Under the radar?

[Colorwave]

I don't know about others, but overlooked by me over the holidaze was a new report from Wilhelm with revised permanence ratings for the Z3100.  It was released by Wilhelm, without any accompanying press release that I've seen from HP, on December 28th.  Just a couple of weeks earlier, they released a comparable study on the Epson 9880 with what I think may be the first report that includes Vivid Magenta.  That too, seemed to lack any fanfare.

As a HP guy (I've finally gotten used to saying that), I have a vested interest, but only four of the long list of tested papers, all with black and white ink, had better numbers on the Epson side.  Under glass, the Vivera inkset has ratings of 250 years and up across the board.  All of the revised numbers, and ones that were still in testing from the first report are equal or better than the earlier numbers.  The 9880 seems to shine with black and white, and has a couple of papers that top the charts in longevity, but it also has many stocks around or below 100 years for color prints.  Epson and Somerset Velvet lag at the bottom of the list at only (or perhaps, "only") 61 and 62 years respectively.

I realize that Wilhelm's independence and certain aspects of their methodology have come into question by some here on LL, but I think that even the skeptics would have to concede that there is some significance in these numbers.  At the very least, it provides a little more marketing clout for HP and me.  I plan to exploit it just a wee bit.  I have no idea if HP will do the same.  I think that they have failed to differentiate themselves from the pack to date, though.

All of this may just be meaningless to us for practical reasons beyond marketing.  I plan on living a very full life, but these numbers have gotten a little out of hand for me to try to keep up with personally.  I will do my best, of course, and would rather leave a little something lasting behind when I leave than not.  Despite what Wilhelm would like us to believe, though, only time . . will . . tell.

-Ron H.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/Z3100.html


http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/9880.html

[Colorwave]

I should also probably mention that the same day Wilhelm Imaging Research released the HP report they also squeezed out what I think is the first official numbers from them on the Canon Lucia Inkset.  For some reason, Canon printers take much longer than other brands to test.  Could it be the Canon user interface?  Sorry.

Anyway, the Canon report has far fewer papers showing than the other brands, and they have only tested the Canon PIXMA Pro9500 (a 14' wide model).  They have only had a chance to wrap up 4 Canon papers, but the numbers are quite similar to Epson for the ones they have published.  95 and 104 years for color prints and 300 for black and white.  Conspiracy theory fans can speculate about what might be behind the missing numbers.

-Ron H.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_..._2007_12_28.pdf

[Ernst Dinkla]

I should also probably mention that the same day Wilhelm Imaging Research released the HP report they also squeezed out what I think is the first official numbers from them on the Canon Lucia Inkset.  For some reason, Canon printers take much longer than other brands to test.  Could it be the Canon user interface?  Sorry.

Anyway, the Canon report has far fewer papers showing than the other brands, and they have only tested the Canon PIXMA Pro9500 (a 14' wide model).  They have only had a chance to wrap up 4 Canon papers, but the numbers are quite similar to Epson for the ones they have published.  95 and 104 years for color prints and 300 for black and white.  Conspiracy theory fans can speculate about what might be behind the missing numbers.

-Ron H.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_..._2007_12_28.pdf
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For some missing parts especially on ozone fading you could check:


[a href=\"http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/downloads/Haltbarkeit_Papiere-Cofo.pdf]http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...apiere-Cofo.pdf[/url]

http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...5FAPWueller.pdf

http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/


Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

try:

[Colorwave]

Thanks, Ernst.  The third link really distills the differences in print technology.  Pick your vulnerability, light or ozone.  I guess the take away is that I should keep my Crystal Archive prints in album that will last just as long in my sock drawer as in a sealed vault.  My inkjet prints, on the other hand, should be the prints I hang on my wall, but only in a sealed display chamber, err, frame.

It seems that even if ozone is the achilles heel of al inkjet prints, the two major players here, Epson and HP, come out about even in ozone fade tests.  Unlike Wilhelm, though, the results from Digital Kamera show HP at three times the lightfastness rating of the more established Epson.  I wonder if some of this difference, though, can be attributed to such different paper stocks tested in the diferent models?

Ernst, do you think the significant difference in the ozone findings between the two studies indicates shortcomings in Wilhelm's methodology?  They are much more optimistic about the prospects of inkjet prints in fighting ozone degradation than the study you cite.

-Ron H.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Ernst, do you think the significant difference in the ozone findings between the two studies indicates shortcomings in Wilhelm's methodology?  They are much more optimistic about the prospects of inkjet prints in fighting ozone degradation than the study you cite.

-Ron H.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not the conclusion I have after IE's results became available. If you check Wilhelm's published results for several pigment inks you will notice that the ozone tests are "still in test" but they are "still in test" for some years in cases like the Ultrachrome ink while the ozone test for the more recent HP Vivera pigment is already available. IE's tests show that Epson pigment isn't better than HP Vivera pigment on ozone fading. So my conclusion is that Wilhelm should change "still in test" to "still not published" for that ozone testing. That "still in test" shows up on more places than ozone fading and it is not explained by extreme resistance to the test in my opinion.

In general IE's tests will be more harsh or the translation to years is more severe, that isn't a problem as I find enough correlation with Wilhelm results (Crystal versus Cibachrome is an exception but older tests by Wilhelm delivered other results too for the two). One looks for the general picture, what is better in both tests etc. I think IE set a years translation that gave lower results, nobody is waiting for new tests that show the new test lab is less severe than Wilhelm. The fade testing by IE is done at a faster rate too so he may need more tolerance on the extrapolation to years than Wilhelm does with his slower fluorescence tubes testing. The spectra of the lamps differs as well. IE uses 50% humidity though and Wilhelm 60%. The commercial base for a lab that tests faster must be better.

What I find interesting is that the RC inkjet papers show a good ozone protection and IE thinks the life of today's RC paper in general must be around 70 years. For bare exposure, so without framing as tested by IE, the RC papers should last longer than any of the matte art papers if all tests are considered. Framed behind glass the matte papers should last longer. As none of the analogue like fiber or baryte papers are tested yet (Epson's new one will be tested by Wilhelm) one may wonder how well they behave in all tests and whether the RC papers are not better overall outside a frame. If so I would like to know what RC paper comes closest to a matte surface and still deliver a good Dmax. I had my reservations about the Fiber etc papers from day one as I think both fiber and RC are judged on their analogue past and not on today's use in inkjet printing. The fragility of the inkjet fiber paper surfaces is another thing to consider. We have to wait for independent tests though. Harman's web page on the fade testing does not convince me right now.


Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

[Colorwave]

So my conclusion is that Wilhelm should change "still in test" to "still not published" for that ozone testing. That "still in test" shows up on more places than ozone fading and it is not explained by extreme resistance to the test in my opinion.

Ernst-
I think this is the same thing I was alluding to when I said that the Canons seemed difficult to test, based on the speed of releasing findings.  It, unfortunately, is the interface where science meets commerce.

In general IE's tests will be more harsh or the translation to years is more severe, that isn't a problem as I find enough correlation with Wilhelm results

I think the comparative relationships can't be called into question with the degree of correlation in most areas and is probably more important than the numerical values anyway.

. If so I would like to know what RC paper comes closest to a matte surface and still deliver a good Dmax. I had my reservations about the Fiber etc papers from day one as I think both fiber and RC are judged on their analogue past and not on today's use in inkjet printing. The fragility of the inkjet fiber paper surfaces is another thing to consider. We have to wait for independent tests though. Harman's web page on the fade testing does not convince me right now.

I made a couple of test prints on the Harman Matte AL and was not particularly impressed with the d-Max or fragility of the surface, but saw a gorgeous print on it today that was quite rich and not as fragile as mine, either.  It was enough to encourage me to reprofile and test it again.  His profile was made with a base model without APS even.  No other matte inkjet papers have a surface even close to this in terms of smoothness.    

I'm with you, though, in wondering about the veracity of a companies own, in house testing and assurances when it comes to archival ratings.  I look forward to the day when we have at least comparable information about the many papers on the market and their longevity to make fully informed decisions about both printer and paper.

-Ron H.