archival properties - paper ink permanence info

[Paul Roark]

And even if one gets a super-strong pigment, there remain uncertainties about the papers and coatings.  One photo conservation expert opined to me that all laminated or coated substrates ultimately crack or de-laminate.  Along these lines, check out http://www.dp3project.org/preservation#crackinginkjetlight and also the fine work of one of the LuLa contributors at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87926.0 .  A bit off topic, but consistent and reminiscent of what I've seen in old prints while working on a local museum restoration project, see what can happen to our old Kodachromes at https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0ByFh4nr_ip0ITGF3TUh3dU1aTUk&usp=sharing (from the photoconservation@yahoogroups.com).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[dchew]

I've recently adopted ImagePrint for my 7900, at least for b&w prints. I often like a slight warm tone, ~ 65/50 in the narrow gamut tint picker (little more for highlights, less for shadows).

I guess that when I do this, yellow ink being added and my permanence going down hill fast. Is that correct?

Dave

[Stefan Ohlsson]

I've recently adopted ImagePrint for my 7900, at least for b&w prints. I often like a slight warm tone, ~ 65/50 in the narrow gamut tint picker (little more for highlights, less for shadows).

I guess that when I do this, yellow ink being added and my permanence going down hill fast. Is that correct?

Dave

No, when you use a B&W profile (and you do, otherwise you couldn't use the narrow gamut tint picker), you never use the yellow ink. Bring out you loupe (x10 is a good enlargement) and check in a medium gray area. No yellow dots, but if you use Epson ABW you will see that their profiles use yellow ink.

The black inks aren't really neutral black, rather a warm tone black. So when you go for a warmer tone, you just don't use that much of the cyan and magenta inks. This limits the range of warm tones that you can obtain, so when you're choosing the maximum warm tone settings, you use very little or none of the C and M inks.

Best regards

Stefan
http://www.korta.nu/profiler

[dchew]

Thank you Stefan. I did what you suggested on a warm tone print and sure enough can see the cyan and magenta drops; no yellow. Nice to know.

Dave

[deanwork]

Yea the cyan is very stable, and the magenta not bad, it's the yellow that one should avoid.

If you are doing a strong sepia with the Epson inks you can't avoid using yellow, but for moderately warm or warm neutral prints you can.

[dwswager]

How does one reconcile the reported 90-year longevity numbers for Exhibition Fiber with the knowledge that users of this paper report unstable white-point of the paper? Do longevity ratings, from Wilhelm or otherwise, not encompass fade of paper white values?

Wilhelm ratings for Exhibition Fiber with K3 inks is about the best there is at 150 years for bare bulb while Aardenburg Imaging rates it very poorly (membership required).

What this shows is there are vastly different testing methodologies and/or reading of the results.  I have a long history in the nuclear industry with a good understanding of environmental qualification and accelerated aging testing methodologies and limitations.  The real problem is that the effect rarely scales linearly and may have a threshold point below which there is little to no effect.   

[MHMG]

What this shows is there are vastly different testing methodologies and/or reading of the results.  I have a long history in the nuclear industry with a good understanding of environmental qualification and accelerated aging testing methodologies and limitations.  The real problem is that the effect rarely scales linearly and may have a threshold point below which there is little to no effect.    

AaI&A ratings are based on "little or no noticeable" visual changes in image appearance. WIR ratings are based on "easily noticeable" but perhaps tolerable visual appearance changes in the opinion of the typical consumer. AaI&A ratings are thus based on what the vast majority of humans can actually observe to be very subtle "barely noticeable" changes in image appearance, hence the print remains in excellent condition at that point in accumulated light exposure over time.  WIR ratings are based more subjectively on larger and much more easily noticeable changes that some will accept and others will reject at that rated point in time.  Yes, there are also significant differences in the WIR versus AaI&A physical testing methodologies as well, but when all the dust settles, not a fundamental failure in the scientific validity of accelerated aging studies.  Primarily, just a different interpretation of allowable change based on different choices of failure criteria for visually/intellectually acceptable changes in image appearance.


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

[Sal Santamaura]

I just decided to do what Mark has more integrity than to do himself. 

Many of you are aware that Epson has begun delivering its P600 printer

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1091547-REG/epson_c11ce21201_surecolor_p600_inkjet_printer.html,

which uses a new, reportedly improved Ultrachrome HD ink set.  Anyone interested in the longevity of inkjet prints, and that includes everyone who's participated in this thread, realizes that thorough, independent testing is needed to establish a useful estimate of the actual life expectancy prints made with those inks will exhibit.  Mark has plans to perform that testing, but lacks sufficient funding to begin.  I've done my part with an initial contribution, but encourage other to jump in too and help things along financially.  See Mark's latest update on the Aardenburg Imaging & Archives home page:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html

Thanks for any support you provide to this worthwhile project.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Sal. I have just done so.

[deanwork]

One of the key aspects to the Aardenburg website that is way beyond what anyone else is doing for this kind of testing is the comparative color targets examples.

As you scroll down through the accumulated time and exposure to more and more light, you can actually see the the changes in ALL the colors individually as well as the white and black squares representing paper white and dmax. So you see exactly how yellows change, blues, greens, skin tones, etc, etc, from this paper to another paper and ink combination. Even if you don't want to think about years of display, these color target changes tell you a hellofalot.

If you want to see some real interesting comparisons, observe how any of the Fuji Chrystal Archive dyes react over time compared to any of the pigment printers. They go really whacky into totally different colors when regularly exposed to daylight.  Or how the HP pigments fade gradually over time in unison, while other pigment hues can shift quite differently from hue to hue ( yellow compared to cyan for instance in Epson insets, yellowing being in red as well.).

You can view this as a pdf easily and click on and off a layer in that pdf to see the before test, and any of the after exposure tests. It's very informative and I hope all the ink makers are studying it. Same with monochrome.

[Sal Santamaura]

Only $20 to go:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html

Anyone?

[Paul Roark]

Yes, let's keep the good info going as long as we can.

(BTW, anyone have some old 3880 chips they'd like to donate to me so I can set up a 3880 with a B&W inkset?)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[Stefan Ohlsson]

Wilhelm ratings for Exhibition Fiber with K3 inks is about the best there is at 150 years for bare bulb while Aardenburg Imaging rates it very poorly    

When we did a very unscientific test with some of the baryta papers (exposing them in a south-facing window), we saw that the Exhibition Fiber's white areas faded to a rather unpleasant yellow-green hue in a short time. Isn't that one of the reasons that there is a huge difference between the Wilhelm rating and Aardenburg's?

[MHMG]

When we did a very unscientific test with some of the baryta papers (exposing them in a south-facing window), we saw that the Exhibition Fiber's white areas faded to a rather unpleasant yellow-green hue in a short time. Isn't that one of the reasons that there is a huge difference between the Wilhelm rating and Aardenburg's?

The Aardenburg testing methodology and Conservation Display criteria set flags the EEF media white discoloration issue and factors that problem into the overall lightfastness rating.  The WIR testing methodology and WIR 3.0 densitometric criteria set uses fewer color patches and a much more liberal media white discoloration allowance, and this in turn tends to give most modern ink jet  media with OBA fade and/or other media white stablity problems a "free pass" in WIR tests.  I described some of these testing differences in more detail earlier in this thread. I think, hopefully, this link will take you to that comment: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=95330.msg782143#msg782143

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

[MHMG]

Only $20 to go:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html

Anyone?

Thank you Sal, for the bump, and to all who have contributed. We reached (actually exceeded) the initial funding goal yesterday more than likely due to your thoughtful efforts on AaI&A's behalf. I will be updating the AaI&A home page status of the project and ordering the P600 later today. I should have the printer in hand by the end of the week. IT supplies seems to have it in stock with free shipping at the lowest price.

I will be starting round two of the funding effort (applying the excess funds from round 1) in order to expand the number of media that we will ultimately be able to test. For now, I'm going to start with two media, namely Hanemuhle Photo Rag Pearl, and Epson Exhibition WaterColor Paper. HNphPearl is a luster type non RC paper (one of my favorites I keep in stock) that will use the PK black, while EEW is a relatively recently introduced fine art matt paper with some "mould made" texture that will invoke the MK black. I have never tested it before, so I thought it would be a good pick. Both papers are OBA-free, so we should get a better handle on the ink/ink receptor coating performance without comfounding the result with OBA burnout problems.   I will pair the two samples made on the P600 side-by-side two samples with same paper batch but printed on an an Epson 3880.  Although the initial sample size in test will be small until I can build up more funds for testing additional media, this paired-comparison testing approach should begin to reveal by about mid summer whether the new UltraChrome HD ink set substantially outperforms the older K3 ink set with respect to light fade resistance... probably just in time for Epson's new printer model they have been teasing us about lately

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

[Stefan Ohlsson]

The Aardenburg testing methodology and Conservation Display criteria set flags the EEF media white discoloration issue and factors that problem into the overall lightfastness rating.  The WIR testing methodology and WIR 3.0 densitometric criteria set uses fewer color patches and a much more liberal media white discoloration allowance, and this in turn tends to give most modern ink jet  media with OBA fade and/or other media white stablity problems a "free pass" in WIR tests.  I described some of these testing differences in more detail earlier in this thread. I think, hopefully, this link will take you to that comment: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=95330.msg782143#msg782143

I must say that the white point changes makes a huge difference to the print, so to do a fade test that only focus on the changes of the ink is taking just one factor into the equation.

[Stefan Ohlsson]

Although the initial sample size in test will be small until I can build up more funds for testing additional media, this paired-comparison testing approach should begin to reveal by about mid summer whether the new UltraChrome HD ink set substantially outperforms the older K3 ink set with respect to light fade resistance...

Would you like us to send some samples? I can print your test image on a Epson x900 printer and on the P600 at the same time, so that you could do a paired comparison on papers like Platine Fibre Rag.

[MHMG]

I must say that the white point changes makes a huge difference to the print, so to do a fade test that only focus on the changes of the ink is taking just one factor into the equation.

Agreed!! .  Someone on LULA posted a link to a recent article making some WIR testing claims about the new inkset (which BTW I cannot find on the WIR website, but you can read the article here: http://blog.wppionline.com/2015/03/epson-p600-print-permanence/)

According to the article, "Wilhelm was commissioned by Epson to conduct longevity tests on the P600 running Epson’s UltraChrome HD pigmented ink sets. Three of the company’s fine art papers cracked the 200 year mark: Premium Luster, Exhibition Fiber and Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper."

I get a real chuckle out of that 200 year lightfastness rating. The UltraSmooth Fine art, maybe, but no way for the Premium Luster or the EEF. Stefan, please read my comments to your other most recent post for more on this issue.

[Mark D Segal]

Agreed!! .  Someone on LULA posted a link to a recent article making some WIR testing claims about the new inkset (which BTW I cannot find on the WIR website, but you can read the article here: http://blog.wppionline.com/2015/03/epson-p600-print-permanence/)

According to the article, "Wilhelm was commissioned by Epson to conduct longevity tests on the P600 running Epson’s UltraChrome HD pigmented ink sets. Three of the company’s fine art papers cracked the 200 year mark: Premium Luster, Exhibition Fiber and Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper."

I get a real chuckle out of that 200 year lightfastness rating. The UltraSmooth Fine art, maybe, but not no way for the Premium Luster or the EEF. Stefan, please read my comments to your other most recent post for more on this issue.

I read that article, and it mentions that the rating applies to prints under glass. So whatever the value of the rating, it applies only to that condition, and I'd ask Mark MHG to confirm whether with glass the rating proposed (using the WIR standard) in that article could apply for EPLPP and EEFP. That said, it's irrelevant to me because I store my prints in specially made clamshell boxes or books. Perhaps many others use dark storage too, why I mention this. But referring back to the question of what the standard means I think presents a far more fundamental conundrum. If a certain amount of shifting to yellow were included in the standard as "acceptable", I would consider the standard itself and all of these ratings to be useless for any paper that contains FBAs, OBAs, or for that matter any other chemicals that would cause the paper white to shift appearance over "X" number of years. The reason for this position simply is that I select the paper I use and adjust the tonality of my photographs to the appearance I want at the time I am processing the photo. That is the appearance I wish to see preserved, therefore the number of years it will likely remain preserved in that same state is the statistic of interest to me. Anything else is that much less useful.

[MHMG]

Would you like us to send some samples? I can print your test image on a Epson x900 printer and on the P600 at the same time, so that you could do a paired comparison on papers like Platine Fibre Rag.

Stefan, thank you for the offer. Perhaps sometime later this year. There's a couple of factors holding me back at the moment. First, it costs AaI&A about $1200 to conduct a two year 100 megalux hour light fade test on a single sample. I need to raise more funding to add more samples into test at this time.  This cost of a single test light fade test may shock some folks, but rigorous NIST traceable instrumented light fade tests are not cheap. As it is AaI&A has by far the lowest costs in the industry, mainly because I personally subsidize all of the AaI&A tests with a lot (and I mean a lot ) of free labor). Second, I'm currently redesigning the target page to include more replicate targets that I will be using in a more advanced version of the current AaI&A light fade test in  the near future. The test will consist of the the same 30 patch color set, but duplicate samples will be tested, and pulled for dark storage after specific light exposure intervals, then remeasured after various time intervals. These light+dark measurements will then be plotted graphically in the AaI&A test reports along with the measurements made right after exposure and, of course, compared against the control (no light exposure + dark storage) sample.

I came to the conclusion this past year after looking at many of the "retired" light fade test samples, that OBA containing papers have an additional post exposure dark staining problem that all of the testing labs (AaI&A included) have been underreporting. OBA-free samples do not appear to have the problem.  And it's clear to me now that I have to do a better job of letting folks differentiate between papers that appear to test well in direct light fade exposure but then may later increase in media staining when removed from the light and stored in a dark or low intensity storage area.

I'm describing the kind of print permanence research AaI&A does best. I don't believe that manufacturer sponsored fee-for-service testing contracts or licensed product "certifications"  are the way to fund this research for obvious reasons.

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