Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data  (Read 3191 times)

Paul Roark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 355
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2018, 11:21:34 AM »

It's sad to see the low results for some of those Canon pigments. 

For my "blue" toner in black and white inksets that is an offset for the warm carbon (that is in all but the toner position), I use Canon Lucia EX blue and cyan pigments that still appear available for the iPF-6300.  (See https://www.itsupplies.com/Canon-iPF6300-6350-Ink-Cartridges-s/2600.htm.)  Mark's tests at 140 MLuxHrs showed an equal delta e of 1.9 for the blue and cyan patches of this Canon EX inkset on H. Photo Rag.  With B&W inksets, the trouble some inksets have had is a greenish shift as the colors used to offset the carbon warmth fade at different rates.  Typically, the magenta is way less lightfast than the cyan used.  So, the cyan pulls the Lab A to the left (green) as the magenta fades more quickly.

In addition to relative fade rates, I thought the hue angle between the two colors needed to make the blue was a significant variable.  By keeping it low the two colors are offsetting each other less.  (See page 6 of http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/3880-Eboni-Variable-Tone.pdf.)  This should mean (I think) that less color pigment is needed to pull the carbon warm to neutral.  Also, I would think it would minimize the amount the fade path, ultimately from neutral to warm carbon (the most lightfast of our inkjet printing pigments), would deviate from a straight path, not swinging into green due to the influence of the usually stronger cyan v. magenta.

I've used and been a fan of HP pigments for other purposes, but I don't believe they make a blue pigment.  If I'm wrong here, I hope someone will steer me to that product.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2346
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2018, 10:58:14 PM »

Looks like the new HP uses a blue ink, but there's no data to go on regarding its likely longevity. For all we know, HP could have done a Canon and killed off its longevity advantage in the name of expanding the colour gamut.

Hard to see why, though, since advertisers and other large-volume commercial/advertising/signage printers demanding certain spot colours are all using solvent or latex anyway. May as well leave aqueous for photo and fine art usage, where long-term stability tends to be more important than hitting every single Pantone colour. Either that, or come up with an acid-free, archival solvent print medium (the solvent inks last forever, using the same pigments as aqueous inks, with the added advantage that they're buried deep into the print medium - it's the underlying media that yellow or break down).
Logged

johncustodio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2018, 11:40:43 AM »

Paul,

HP 70 Blue Ink Cartridge (130 ml)
For the Designjet Z3100 24", Z3100 44", Z3100ps GP 24", Z3100ps GP 44", Z3200ps 24", Z3200ps 44", and Z3200 24" Photo Printers
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/504088-REG/HP_Hewlett_Packard_C9458A_HP_70_Blue_Ink.html

By the way, I've been using your Lucia EX Blue/Cyan toner in my Epson 3880 with Piezography K7 Carbon inks for some time now with great results!

-John
Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1290
  • itís not about the photos we take - itís the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2018, 07:50:09 PM »

Looks like the new HP uses a blue ink, but there's no data to go on regarding its likely longevity. For all we know, HP could have done a Canon and killed off its longevity advantage in the name of expanding the colour gamut.

Not likely.  When the worldwide director of marketing and product development for HP Z Series (plus others) was here from Barcelona when we were discussing improvements to the Zís, he specifically told me that Vivid tested much better than Vivera, so weíll see.  Donít think HP will ever abandon that position of King of the Hill.

Mark
Logged
Mark Lindquist
z3200.com, MarkLindquistPhotography

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2346
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2018, 10:09:17 PM »

Not likely.  When the worldwide director of marketing and product development for HP Z Series (plus others) was here from Barcelona when we were discussing improvements to the Zís, he specifically told me that Vivid tested much better than Vivera, so weíll see.  Donít think HP will ever abandon that position of King of the Hill.

Mark

That's good to know.

The results on Wilhelm, using the Z6200 (also using Vivid inks, but a different set that uses LM/LC/LG and no variable dot size) don't look so promising.
Z6200
Z3200
Z3100

The one direct comparison between the two inksets is with HP Professional Matte Canvas. Wilhelm gives it 150 years under a bare bulb with Vivera, but only 99 years with Vivid. They also give it >230 years in dark storage with Vivera, but only 134 years with Vivid. The Z9+ obviously uses a slightly different inkset, though - it would be useful to know if the Z6200's deficiency in longevity is due solely to the light inks (which aren't used in the Z9+) or due to underperformance of the other inks.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2018, 11:42:29 PM »

That's good to know.

The results on Wilhelm, using the Z6200 (also using Vivid inks, but a different set that uses LM/LC/LG and no variable dot size) don't look so promising.
Z6200
Z3200
Z3100

The one direct comparison between the two inksets is with HP Professional Matte Canvas. Wilhelm gives it 150 years under a bare bulb with Vivera, but only 99 years with Vivid. They also give it >230 years in dark storage with Vivera, but only 134 years with Vivid.

Those dark storage test results raise a red flag. The WIR Album dark storage test is a thermal aging test based on the Arrhenius equation. It is essentially designed as a media yellowing test (and is so stated in the WIR reports). The discrepancy in these thermal testing results have nothing to do with the HP inks. One can only speculate that the HP Pro Matte Canvas is inconsistent from batch to batch, or substantive media property changes occurred from the time of the Z3100/Z3200 tests to the newer Z6200 testing, and/or the WIR dark storage testing is not very repeatable. Without further information from WIR, it's impossible to say.

Also, if media formulation changes were made, but the name remained the same (a sad industry-wide practice that does happen from time to time), then the light fade test results are not directly comparable with respect to the inherent ink fade resistance, either.

regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3670
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2018, 02:55:25 AM »

Paul,

HP 70 Blue Ink Cartridge (130 ml)
For the Designjet Z3100 24", Z3100 44", Z3100ps GP 24", Z3100ps GP 44", Z3200ps 24", Z3200ps 44", and Z3200 24" Photo Printers
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/504088-REG/HP_Hewlett_Packard_C9458A_HP_70_Blue_Ink.html

By the way, I've been using your Lucia EX Blue/Cyan toner in my Epson 3880 with Piezography K7 Carbon inks for some time now with great results!

-John

I guess that Paul finds that ink hue too violet for the purpose.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2346
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2018, 03:29:53 AM »

Those dark storage test results raise a red flag. The WIR Album dark storage test is a thermal aging test based on the Arrhenius equation. It is essentially designed as a media yellowing test (and is so stated in the WIR reports). The discrepancy in these thermal testing results have nothing to do with the HP inks. One can only speculate that the HP Pro Matte Canvas is inconsistent from batch to batch, or substantive media property changes occurred from the time of the Z3100/Z3200 tests to the newer Z6200 testing, and/or the WIR dark storage testing is not very repeatable. Without further information from WIR, it's impossible to say.

Also, if media formulation changes were made, but the name remained the same (a sad industry-wide practice that does happen from time to time), then the light fade test results are not directly comparable with respect to the inherent ink fade resistance, either.

regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Didn't know that the Wilhelm dark storage tests were done on unprinted paper, rather than printed samples - the notes accompanying the test results don't really make that clear.

If the test results aren't comparable, then I guess what we need is a quick-and-rough, qualitative test (e.g. the 'car window' test) as soon as the printer comes out, that will give us a rough idea of how it compares to Vivera (as well as Lucia EX and Ultrachrome HDX) so that we can buy printers and start printing before the 1-2 years it takes for quantitative results to come out. Just make prints on a few different media with each printer, put them side-by-side in the same environment and see which one fades fastest. Two to three months in the Australian sun during summer should be quite indicative already.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3670
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2018, 03:44:27 AM »

Those dark storage test results raise a red flag. The WIR Album dark storage test is a thermal aging test based on the Arrhenius equation. It is essentially designed as a media yellowing test (and is so stated in the WIR reports). The discrepancy in these thermal testing results have nothing to do with the HP inks. One can only speculate that the HP Pro Matte Canvas is inconsistent from batch to batch, or substantive media property changes occurred from the time of the Z3100/Z3200 tests to the newer Z6200 testing, and/or the WIR dark storage testing is not very repeatable. Without further information from WIR, it's impossible to say.

Also, if media formulation changes were made, but the name remained the same (a sad industry-wide practice that does happen from time to time), then the light fade test results are not directly comparable with respect to the inherent ink fade resistance, either.

regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

The HP wide format waterbased media distribution was transferred to BMG Brand Management Group in 2014.
http://www.dpnlive.com/news/print-news/the-americas/1780-hp-extends-deal-with-bmg
Since then some media have changed in properties like the Matte Litho-Realistic paper. This must have been years after the WIR Z6200 test started as the Z6200 was introduced in 2010 and WIR testing usually started before the introduction of a Designjet. It is more to illustrate that media can change in properties but keep its name. My gut feeling is that canvas is more prone to that than other media. I think HahnemŁhle is one of the more consistent paper manufacturers, there are illustrious names that have a less consistent production over time.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2018, 08:03:55 AM »


If the test results aren't comparable, then I guess what we need is a quick-and-rough, qualitative test (e.g. the 'car window' test) as soon as the printer comes out, that will give us a rough idea of how it compares to Vivera (as well as Lucia EX and Ultrachrome HDX) so that we can buy printers and start printing before the 1-2 years it takes for quantitative results to come out. Just make prints on a few different media with each printer, put them side-by-side in the same environment and see which one fades fastest. Two to three months in the Australian sun during summer should be quite indicative already.

If only it was that easy ::). For example, how much time (and perhaps money) do you think it would take you to cajole various printer resellers or custom print studios into making the closely matched set of prints of a specific image target necessary to run such a "car window" test? Especially when any given dealer or print lab isn't likely to have all the printer models and corresponding ink sets you'd like to see tested in a head-to-head comparison.

For several years, Aardenburg Imaging ran an open source testing model for the fine art print making community, thereby allowing endusers to submit samples of systems they wanted to see tested. Notwithstanding the funding required to make this research program truly sustainable, all prints had to be made to Aardenburg specifications. Often that effort involved Aardenburg having to build custom ICC profiles and resolve other printing issues with the submitting Aardenburg Member in order to achieve the required print consistency in the target samples. This approach did work conceptually quite well, and it achieved the desired goal of being able to test a lot of interesting printer/ink/media combinations that would likely never have been funded by any manufacturer.  However, it was incredibly time consuming for me to manage this effort, and I finally concluded that buying new printer models and making print samples in house at Aardenburg Imaging was the only way I could continue with any more testing..."car window" approach or otherwise!

Another advantage of bringing the printers in house is that Aardenburg now has a small but growing collection of printers. Thus, we are already in a position to make the Epson HD, Canon Lucia EX, Canon Lucia Pro, and Vivera pigment samples. Now saving pennies for the new Z9 and an Epson HDX model so that we can actually conduct the direct comparison ink study you are proposing...only fully instrumented and environmentally controlled rather than uncontrolled window testing.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 08:44:46 AM by MHMG »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2346
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2018, 09:58:35 AM »

If only it was that easy ::). For example, how much time (and perhaps money) do you think it would take you to cajole various printer resellers or custom print studios into making the closely matched set of prints of a specific image target necessary to run such a "car window" test? Especially when any given dealer or print lab isn't likely to have all the printer models and corresponding ink sets you'd like to see tested in a head-to-head comparison.

For several years, Aardenburg Imaging ran an open source testing model for the fine art print making community, thereby allowing endusers to submit samples of systems they wanted to see tested. Notwithstanding the funding required to make this research program truly sustainable, all prints had to be made to Aardenburg specifications. Often that effort involved Aardenburg having to build custom ICC profiles and resolve other printing issues with the submitting Aardenburg Member in order to achieve the required print consistency in the target samples. This approach did work conceptually quite well, and it achieved the desired goal of being able to test a lot of interesting printer/ink/media combinations that would likely never have been funded by any manufacturer.  However, it was incredibly time consuming for me to manage this effort, and I finally concluded that buying new printer models and making print samples in house at Aardenburg Imaging was the only way I could continue with any more testing..."car window" approach or otherwise!

Another advantage of bringing the printers in house is that Aardenburg now has a small but growing collection of printers. Thus, we are already in a position to make the Epson HD, Canon Lucia EX, Canon Lucia Pro, and Vivera pigment samples. Now saving pennies for the new Z9 and an Epson HDX model so that we can actually conduct the direct comparison ink study you are proposing...only fully instrumented and environmentally controlled rather than uncontrolled window testing.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Certainly, doing a proper, quantitative test takes a lot of time and money. A window test is in no way comparable - like the difference between shooting with a Canon or Nikon 500mm f/4 lens set to f/8 and taking the same shot with a 50-year-old, no-brand 500/8 mirror lens.

But the mirror lens still gets you a picture, and the cheap 'n' cheerful test does give you some information, and has its advantages in a new product. For proper tests, it often takes 1-3 years from date of product release to get proper results. If you're looking to buy a new printer, you want it now - you don't want to wait 1-3 years to find out that the printer you bought won't give you the longevity you're after. Small differences are hard/impossible to judge, but big discrepancies show up relatively quickly - you can see the difference between Ultrachrome K3 and Vivera in about six weeks on some papers.

If, three months after a product's release, you can clearly say that Vivid outperforms Lucia Pro, that's useful in itself. If you can say, after four or five months in the sun, that it clearly outperforms HDX or Vivera, that's also useful information. The exact degree to which it outperforms, and any papers which show discrepancies, are very useful, and will come later with the formal tests, but you then have enough information to make a purchase decision, without waiting the 2-3 years for the formal results to come out.

A window test between the Canon Pro-1000, Canon ipf8300, Epson P7000 and Epson P10000 may have been rather informative, potentially showing up the longevity deficiency in the Lucia Pro inkset two years earlier than the recent Wilhelm results and steering buyers in a different direction (towards an older Canon, a newer Epson or towards HP).
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11365
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2018, 10:15:49 AM »

I agree that people interested in the longevity of new inks and papers want early signals in aid of a purchasing decision. That is why the companies who want to be serious about this should  have such considerations at the forefront of their policy and research regarding inks and papers and the corresponding testing procedures in place well before the products are released to the market. The earliest sensible time prerelease would seem to me to be the really right time for the work of WIR and Aardenburg to be undertaken. From all I've read,I don't believe this is a domain for consumers to be doing unreliable and unscientific home testing; we can if we want, but by then we've bought the stuff, no?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2018, 03:16:44 PM »

Certainly, doing a proper, quantitative test takes a lot of time and money. A window test is in no way comparable

Shadowblade, I think you missed one of the central points in my earlier post, namely that procuring high quality and directly comparable test samples on a variety of different printers and media is also very time consuming and expensive as well, especially if you have to buy the printer models you want to see tested or convince manufacturers or dealers to give you "loaner" models, or rely on others to make the samples.  Even if you are willing to buy the printer(s), there's still a tremendous amount of hard work to be done up front before you can put your samples in the window with confidence that the outcome will be in some way relevant :).

Aardenburg has already done the heavy lifting necessary to conduct an instrumented light fastness evaluation which in conjunction with the I* metric (an open source tone and color reproduction accuracy metric) objectively quantifies the visual changes taking place in the test samples at any stage of fading. Indeed, it takes less time to objectively quantify the results than if we had to visually rank the results using typically less reliable human subjective evaluation methods... which is what most artists' "taped in the window" tests typically entail.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

Roscolo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 687
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2018, 03:42:20 PM »

Numbers from the Canon Lucia ink are outstanding, and equal HP Vivera numbers in dark storage category. Glad I passed on the new, not so "improved" Canon pro 4000 and instead purchased on of the last remaining ipf8400's to add to my ipf8300's and HPz3100. My experience with Epson's being problematic clog monsters means I eliminated them as options long ago.

The actual improved Canon series will likely be the next generation after the pro 4000.

The adage about never being an early adopter unless you want to be a guinea pig holds true.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2346
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2018, 04:43:00 PM »

Numbers from the Canon Lucia ink are outstanding, and equal HP Vivera numbers in dark storage category. Glad I passed on the new, not so "improved" Canon pro 4000 and instead purchased on of the last remaining ipf8400's to add to my ipf8300's and HPz3100. My experience with Epson's being problematic clog monsters means I eliminated them as options long ago.

The actual improved Canon series will likely be the next generation after the pro 4000.

The adage about never being an early adopter unless you want to be a guinea pig holds true.

The numbers there are from the original Lucia (5100/6100/8100) series, not the Lucia EX (which is an improvement in every way). And, apparently, the dark storage numbers don't tell you anything at all about the ink, being a measure of the paper instead.
Logged

Roscolo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 687
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2018, 05:33:08 PM »

The numbers there are from the original Lucia (5100/6100/8100) series, not the Lucia EX (which is an improvement in every way).

Even better!
Logged

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 476
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2018, 07:44:29 PM »

When we talk about fade in terms of years, such as 125, 180, or even 250 years, is that not a mildly vainglorious discussion.  It's my guess most here will not be around in 50 years.  It's unrealistic to think that in 100 years the methods of display will be anything like what we use today.  It maybe that colorants and substrates will all be replaced by electronic paper and colors continually regenerated - who knows.
I think it might be more realistic to pick a number, say, "100 A-years". Meaning still sound color using Ardenberg methodology 100 years from test.  Ink and ink/paper combinations could then be defined as having a 100 A years rating.   Above 100 years is just fanciful, even less probably.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2018, 08:56:31 PM »


I think it might be more realistic to pick a number, say, "100 A-years". Meaning still sound color using Ardenberg methodology 100 years from test.  Ink and ink/paper combinations could then be defined as having a 100 A years rating.   Above 100 years is just fanciful, even less probably.

Quite correct. The "A-years rating" you have in mind is what Aardenburg actually publishes when it publishes its Conservation Display ratings. Only the rating is called "Megalux hours" not A-years. Actual years to invoke noticeable fading depend linearly on the illumination level in the location where a print is displayed. So, a print rated by Wilhelm Imaging as lasting 100 years at 450 lux for 12 hours per day average illumination takes 200 megalux hours of light exposure to reach the WIR criterion for allowable fade, and it can even last 200 years at WIR's assumed faded print quality expectation when you lower the average 12 hours daily illumination level assumption to 225 lux, or 400 years if you lower the assumed light level to 112 lux, or only 50 years if you raise the assumed light level to 900 lux, or 25 years if you choose 1800 lux, etc. etc. That said, and as noted in these examples, Megalux hours precisely translates to a corresponding "years on display" rating when you choose 225 lux as your 12 hour per day illumination goal (very easy to achieve in practice). Or, as one more relatively extreme yet real world example of illumination dependence on time to reach specified fade level, the print can only last 10 years if full sun routinely hits that same print at a glancing angle through a window thus raising the daily 12 hour intensity to 4500 average lux (10x the WIR assumed fade rate). But the 200 megalux hour exposure dose needed to cause the predicted amount of fade remains the same in each and every one of these "predicted years of life" extrapolations.

Hence, "years on display" predictions using only one underlying and often overlooked assumption of illumination levels are grossly misleading, whereas referring directly to an allowable megalux hour exposure dose removes this very real world illumination variability from the published rating.  And for the record, these figures I have provided as examples here are not just hypothetical. They represent real world illumination conditions where photographs and other works of art often get displayed on a routine basis when located in non museum environments. Even most museums don't always adhere to a one-size-fits-all illumination level for museum lighting.

As for 100 years of actual "print life" on display being a fanciful expectation, I beg to disagree. Again, 100 years is achieved by a print process with a 100 megalux hour light exposure rating if you assume 225 years or less average daily illumination for 12 hours per day. And it's not not hard to keep images nicely illuminated on display at 225 average lux intensity or less over a 12 hour daily period.  Moreover, there are indeed numerous printer, ink, media combinations I have tested which exceed the 100 megalux hour rating. Then again, there are many which fall far short.

Likewise, I have many traditional photographs handed down in my family that are near or even past the 100 year lifetime mark. Many of them were nicely framed at the outset and kept essentially on continuous display, albeit most likely well under that 225 lux/12 hour per day lighting level. Some look like they were made yesterday! Others show some patina of age, but still in very good condition. The badly faded ones are problematic at best. I really admire the photos in great condition! They are amazing to look at without having to resort to costly and time-consuming digital or physical restoration methods, and they capture not only a bygone era but the style and interpretation of photography and photographic printing from that earlier era as well.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 03:46:37 PM by MHMG »
Logged

Roscolo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 687
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2018, 11:48:02 PM »

When we talk about fade in terms of years, such as 125, 180, or even 250 years, is that not a mildly vainglorious discussion.  It's my guess most here will not be around in 50 years.  It's unrealistic to think that in 100 years the methods of display will be anything like what we use today.  It maybe that colorants and substrates will all be replaced by electronic paper and colors continually regenerated - who knows.
I think it might be more realistic to pick a number, say, "100 A-years". Meaning still sound color using Ardenberg methodology 100 years from test.  Ink and ink/paper combinations could then be defined as having a 100 A years rating.   Above 100 years is just fanciful, even less probably.

Absolutely. In my experience, the factors that result in fading or damage to a photograph, print, or artwork, usually have more to do with the conditions in which it is stored or presented than anything to do with the fade properties of inks, pigments or materials.

Logged

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 476
Re: WIR finally released new Canon and Epson fade data
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2018, 08:54:50 PM »

I'm not doubting the test results, I'm a huge believer in MMG's work and the experience behind his results.  What I am saying is that future technology will make inkjet obsolete.  It's not hard to imagine sheets of paper-like substrates with embedded electronics creating an image using flicker free high frequency images. This is almost here now in B&W. There will probably be machines that take rolls and expertise will be needed for a good final product.

(I take MMG's point about 100 year old B&W prints kept by our families, and any print done now with a fade free life of 100 years will clearly be of family value for many more years than that. But my guess is that long before 100 years they would have done what I've done and scanned and re-printed using new technology)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up