Is this the Ilford page you were referring to. No mention of printers/inks.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Ilford/WIR_Ilford_2011_07_21.pdf
I looked on the aardenburg-imaging page but they dont list tests for the following -
3880 epson printer with ultrachrome inks (w. vivid M)
- epson exhibition Fiber
- ilford gold fiber silk
(& perhaps canson baryta photographique)
Can anyone point me to documentation or a simple statement of their comparitive longevity
Thax
Thanks for your in-depth reply Ernst.
Admittedly, as a non-expert, much of it goes over my head and I don't find specific col issues (eg yellow) useful for my purpose.
My purpose is to be able to tell someone that receives one of my prints what the expected life of the print is (not exposed to humidity/direct sun) and framed using acid free materials.
I have a 3880 with epson inks and print on currently available (in Toronto) EEF, Iford GFS, or Canson Baryta Photographique
So I was looking to ask a reader if they can point me to relevant (simplified) information.
I'm not disputing anything said but I do find it odd that one cant easily retrieve 'print permanence' info...
...Can we call it archival ? What does archival mean, practically? 20 years, 50 years, 100 years before fading occurs?
Quite correct. I have a friend who does pretty well selling images. He only prints on Epson Exhibition Fiber despite the very high levels of OBAs and fast fading. He likes the paper and is willing to reprint a new version for customers should they become dissatisfied with the print over time. This is all well and good but what happens when he's no longer around?
Also, add the assumed ease of reprinting digital files at will into this discussion, and the majority of today's digital photographers don't seem to be concerned about print longevity as much as they once were. The whole idea of the "archival" print itself thus appears to have entered "the trough of no value"
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
a friend who does pretty well selling images. He only prints on Epson Exhibition Fiber despite the very high levels of OBAs and fast fading.
Alan, would you be willing to ask what he has found out about the EEF. And what longevity/permanence rating he tells his buyers?He doesn't mention anything about this and I don't think the gallery posts anything. Most people who buy prints don't seem to care (this is my experience as well but I don't sell a lot of stuff). I know that the "old" IGFS seems to be pretty stable. I have a dozen or so prints hanging in my former office where they are subjected to pretty harsh lighting. I go back every six months or so and the colors still seem to be holding up well. Same with some prints hanging in several other offices in the area. Epson 3880 prints.
Guestimates, not scientific - epson 3880 printer
canson baryta photographique = 45+ years
reference - http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2012_02_20.pdf
ilford gold fiber silk - 200 yrs & knock off 100 for good measure = 100 years
reference (only hp printer results found, hence halving the result) - http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Ilford/Ilford.html
EEF (epson exhibition fiber) = 90 years
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep3880_2010_04_14.pdf
Do you concur ?
(additional info welcomed)
And while most things are equal between these two, the IGFS has an added disadvantage of the yellows fading 'prematurely'. Or is that purely a function of the epson inks, and will thus be the same with Canson baryta photographique. Canson is apparently minimally warmer.
Do I understand you correctly.
Frank
As stringent as the Aardenburg test methodology is compared to other testing methods, the fact that some systems get scores in excess of 100 megalux hours is testimony to the fact that there are some impressive products out there in the market today. One just has to identify them and use them :)
best,
Mark
Mark, the work you do is remarkable and is extremely important for us. We use it a lot when photographers want to use a paper with high OBA content, or when they are thinking of doing a C-print. One of the prints that we've made were just sold on an auction in London for more than £16,000. If we had printed this on a paper that will fade in less than 25 years, that would undermine the trust in the photographic medium as collectables.
We have sponsored you in the past, and hope to do so in the future as well. I hope that other photographers will do the same.
Best
Stefan
www.profiler.nu
"some systems get scores in excess of 100 megalux hours"
? which ?
Incredible depth of knowledge. Thank you for taking the time and trouble. Unfortunately, it's mostly over my head (not too smart I guess).
After reading the posts, I don't think that I'm a whole lot closer to being able to tell a recipient of my print/s (on any of the 3 mentioned papers) how long it'll last before fading or col shifting. The environmental conditions and the ink/paper and print content issues are just too variable.
Sadly it seems I can't guarantee the print permanence for more than a handful of years. And makes me think I should quit and just send images to a lab for chromira c-prints.
Mark, the work you do is remarkable and is extremely important for us. We use it a lot when photographers want to use a paper with high OBA content, or when they are thinking of doing a C-print. One of the prints that we've made were just sold on an auction in London for more than £16,000. If we had printed this on a paper that will fade in less than 25 years, that would undermine the trust in the photographic medium as collectables.
We have sponsored you in the past, and hope to do so in the future as well. I hope that other photographers will do the same.
Best
Stefan
www.profiler.nu
"some systems get scores in excess of 100 megalux hours"
? which ?
Sadly it seems I can't guarantee the print permanence for more than a handful of years. And makes me think I should quit and just send images to a lab for chromira c-prints.
Mark,But you can look at the patch tests and see which colors fade quickly; this does not require any sophisticated knowledge other than using your eyes. It's always striking when looking at Epson inks how poorly the Yellow performs over time.
I'm sorry to hear that your venture isn't taking off.
If I may throw in my 2c.
What you offer and how the info is disseminated is probably way ahead of the crowd.
What I mean is that only 'experts' like Mark (Segal) and Stefan and Ernst etc really get it.
But in the inkjet printing community the majority of users are probably more like me - ignorant in these matters.
And we look for easily digestible answers.
Sincerely,
Frank
(I offer my website to indicate that although ignorant in these matters, I have been photographing for a long time and am not totally clueless www.frankgross.com)
But you can look at the patch tests and see which colors fade quickly; this does not require any sophisticated knowledge other than using your eyes. It's always striking when looking at Epson inks how poorly the Yellow performs over time.
What you offer and how the info is disseminated is probably way ahead of the crowd.
What I mean is that only 'experts' like Mark (Segal) and Stefan and Ernst etc really get it.
But in the inkjet printing community the majority of users are probably more like me - ignorant in these matters.
And we look for easily digestible answers.
How much time Alan? I have many Epson inkjet prints made 10 to 15 years ago that show no signs of yellow fading.Quote it depends on the paper. I have some prints hanging up in offices in this area that still look good after six years of fairly harsh lighting. On Mark's tests you can see fading at 40 mlux hours with the light flesh tone patch.
Just got back home with my first box of Canson Baryta Photographique and am going to start printing "archival prints that will last decades in a conducive environment" ;D
Off topic -
But if anyone has a 3880 please let me know which paper feed path you use for this media - rear ?
And what paper thickness do you set #4 ?
Gap = Wide?
Advanced Media Control = everything at 0 ? I want the most neutral to cool (EEF) result
Just got back home with my first box of Canson Baryta Photographique and am going to start printing "archival prints that will last decades in a conducive environment" ;D
Thanks.
I have two further questions please - one on and one off-topic:
Re: 'print permanence' -Is there a consensus on framing glass recommendations. It seems that UV glass can trap optical brighteners which is undesirable - correct?
And that acrylic may be a better option than plain glass?
re: printing - do you recommend High Speed ( bi-directional ?) and Finest Detail to be on or off, or if not a universal decision then when would they be on/off?
As a side note I would like to know which papers contain No optical brightners.Our resident expert on OBA content is Ernst Dinkla, but I like Canson Platine Fibre Rag. One of the reasons is that it is OBA free.
As you see in the early part of the thread, i was using EEF which I have now stopped because it appears to use an excess of brightners to get that "look" which I like.
I was deciding between Gold Fibre Silk & Canson Baryta Photographique and settled on the latter for now.
Both do contain some brightners but not as much as EEF
So for this paper which framing glass ?
Stefan, ik use 720ppi plus fin details on as my standard setting. Not just about edge sharpness but also as the smoothest print of tone and nuances. I print from Lightroom which does a very good job of uprezzing.I seldom print anything in smaller sizes that 24 x 36". With a resolution of 720 ppi that gives me a file size of 1.25 GB and a print speed of an ant. In a more normal size of 44 x 36" that is increased to 2.3 GB and my network will have the speed of a glacier, which takes 5000 years from the snow settles on the mountain top until it will be an iceberg.
The EEF (or EU Epson Traditional Fibre) weakest color in Aardenburg-Imaging fade tests is its paper white so any measured ink patch holds better. For all the tested Epson pigment inks, Ultrachrome up to the 3880 ink set, the yellow ink is the worst and that has not changed for printers above 13" width. Check the EEF tests of other Epson models on the paper white and yellow patch I would say.
The IGFS as distributed by Ilford Imaging until its collapse end of 2013 is replaced by a similar quality with a slightly higher white reflectance probably manufactured by Felix Schoeller. Distributor the new Ilford undertaking with Japanese/Aussie interests. There are now two varieties, one that resembles the old IGFS / Canson Baryta Photographique / Innova IFA69 and more brands, the other the new IGFS / Felix Schoeller J23160 True Baryta / Hahnemühle Photo Silk Baryta / MediaJet PhotoArt White Baryta. The last group has the higher white reflectance. Could be that I observe a moving target and all brands will switch to the higher reflectance type but right now older fade tests may no longer describe the papers that are distributed. The IGFS had a reasonable reputation in fade testing, some OBA content though which is also present in the new version.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2014 update, 680+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Following up on this, I've received confirmation from one of the manufacturer's representatives who sought it directly from source that the new IGFS is identical to the old and there are no OBAs in it.which is contradicting as the old had some OBA.
Following up on this, I've received confirmation from one of the manufacturer's representatives who sought it directly from source that the new IGFS is identical to the old and there are no OBAs in it.Why then does the old paper turn blue when I turn on my UV light? Does the representative know what OBA is?
Following up on this, I've received confirmation from one of the manufacturer's representatives who sought it directly from source that the new IGFS is identical to the old and there are no OBAs in it.
Following up on this, I've received confirmation from one of the manufacturer's representatives who sought it directly from source that the new IGFS is identical to the old and there are no OBAs in it.
I just deleted my post in the thread about the two new Baryta papers that Mark reviewed yesterday on the LuLa home site where I commented on the presence/absence of OBAs in IGFS. If it is "true" that there are no OBAs in the 'new' IGFS then the paper is not the same as the old version. As noted din the two posts above, there were OBAs present in that paper. Even so, the paper does seem to be pretty stable in the Aardenburg stability tests.
I just deleted my post in the thread about the two new Baryta papers that Mark reviewed yesterday on the LuLa home site where I commented on the presence/absence of OBAs in IGFS. If it is "true" that there are no OBAs in the 'new' IGFS then the paper is not the same as the old version. As noted din the two posts above, there were OBAs present in that paper. Even so, the paper does seem to be pretty stable in the Aardenburg stability tests.
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?
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?
Thanks Mark. I think that post would be a fitting "finishing touch" on this thread - not that I am trying to stifle any discussion - it's just so very succinct about where the science and commerce stands that it leaves one wondering what more there is to say for addressing the comfort level under current conditions.The one "final touch" that really needs to be done is to move towards an acceptable ISO standard. That way we could have confidence in an accepted approach to permanence. I don't know whether there is a standing group on such things within ISO or one of the other standards organizations (I was a member of ASTM, HL-7, and GS1 during my working career but none of these were involved in photography).
The one "final touch" that really needs to be done is to move towards an acceptable ISO standard. That way we could have confidence in an accepted approach to permanence. I don't know whether there is a standing group on such things within ISO or one of the other standards organizations (I was a member of ASTM, HL-7, and GS1 during my working career but none of these were involved in photography).
Alan
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
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?
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.
Wilhelm ratings for Exhibition Fiber with K3 inks (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep3880_2010_04_14.pdf) is about the best there is at 150 years for bare bulb while Aardenburg Imaging rates it very poorly (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4458ZGxkLzEqNzUzMjAwMDA5OTkwMTM0MjQxLyoxNg==)
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?
Only $20 to go:
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html)
Anyone? :)
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#msg782143I 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.
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.
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!! ;D. 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.
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.
............ 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
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.
...I would, however, add just three observations: (1) exactly because there is no ISO standard...
Yes Mark, that is indeed another approach, but given how difficult it has been to achieve an industry consensus, my mind was wandering in the direction of encouraging variety to live and thrive until the time comes that the various actors decide to converge on the definitions and a methodology.