Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: mearussi on May 15, 2018, 08:24:54 pm
-
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2018_02_16.pdf
As a whole Epson is about 2x better.
-
That link took me to data for CANSON only.
-
That link took me to data for CANSON only.
I guess that's what they've tested so far. But it's not the paper that's important but the ink comparisons between Epson, Canon and HP.
But here's one for Epson on Epson: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Epson_P7000_and_P9000_2018_01_31.pdf
-
What do you mean by "ink comparisons"? I don't understand. And in any longevity testing the paper is very important too.
-
What do you mean by "ink comparisons"? I don't understand. And in any longevity testing the paper is very important too.
Well, using Canson paper they compare the fade resistance of the latest Epson inks vs the latest Canon inks and then the older HP and K3 inks (just scroll down).
-
OK you now added in a link to relevant Epson papers - that's useful for Epson paper. Thanks. I believe this data would also apply to the SC-P5000 because it is the same inkset.
-
OK you now added in a link to relevant Epson papers - that's useful for Epson paper. Thanks. I believe this data would also apply to the SC-P5000 because it is the same inkset.
No doubt it would. What I also find interesting about the first link is the comparison between the new Canon inkset and the older one (page 5), with the older one being more fade resistant.
-
I'm particularly interested in the dark storage ratings - also interesting to see how well the Epson Legacy papers with the HDX inkset do compared to anything else in all that data.
-
No doubt it would. What I also find interesting about the first link is the comparison between the new Canon inkset and the older one (page 5), with the older one being more fade resistant.
That's interesting. It would be useful to see something like that even on Hahnemühle paper. I'm considering to upgrade my ipf8300 to the new pro 4000 but even if is a great machine if the results are these...
-
I would appreciate some help reading that data. I don't understand why the cheap RC paper (Canson premiun lustre) which is obviously loaded with OBAs scored better than the Baryta papers and the Platine.
-
I would appreciate some help reading that data. I don't understand why the cheap RC paper (Canson premiun lustre) which is obviously loaded with OBAs scored better than the Baryta papers and the Platine.
RC is tough paper. But WIR doesn't take into account the color cast resulting from OBA fading. Aardenburg has far more detailed data but is not as well funded so hasn't had a chance to do much testing with Canon's new inkset.
-
RC is tough paper. But WIR doesn't take into account the color cast resulting from OBA fading. Aardenburg has far more detailed data but is not as well funded so hasn't had a chance to do much testing with Canon's new inkset.
Ah! ok! Thanks.
-
Interesting results...
Canson Platine is not doing that well in these measurements...
and indeed the RC's are doing exceptionally well...
-
Interesting that Vivera is still king of the hill, by a long shot. And Canon seems to have gone backwards. Epson is in the right direction.
-
Interesting results...
Canson Platine is not doing that well in these measurements...
and indeed the RC's are doing exceptionally well...
The current WIR testing Protocol especially misranks RC media (indeed any papers that contain both TiO2 and OBAs) for three significant reasons: 1) inadequate weighting of media whitepoint color changes in the overall score, 2) loss of OBA fluorescence artificially propping up the WIR yellow patches fading without accounting for the same yellow shifts adversely affecting other highlight colors (e.g., very light grays, blue skies, etc) not represented in the WIR color test target, and 3) failure to account for further ongoing light-induced media discoloration happening to the test samples in dark storage well after the light exposure test step is finished.
The current Aardenburg testing protocol also misranks RC media scores for reason #3), i.e., failure to account for further ongoing light-induced media discoloration happening to the test samples in dark storage well after the light exposure test step is finished.
The Aardenburg site has been pretty dormant for the last year, because I'm spending as much volunteer time as I can on sorting out this post exposure dark storage staining issue, and incorporating the results into a more expanded test report that will provide additional information on light exposure, dark storage, and combined light/dark storage factors. Ultimately, to distill the results down to a simplified (but not oversimplified) "Conservation Display rating" for each printer/ink/media combination requires an additional year or two of ongoing testing for every paper prone to this type of media discoloration. Fortunately, many of today's media do not exhibit the problem. Unfortunately, many do!
The I* metric used at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives to measure color and tonal accuracy is not at issue here nor is the current Aardenburg 30 patch color target design. The current test target has enough color patches to flag the additional color changes, and the I* metric will correctly weight the changes into the score. What's at issue is the continuing monitoring of the color patch values as light fade test samples are retired to dark storage with pre-existing light exposure doses, and how to present all this additional data in a logically implemented test report. This expanded testing sequence greatly extends the length and complexity of the testing, but I feel it absolutely must be done if printmakers are to be given a more complete and truthful "archival" story about today's modern printers, inks, and media. The printer/ink/media combinations chosen for the Aardenburg Inks and Media testing 2017 (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/portfolio/inks-and-media-testing-2017) campaign will be the first published results to incorporate our "new and improved" test methodology.
RC photo media are going to take a particularly big hit when this improved Aardenburg testing methodology gets published because essentially all of them suffer from additional post exposure dark storage and/or low intensity display yellowing problems.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Mark, well done on the continuing research on the new parameters of color fade testing for photographic prints.
This Wilhelm data just re-enforces HP's vast lead in color permanance. I don't understand how anyone interested in museum permanent images would print with any other inkset. HP has demonstrated early on the superiority of their inkset--neutral balance gray inks with nearly neutral fading color balance.
Sure, Canon and Epson show some "fringe area" color gamut superiority, but how important is that when the whole image will be unacceptably faded within a hundred years compared to HP's nearly 200 years?
While on the subject of fade resistance, I see that Wilhelm has now completed the first tests of dye sublimation prints on aluminum!
http://files8.webydo.com/92/9255329/UploadedFiles/FE072ABF-34FE-7382-F9A1-8F68CB199129.pdf
This might nearly be on par with Epson and Canon!!!
-
This Wilhelm data just re-enforces HP's vast lead in color permanance. ..........
Except this is not quite what the data shows. It depends on which paper and under what conditions. Epson HDX and HP Vivera trade rank depending...........
-
Interesting how the Canson Baryta Prestige (some OBAs) does as well/better than the OBA free Platine.
and that Canson Baryta does (very marginally) better than Platine.
Anyone care to hazard a guess why?
Great to see Epson's new inkset being a big improvement. I'd imagine it's the new long life Yellow that will be the major boost here.
(the 'Prestige' result reminds me of the Harman Gloss Baryta, another paper with some OBAs, that also had very good longevity in both Wilhelm and Aardenberg)
-
Interesting how the Canson Baryta Prestige (some OBAs) does as well/better than the OBA free Platine.
and that Canson Baryta does (very marginally) better than Platine.
Anyone care to hazard a guess why?
Glancing through Marks information on his website as well as his various posts it seems the challenge is the methodology to test changes from OBA "yellowing" is different than how you might test for ink fading. Wilhelm doesn't really account for OBA yellowing in any of there tests. The other challenge I'm hearing is that the yellowing as OBA's lose their ability to function which is supposed to just reveal the natural color of the paper, there's actually a yellowing effect, so the same paper base, one that had no OBA's to start with vs one that did won't necessarily look the same after an extended period of time, but the OBA paper will actually look yellower.
-
The Canon values are terrible - even worse than their first-generation Lucia inks, which, although decent, were still well behind the Lucia EX inks used in the x300/x400 series printers.
Glad I've stayed well clear of this current crop of Canon printers.
The Epson HDX inks look decent on these tests - I'd guess comparable to the Lucia EX inkset as being just behind the HP Vivera inkset, although they didn't test Lucia EX in this series of tests.
I wonder about some of the HP results, though. As a whole the numbers for the HP inkset look better than the HDX inkset on the same patterns, with the exception of the bare bulb tests for the Platine and the Baryta Photographique (even though the 'under glass' and 'UV filter' tests for the same papers showed the HP as being longer lasting than the HDX). I wonder whether this is a real effect or just a statistical anomaly, due to the number being essentially a threshold tests (i.e. 'how many years before x number of patches drops below y benchmark' rather than 'what is the overall rate of fading' - for instance, did the HP bare-bulb rating on those papers quickly drop down to 89 when the threshold was 90, then stay at 89 for a long time, or did it just rapidly and progressively continue to drop).
I guess what this means overall is that I'd still stick to HP Vivera as first preference (until more data comes out on the Z9's Vivid Photo inkset, which doesn't appear to be the same as the Vivid Photo inkset in other HP printers), but would be happy to use HDX just as much as Lucia EX as a second choice should Vivera not be an option (given the printer and media combinations offered by various print companies).
-
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
-
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).
-
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
-
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 Z’s, he specifically told me that Vivid tested much better than Vivera, so we’ll see. Don’t think HP will ever abandon that position of King of the Hill.
Mark
-
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 Z’s, he specifically told me that Vivid tested much better than Vivera, so we’ll see. Don’t 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 (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_Z6200_2017_03_08.pdf)
Z3200 (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/Z3200.html)
Z3100 (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/Z3100.html)
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.
-
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 (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_Z6200_2017_03_08.pdf)
Z3200 (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/Z3200.html)
Z3100 (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/Z3100.html)
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 Hahnemühle 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
-
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
-
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).
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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)
Unfortunately, a fixed reference like a "100 years rating" is only a comparative rating with all factors being equal. My concern about ink fading has nothing to do with whether it will still look good in 100+ years in a best case scenario but with a more of a extreme environment. Having seen so many badly faded prints in commercial environments I just don't want my print to be one of them. So if Epson has a WIR rating 2x that of Canon that tells me that under really bad conditions a Epson print might last 20 years instead of 10.
-
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. ...
My mistake; it turns out, on review of my notes, that I did look at HP blue ink in the formulation of my current blue toner mix. The HP Z3100, with its 12 ink Vivera inkset did/does have a blue ink that I considered. However, at 140 Mlux-hrs on HPR, the blue patch delta-e was 3.8, the cyan 2.5. The Canon Lucia EX results looked better for my uses. My vague memory is that I might have also purchased some and found the hue further to the magenta than the Canon blue. My goal was to reduce that hue angle difference as much as possible, in addition to having the inks fade at the same rates.
My ideal would have been for a single-pigment blue that offset the carbon warmth, but there was none that worked well. In the watercolor field the (Smith?) Indanthrone Blue actually did it, but it is not properly prepared for inkjet use. Nonetheless, I made a test ink with it, printed some test strips, and fade tested the results next to the combined draft blue-cyan inkjet mix. The results did not impress me enough to go further. Additionally, the feedback I received from those with the equipment to prepare the pigment for inkjet use was that the market for it was too small to warrant the investment. So, that ended my search for a single-pigment carbon offset. Staying with the best OEM pigs was the way to go.
I note that in looking at the new HP blue in the "Vivid" inkset, the pigments are ground to a finer particle size. The smaller the particles, the faster they fade, all else being equal. The finer grind is to improve high gloss printing.
There are, of course, lots of shortcuts and assumptions I make in moving forward with my personal inkset formulations. I rely on the best information I can find and do some of my own fade testing as well -- not nearly as sophisticated are Mark's (but better than "rear window"). With time being such a scarce resource, I very pragmatically make decisions with admittedly incomplete information. But when the final neutral inkjet test strip edged out the silver print comparison test strip in the same fade test session, I decided I'd done enough work on the inks to get on with the photography and printing, which is the goal, after all.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
I note that in looking at the new HP blue in the "Vivid" inkset, the pigments are ground to a finer particle size. The smaller the particles, the faster they fade, all else being equal. The finer grind is to improve high gloss printing.
decided I'd done enough work on the inks to get on with the photography and printing, which is the goal, after all.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Based on this document or an MSDS?
https://images10.newegg.com/UploadFilesForNewegg/itemintelligence/HP/Z6200_TechNotable_US1401572815307.pdf
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Ernst,
See http://www.lexjet.com/771-ink-cartridges-for-designjet-z6200-wvivid-photo-ink .
Obviously, I have no way to verify the statement in the above URL. Also, my modifier, "all else being equal," is almost never the case. High quality fade testing is the best evidence, and I have not done that regarding the new HP Vivid inks, with the blue being of most interest to me.
I wish we had a fast and reasonably reliable way to do fade testing, but I don't have such. Interestingly, Bob Zeiss, the founder of MIS inks (long retired), who was a serious and successful engineer, had some procedure using bleach that he felt gave a useful quick test for fade resistance. I'm not sure what his procedure was. I briefly tried bleaching some test strips and did not see results that looked useful to me.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
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’ve always felt we get over concerned about the fading qualities of an image, (and I’m not saying it’s not important), but in reality it’s the survivability of the actual physical print that will be the most likely end of the vast majority of images created today. Looking through history and how difficult it has been to maintain and keep works of art, and how much effort has to be expended to insure their continued survivability, it would seem that unless you attain a high level of fame which makes your work valuable to future generations, most prints will probably meet some untimely demise or just be tossed for lack of interest at some point in the future.
That doesn’t mean as creators we shouldn’t be concerned, and in fact it certainly depends on the type of work that you produce. In my case before I retired from portrait photography I’m guessing there are images which in fact will be held and protected for a long time to come to share with future generations. (unfortunately those photographers are still producing the bulk of their prints using chemical processes, the least stable of all the current output methods). But as a landscape photographer selling out of a gallery, I believe that most of my clients are interested in the image for their immediate gratification and who knows if anyone will be interested in the piece (even them) in 20 or 30 years, or even 100-200 years (if it even survives).
-
Wayne, I must say I have a different perspective on what we may call the philosophy of longevity. In numerous contexts people value the long term survival and quality of imagery. How old are the images in the pyramids of Egypt or in the Caves of Lascaux? Art historians and many others value this heritage because of the insight it provides into the lives of ancient peoples. In 1958 I visited a family in Germany, ex-nobility, whose family heritage was tangible going back 500 years, in a series of many books of family history neatly arranged on a couple of shelves that they were proud to show me. They were relieved this heritage survived the war. Ever since the invention of photography, permanence of the image has been a sought after objective. One of the enduring qualities of photography is supposed to be its endurance, which is very good for properly processed B&W darkroom prints. How often have we regretted older chemical processes for making colour prints, because of their instability and the need for software gymnastics to recover colours that faded at different rates producing a mess. Photographic archives memorializing important world events, how people lived and how various photographers perceived the world from the 1840s onward increase in interest and value as they age, provided they age gracefully. Turning to our family photos - like many people I have an extensive collection and it is growing. They may be of interest to my children and my grandchildren. It's not inconceivable that a grandchild 50 years from now may take an interest in how his/her grandparents lived in their youth. That would cover an inter-generational life span from the 1940s into the 2060s - well over 100 years. So yes, in that case the condition of the family archive matters. It's not vainglorious to think about this - we needn't make any exaggerated assumptions about our own self-importance for the longevity of our prints to *perhaps* mean something to our heirs and successors. So with that in mind, all else equal I'll prefer a paper and inkset promising more stability rather than less. It may not be *the* determinative consideration in what I print with, but it matters.
-
... unless you attain a high level of fame which makes your work valuable to future generations, most prints will probably meet some untimely demise or just be tossed for lack of interest at some point in the future...
Wayne accurately characterizes the fate of my prints.
-
Wayne, I must say I have a different perspective on what we may call the philosophy of longevity.
I’m not sure we are that different. As I stated, I believe many of the images I created of individuals and families in my first 30 years as a photographer will be treasured for decades. In fact I’m old enough now that I have already experienced this on many occasions where someone tells me about treasuring a picture I had taken of their parents or parents family when their parents were small children, or even babies.
Were I a portrait photographer today, I would have a category of higher priced prints that emphasize the longevity of the product, produced on proven paper and probably with an HP printer. While most might not survive, those that do may be very important. I do some genealogy as a hobby and stumbling on a photograph of one of my ancestors from many years ago is always a treat. As I mentioned, I have many people photographers as customers, and because of the price point of C-prints, this still completely dominates this part of the industry in output. My Chromira printer cranks out thousands of prints for portrait and wedding photographers every day, the one area where many of the images produced should be valued for longevity. unfortunately the public in general is partly to blame because their seems to be a universal acceptance of the longevity of digital images, and most assume that if the photographer gives them a DVD or if the images are uploaded to some website, it will serve as a long term repository to preserve the images for future generations.
However, this website seems to be focused more on commercial photographers and landscape/fine art photographers. I’m sure some people photographers lurk here, but I have no illusions of grandeur and feel my “fine art” work isn’t collectible (and my sales staff is forbidden to even infer or discuss this as they sell an image). In fact there are photographers who’s work I think little of that may be approaching being “collectible”, but most of those aren’t about the skill of photography and the images but because they are famous from some non related avenue, such as actor. There are also some notable photographers who have placed themselves in this collectible category, but do so as part of their marketing hype and despite their claims, there work isn’t valued as collectible art based on the resell market and to be honest, I’m doubtful they will actually attain that status they believe they have. It would be interesting to see if 100 years from now anyone actually recognizes the name Peter Lik and if a large amount of his work actually survives, although I believe Ansel Adams has a pretty good chance of being remembered.
Mike Johnston at the Online Photographer wrote an article 8 ways to preserve your pictures (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/06/eight-ways-to-preserve-your-pictures.html) and he presents his case quite well. His first step was to become famous.
I’m not saying we should just blow it off, it is important. but each photographer should evaluate their own priorities and make the decision with some attempt at realism. I stuck with Epson for various reasons and despite the longevity tests felt epson still delivered adequate stability for my work. I like the fact the new Epson inks are better but it wasn’t a factor at all in upgrading, I was more interested in what they did with the black inks. I guess those using Canon now have to ask themselves this same question and resolve their position. I think for most, switching doesn’t make sense, just like I always felt the argument to switch from Epson to Canon because of the tests wasn’t really a major factor in the comparison.
-
Wayne accurately characterizes the fate of my prints.
Most likely mine will end up in a bin of the local Goodwill store priced a few dollars that people will buy for the frame. That is how I get many of my frames...sadly.
-
I’m not sure we are that different. ..............
In light of that expanded explanation you're right, we aren't. And I especially agree with your point about making decisions with some attempt at realism, though sometimes I have to say, looking at realism straight up without no dose of wishful thinking can be cold comfort indeed! :-)
-
Ernst,
I wish we had a fast and reasonably reliable way to do fade testing, but I don't have such. Interestingly, Bob Zeiss, the founder of MIS inks (long retired), who was a serious and successful engineer, had some procedure using bleach that he felt gave a useful quick test for fade resistance. I'm not sure what his procedure was. I briefly tried bleaching some test strips and did not see results that looked useful to me.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
The local linen industry here used wide fields to bleach the fabric.
http://www.eindhoven-in-beeld.nl/picture/show/11564/Tongelresestraat-bleekvelden
http://www.eindhoven-in-beeld.nl/picture/show/31281/De-bleekvelden-van-Elias
That it became an indoors chemical process does not mean the process was 1:1 similar in its effect. The original process had a lot of chemical steps too. A nice description (in Dutch) of it is here: http://www.irenemaas.nl/pages/Bleekerij/Bleeken.htm
Would a hermetically sealed stainless steel box with a bleach like H2O2 liquid at the bottom, patches hanging above from the lid, temperature controlled, small vent inside to create a homogeneous atmosphere, be the answer for a fast indicative test? It is oxidation that is tested, nothing more but I think repeatability could be quite good. Whether the liquid should be renewed after each time interval is something I can not judge, might be enough to use a lot of it and an extra lid to cover the top fast after removing the samples. Ask Bob Zeiss whether it was something like that he used.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Talking about longevity.
Digital images already made certain that originals stay 'forever'.
This makes the longevity of prints less important. Reprints will not be exactly the same but probably enough the same ( if done well in all cases)
That said it is important that print will stay good long enough depending on its purpose.
In that light it is foremost important to make sure the digital original is kept save.
-
Talking about longevity.
Digital images already made certain that originals stay 'forever'.
This makes the longevity of prints less important. .............
Well, actually they don't necessarily and the longevity of prints remains important to those who value longevity. There are serious technical risks to the storage of data that make survival comparable to the stability periods of dark storage reported in the WIR reports, for whatever they are worth, an open contest that paper may well win under putative circumstances we have already witnessed.
-
Talking about longevity.
Digital images already made certain that originals stay 'forever'.
Digital data is only as permanent or forever it the storage technology, hardware and software, is forever. Digital storage technology has a relatively short life, for example we had 81/2" and 5 1/4" floppy disks, then 3 1/2" disks, zip drives, various tape backup formats, etc. all of which are unusable today. Currently we have hard disks (internal and external) which have finite life and need to be backed up to something usually another hard disk. Then we have the cloud but does the cloud is really just another collection of hard disks provided by some company. And some of these companies have already gone out of business to they're not forever.
This just looking at the hardware side of storage. We also need to consider hardware software side needed to recall the stored 0 and 1's and converting them to pictures and then displaying the pictures. I'm not at all sure that the required hardware and software will be around forever.
I feel that if you have a photo that is important (often to you or your family) you need to print it with the the technology that currently provides that longest life.
-
Exactly.
-
...
I feel that if you have a photo that is important (often to you or your family) you need to print it with the the technology that currently provides that longest life.
I totally agree also, but then it takes us to the question of whether the paper is up to the job. Accelerated age testing is considerably more uncertain than accelerated fade testing, from what I can tell (not being an expert). See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_aging
This is admittedly a bit OT, but people interested in fading perhaps should also consider the substrate. While buyers from the gallery I mostly sell through never ask about any of this, the members of my wife's genealogy society definitely have when I've gone to the meetings and given talks. And when it comes to the family photos, those people may be the people to listen to in terms of their concerns.
My concern has mostly been that the "Arrhenius equation" approach, that seems to be used to come up with the results we see, holds the temperature and humidity at a static point, as I understand it, whereas daily and other cycling are closer to reality.
Our inkjet papers are coated substrates, like a laminate. I've been led to believe by people in the conservation field that all laminates ultimately de-laminate. The stresses of differential coefficients of expansion with temperature and humidity ultimately will crack and/or separate the coating.
How certain can we be that our inkjet papers will not do that much sooner than the, typically about 300 years, that the static testing protocols predict?
In my local museum restoration project (I just copied and printed the photos), the surfaces of many old photos were often a mess, with the useful image information I could pull from them via scanning being, apparently, limited by the deterioration of the surface.
Are there any testing results that can provide some information on this issue?
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
There are two considerations: the image used to make a display, and the display itself. I have a large collection of transparencies and I initially, in the 70s) thought that was it for image storage. Along comes affordable digital storage and I scanned them all. When that format is displaced I'll use what ever that is whilst both exist together - and so on.
For display, we have inkjet and tests to tell us the best inks and paper to use. That will eventually be displaced by electronic media,although in the display case I think printed and electronic will share the "display" world for a long time. For the future, electronic display will become cheaper than paper/canvas printing, as is often the case with transformative technology.
-
Are there any testing results that can provide some information on this issue?
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Paul,
In the graphic industry all kinds of tests standards exist for papers used in books, packaging etc but I guess the tests for security papers and banknotes are more suited for the papers we use.
https://www.ugra.ch/en/services/security-printing/
Remains the question who is going to pay for it.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots