmakers would act on the information.
Are those who use Epson (including myself) at a significant disadvantage? If by recommending Epson, are we putting brand name ahead of the real-life data? Or is print permanence really not an issue? i.e. Is 45 years for Canson Baryta long enough? (99 years under UV filtered glass).
Although both WIR and Aardenburg data suggest that we can rank order HP Vivera pigment inks (both versions) as the most stable on average, Canon Lucia (three versions) second, and Epson Ultrachrome k3/k3vm/HDR (they share a common yellow ink) as third in overall lightfastness, there is significant overlap in system performance when we also factor in what media are chosen. In other words, casually choosing a paper for an HP can sometimes lead to inferior print permanence results compared to wisely choosing a paper for an Epson printer.
Additionally, by the time fine art inkjet prints land in a gallery, the print permanence information is usually applied in very general "catch all" phrases like "archival pigment print on 100% cotton paper". I rarely see the specific printer, ink, and paper combination identified although a discriminating collector might eventually inquire about this information when deciding to buy a print. I've also never seen pigmented inkjet prints identified as pigment-dye hybrid systems which is what they really are when the paper contains OBAs. Hence, I would have to say for all practical purposes you are not at a disadvantage using any of the major OEM pigmented ink sets these days. All that said, I do believe printmakers should be trying to choose printers, inks, and media wisely if they are concerned about print durability, and that's why Aardenburg, WIR, and one or two other labs do what we do.
How much of your decision regarding paper is based on print permanence? I realize that there is more to paper-selection than permanence (e.g. D-max,base colour, etc.; the paper has to suit the photo), but I notice, for e.g. that Canson RC paper has longer permanence (Satin = 88 years) than Rag Photographique (69 years), Platine (53 year) or Baryta (45 years) - three favourites of the print-selling crowd. Obviously, UV filtration makes a huge difference, but overall permanence is still relatively longer with RC.
In my case, I do place considerable emphasis on print permanence in my choice of media when purchasing expensive fine art papers and canvas media. I believe other printmakers would too if they had more access to good information. What I don't do is obsess about longevity ratings expressed in "display years" because the results are at best only crudely relative not absolute. They don't tell us about non linear fade rates, or how the appearance of fade manifests itself as different systems reach noticeable fade levels (e.g., some systems show color balanced fading, others show selective losses in specific colors/tones). Moreover, it's very easy for the informed collector to radically alter the print longevity outcome. Consumers who take these "lifetime" ratings as absolutes are largely ignorant of the environmental control they can exert over the predicted lifetime. The end-user's actual chosen display environment can alter the outcome by three orders of magnitude. Thus, a print rated at 250 years and placed on display in one part of a home may fade faster than a print rated at 25 years if it's displayed in another part of the same house. This is why AaI&A reports exposure dose ratings and not display life ratings. I leave it to the end-user to extrapolate the exposure ratings to display years based on his/her own assessment of the real-world environmental light levels. It's not hard to do, and it is much more informative.
kiind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks, Mark, for addressing the original questions. Although the other discussion was interesting, it did wander a bit off topic!
The questions were posed more for us to think about what we are recommending and why. I love my Epson printer, but am wondering why it came so highly recommended when, given the same paper in high-end Epson and HP printers, the HP comes out way ahead in print permanence.
Perhaps the Epson is:
- better for Dmax?
- better for B&W? or
- better for some other unquantifiable reason
for so many photographers to be unconditionally recommending it. Or is it just the popularity factor since Epson seems to have been the company that led the way in pigment inks.
-
The questions were posed more for us to think about what we are recommending and why. I love my Epson printer, but am wondering why it came so highly recommended when, given the same paper in high-end Epson and HP printers, the HP comes out way ahead in print permanence.
. . . for so many photographers to be unconditionally recommending it. Or is it just the popularity factor since Epson seems to have been the company that led the way in pigment inks.
Terry
I only print B/W. I've tried HP and Canon, but for me the Epson K3 printers using the ABW mode have a "look" which the others just don't have. There's a kind of creamy, more subtle tonal gradation which to my eye is more complex and interesting, and which more closely approaches the quality of a fine chemical print. This being the case, I would rather have this "look" rather than be fussed about the finer points of print permanence.
John
-
Thanks, Mark, for addressing the original questions. Although the other discussion was interesting, it did wander a bit off topic!
The questions were posed more for us to think about what we are recommending and why. I love my Epson printer, but am wondering why it came so highly recommended when, given the same paper in high-end Epson and HP printers, the HP comes out way ahead in print permanence.
Perhaps the Epson is:
- better for Dmax?
- better for B&W? or
- better for some other unquantifiable reason
for so many photographers to be unconditionally recommending it. Or is it just the popularity factor since Epson seems to have been the company that led the way in pigment inks.
Epson was first to the market with widely accessible pigment ink printers. Some will consider these the 2000/4000 models. Personally, I consider the 2200 the first widely accessible and accepted pigment ink printer. Epson came out with newer (and better) models of pigment ink printers before Canon and HP even got into the game. Epson had a huge installed user base ahead of the others. Epsons also produce wonderful prints. The odd complaints about head clogging and/or other foibles aside, Epson produces very fine printers. There's really no mystery why Epson is so often recommended. People generally recommend what they know. With that large, installed user base, people know Epson more than the others.
Canon and HP came later to the pigment ink game. They had to go through their respective pigment ink growing pains, just as Epson did. Unlike with Epson; however, users weren't prepared to go through those growing pains with them on a wide scale basis. They did with Epson because there was no other choice. There was another choice when it was Canon's and HP's turn. As noted further up in the discussion, when HP came out with its good pigment ink printers there was a dearth of OEM paper choices and third party papers didn't work overly well with HP inks. As more paper became available, giving users more options (i.e., from Hahnemuhle), the acceptance of HP (and Canon as more media was produced for its machines) can grow. But there still is a greater media choice for Epson printers than the others; although the gap is narrowing.
All three of the major printer manufacturers now put out machines that are capable of producing high quality, long lasting prints. There really isn't a mistake in choosing any one over the other. Your apparent narrow focus on print longevity is, I believe, misleading as a major factor in printer choice. Selection of media, quality of media and switching costs; both in hard $ and in time to learn a new system - aka soft $ - for those who own another brand, also need to be taken into consideration. By now I'd guess the printer market is fairly mature. Those who want to print themselves have, likely, purchased into a system. The number of new users now is probably fairly small with much of the sales coming from existing users upgrading to newer and/or larger models. Brand choice, in this situation, is sticky.
While we can get into the technical minutiae of dmax, gamut and the like, the question has to be asked how much matters in real world conditions. Are the small differences in dmax going to be overly evident in real world viewing conditions? The colour gamut of a particular inkset may be good for some photos but not others. It's very much image and media dependent. I guess to cover one's bases one each of HP, Canon and Epson should be owned. And wouldn't the manufacturers love that? ;D All three now have multi-black/grey inksets and can produce very good b&w prints. That's the area where there may still be the widest, relatively speaking, difference between them and if one were looking at a printer for just b&w (or mostly b&w) then getting into the minutiae may matter more. But then, really hardcore b&w printers still seem to be converting to third party inks and the extremely hardcore are mixing their own inks. Go back to the 2200 for a minute. One of the big complaints about it was gloss differential. In my experience to see this you had to look at the prints from a very shallow angle, an angle that simply wouldn't be used in real world conditions with a printing hanging behind glass. It's not something that's unique to inkjet prints either. I've got a limited edition press made print that has the opposite problem - higher sheen on the deep blacks. But, again, it's only evident from a very shallow angle.
I'm not saying that the longevity data should be ignored. Not at all. What I am saying is that an overreliance on one particular piece of data isn't the best way to approach the buying decision. As Mark points out, there are many other considerations that all need to be weighed.
-
Bob,
Reading your message I see that single opinion (again) expressed; people that do not select Epson are motivated by the longevity of the prints and compromise on the print technology, image quality, media choices or whatever and feel the related growing pains. I can only write that I and many others do not have to compromise more than we would have with Epson printers. The compromises will not be the same but are in all cases bearable. Most at this side of the fence have used Epson printers or still have Epsons next to the other brand(s) so can judge the differences.
My reply on all your opinions will not be written. We differ in opinion and see the facts in another light, for both of us accepting a compromise on our views is not likely to happen.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Ernst, I'm not saying buyers of Epsons don't make compromises as well. In point of fact I said that, at this point, choosing a printer from any of the three major manufacturers wouldn't be a mistake. I also said all three now make wonderful machines and all three can produce excellent, long lasting prints. We all make compromises. What compromises we may find bearable is an individual choice. My point to Terry is that concentrating solely or largely on print longevity isn't the way to judge a printer. My other points about Canon/HP coming to the pigment ink game later and the lack of papers (in the past) for HP and the stickiness of brand choice wrt switching were trying to explain why Epson has a larger user base still today.
There were problems with the early Epson pigment ink printers, that is true. Users went through a fair amount of frustration with those early machines. But it's also true that those problems had largely been sorted when Canon came out with its first pigment ink printers. And it's also true that, based on reviews, there were frustrations from users. It's also true that, early on, there was a lack of media for HP and HP branded media offered not much choice. But I've also said those issues are now not relevant.
I'm sorry you feel I'm slighting your printer choice. I'm not.
I've been an Epson user for a good number of years. Starting with one 1280 then when I converted it to a third party pigment inkset for b&w I bought a second and converted it to a third party pigment inkset for colour. Then a 2200 and now a 3800. If I were looking for a new printer today would I definitely stick with Epson? Maybe. I'd certainly look at Canon. I'd be less likely to consider HP, although wouldn't rule them out definitively. First because of bad experiences with (non-photographic) HP printers in the past. Second, the company is in flux and the future of many of the business sectors appears uncertain. The second may be resolved at some point. The first can't be. But that's my own personal experience and relates back to the personal decisions/compromises we all make. That doesn't take away from the fact that current models can produce excellent prints. Weighing all of the factors may, note may, trump past experience.
-
Quite a bit of loose talk here about "this side of the fence" (what "side", what "fence") and "compromises" - what "compromises"? Choices usually involve trade-offs, some trade-offs are theoretical while others are tangible; none of this kind of language helps people to understand them or make decisions. History is one thing and current reality may be quite another. While the history is academically interesting, people buying printers today need be concerned about not only what the machines do in the here and now, but what quality of service and support they can expect going forward. For the latter, history can be of some guidance, but that is also a moving target; hence customers need to keep their eyes and ears open in real-time evaluating this factor.