Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: mearussi on July 01, 2018, 01:01:16 pm

Title: HP wins again
Post by: mearussi on July 01, 2018, 01:01:16 pm
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_Print_Permanence_Statement_for_HP_DesignJet_Z6_and_Z9+_Printers_2018-05-15.pdf
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 01, 2018, 05:07:43 pm
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_Print_Permanence_Statement_for_HP_DesignJet_Z6_and_Z9+_Printers_2018-05-15.pdf

And right below that announcement on the WIR Homepage is this:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/HP_Light_Fade_Testing_Methods_at_HP_Image_Permanence_Labs_and_Wilhelm_Imaging_Research_August_2017.pdf

WIR continues to double down on its thoroughly obsolete densitometric testing protocol with HP, Epson, and other notable clients' tacit approval, and many "experts" out there still don't seem to get it... Oh well...it is what it is ::)
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 01, 2018, 07:01:58 pm
'Grocery stores... airports...". ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: deanwork on July 01, 2018, 07:12:10 pm
Next exhibition I have in a grocery store I’ll let every one know how stable my prints really are.

If you look at Wilhelm’s test results with HP Z pigments on Canson media or Epson’s new pigments on Canson or their own media, he’s got better ratings, often much better ratings for the cheap rc media which is loaded with dye brighteners, than he has for the very best Canson cotton media with no dye brighteners as well as other very high quality media from other manufacturers with either very small amounts of oba or none at all.

Having tiny little unreadable text at the bottom of his charts warning people to avoid these brighteners while at the same time publishing these totally false figures borders on fraud to me. I don’t take his operation seriously anymore. Apparently it is all about who pays him the most cash to write these dumb statements that drives it all now. You can tell your clients whatever you want but that doesn’t make it true.




And right below that announcement on the WIR Homepage is this:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/HP_Light_Fade_Testing_Methods_at_HP_Image_Permanence_Labs_and_Wilhelm_Imaging_Research_August_2017.pdf

WIR continues to double down on its thoroughly obsolete densitometric testing protocol with HP, Epson, and other notable clients' tacit approval, and many "experts" out there still don't seem to get it... Oh well...it is what it is ::)
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: enduser on July 01, 2018, 08:22:23 pm
None of the labs I've worked in would ever have considered the phrase "As long as possible" to have any real meaning.  Might as well say "pretty good" or "OK", or "Not bad".
The whole business of launching these new printers has been marred by sending out poor sample prints and the use of what you could describe as "comfort speak"
But the HP people do seem to have a point of difference in the fade area.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 01, 2018, 08:57:18 pm

But the HP people do seem to have a point of difference in the fade area.

I think HP does, too, which is why my personal "go to" WF inkjet printer today is the HP Z3200PS. However, media are increasingly becoming the weak link, and no testing lab currently understands all the microporous Inkjet media weaknesses very well (including Aardenburg Imaging, but I'm hard at work on it). The most stable OEM inks on a poorly performing media can yield overall worse results than less lightfast OEM inks on a highly compatible paper (third party inks are another story).

All that said, if WIR insists on using an obsolete densitometric testing protocol that can't even measure color the way human observers see it due to different metameric properties of the image forming colorants, and also misranks light fade resistance of the inks on various media, and also cuts like a meat cleaver through the subtle but very real and noticeable differences in media whitepoint stability, then the published system ratings (printer/ink/media scores) become fraught with a demonstrably false level of precision and accuracy.

Read what Deanwork just wrote. It's spot on :)

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: deanwork on July 02, 2018, 09:59:04 am
I love that term “comfort speak”. We need to start using it all the time when discussing these issues.

Which begs the question - is Wilhelm a scientist in any respect? He sure talks like he is one. What is his training in sensotrometry, chemistry, and the composition of photographic materials?

He is talked about as the global expert in digital media yet all I know is that he started out making archival print washers and selling them in the Whole Earth Catalogue in the 1970s which is where he got his reputation it seems.  Who actually designed this methodology he uses?



None of the labs I've worked in would ever have considered the phrase "As long as possible" to have any real meaning.  Might as well say "pretty good" or "OK", or "Not bad".
The whole business of launching these new printers has been marred by sending out poor sample prints and the use of what you could describe as "comfort speak"
But the HP people do seem to have a point of difference in the fade area.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 02, 2018, 12:45:26 pm
Henry Wilhelm is indeed an expert in the field. I have no quarrel with Henry's credentials, and I respect his technical knowledge greatly. I still consider Henry my friend.

The problem for modern print longevity testing is that densitometry, and the WIR 3.0 densitometric criteria set are both totally obsolete in today's modern digital world of multi-color channel printing. First, densitometers cannot accurately account for the spectral properties of many modern colorants. It's the whole metamerism issue only worse because even specifying the illuminant doesn't fix a densitometer's misreading of the colors. Second, the fading characteristics of modern systems can deviate dramatically from the visual fading pattern of traditional color photos for which the WIR 3.0 criteria set was empirically designed. Henry is keenly aware of these issues.

This technical challenge on how to measure print fading the way human observers notice it over time excited me as a researcher, and so I began collaborating with Henry in the late 1990s... It was blue sky research when we first started working on it. The industry simply didn't have a workable color and tonal accuracy equation to turn to as the market moved towards inkjet photo printing. Moving from densitometry to Delta E or dE2000 wasn't the answer, either, because dE doesn't track the critical visual parameter of image contrast nor does dE weight hue and chroma perception in complex scenes correctly.

The work product of our collaboration was the I* metric, a set of perceptually linear color and tonal accuracy equations using CIELAB as the underlying color model. It can objectively and fairly measure any color printing system, regardless of the color technology employed.  The I* metric can even be used to evaluate paintings and other 2d works of art on paper as well. Although I invented the I* mathematics, our two respective companies (WIR and McCG, Inc) both funded the work, and Henry's moral support and general enthusiasm for the project really helped keep it on track. I will always be grateful for that.

By the end of 2004 I was confident that the I* math was working correctly and from first principles. It was not empirically derived by some focus group or committee.  I'm very proud of the I* research, and I fully expected WIR to embrace the I* metric and begin phasing it into its operation in 2005, but for reasons still unknown to me to this day, it never happened.

Hence, I founded Aardenburg Imaging & Archives in 2007, and began using the I* metric myself. It's open source. Anyone can use it, and I really thought there might be some interest from the graphic arts industry as well. The I* metric can evaluate initial color and tonal accuracy between any two images or prints. They don't have to be faded :) Yet to this day, no other researchers have ever bothered to ask me about it. Go figure.

I look forward to one day testing the new HP Z9+ inkset using the I* metric and the Aardenburg testing protocol. That said, I think it's going to be while.

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


I love that term “comfort speak”. We need to start using it all the time when discussing these issues.

Which begs the question - is Wilhelm a scientist in any respect? He sure talks like he is one. What is his training in sensotrometry, chemistry, and the composition of photographic materials?

He is talked about as the global expert in digital media yet all I know is that he started out making archival print washers and selling them in the Whole Earth Catalogue in the 1970s which is where he got his reputation it seems.  Who actually designed this methodology he uses?
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: Mark Lindquist on July 02, 2018, 03:12:28 pm
Henry Wilhelm is indeed an expert in the field. I have no quarrel with Henry's credentials, and I respect his technical knowledge greatly. I still consider Henry my friend.

The problem for modern print longevity testing is that densitometry, and the WIR 3.0 densitometric criteria set are both totally obsolete in today's modern digital world of multi-color channel printing. First, densitometers cannot accurately account for the spectral properties of many modern colorants. It's the whole metamerism issue only worse because even specifying the illuminant doesn't fix a densitometer's misreading of the colors. Second, the fading characteristics of modern systems can deviate dramatically from the visual fading pattern of traditional color photos for which the WIR 3.0 criteria set was empirically designed. Henry is keenly aware of these issues.

This technical challenge on how to measure print fading the way human observers notice it over time excited me as a researcher, and so I began collaborating with Henry in the late 1990s... It was blue sky research when we first started working on it. The industry simply didn't have a workable color and tonal accuracy equation to turn to as the market moved towards inkjet photo printing. Moving from densitometry to Delta E or dE2000 wasn't the answer, either, because dE doesn't track the critical visual parameter of image contrast nor does dE weight hue and chroma perception in complex scenes correctly.

The work product of our collaboration was the I* metric, a set of perceptually linear color and tonal accuracy equations using CIELAB as the underlying color model. It can objectively and fairly measure any color printing system, regardless of the color technology employed.  The I* metric can even be used to evaluate paintings and other 2d works of art on paper as well. Although I invented the I* mathematics, our two respective companies (WIR and McCG, Inc) both funded the work, and Henry's moral support and general enthusiasm for the project really helped keep it on track. I will always be grateful for that.

By the end of 2004 I was confident that the I* math was working correctly and from first principles. It was not empirically derived by some focus group or committee.  I'm very proud of the I* research, and I fully expected WIR to embrace the I* metric and begin phasing it into its operation in 2005, but for reasons still unknown to me to this day, it never happened.

Hence, I founded Aardenburg Imaging & Archives in 2007, and began using the I* metric myself. It's open source. Anyone can use it, and I really thought there might be some interest from the graphic arts industry as well. The I* metric can evaluate initial color and tonal accuracy between any two images or prints. They don't have to be faded :) Yet to this day, no other researchers have ever bothered to ask me about it. Go figure.

I look forward to one day testing the new HP Z9+ inkset using the I* metric and the Aardenburg testing protocol. That said, I think it's going to be while.

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

I admire your integrity of adhering to your friendship with Mr. Wilhelm, while at the same time being able to discuss business ethical standards.  After all you are both colleagues and you both worked together on the superior method of measurement (I*).  Also, if I remember correctly, the reason the densitometric approach is still in use is because of all absurd things, that it was Loooooong ago approved by the ISO standards committee and that I* has not been because of funding requirements and that research needed to be conducted in an academic setting in order to be approved by ISO?

So in many ways, even though Wilhelm is aware of and appreciates I*, he is in fact hamstrung by ISO standards and I* remains in limbo because of this dilema.  This appears an awkward situation because there is no "officially accepted, approved" method by which to make pronouncements, when in fact, the entire densitometric process is so outdated as to be obsolete. It does not surprise me that companies leverage this reality to incorrectly inform their customers, and make outrageous claims on longevity in the face of the lack of updated or current standards that are "approved".

Marketing has ever been thus.  And although Wilhelm knowingly participates in this "corporate illusion", there is little else he can do while at the same time staying in business.  It all seems like a CATCH 22 to me.  Unfortunately, now, ALL the companies have lost credibility, by allowing this chicanery to continue. 

It is a shame that Aardenburg is caught in the middle of this, particularly in light of the ethical stance of not accepting funding from the big 3 corporations to conduct studies. While your ethics are laudable, it does nothing for Aardenburg's bottom line, which is additionally eroded by slipping signifiers which prevail in the industry relating to the terms longevity, archival, permanence, etc. Apparently, the market reality is beyond what "real" photographers can any more trust, and is also far beyond what we most all can now even stomach.

Business bottom line trumps photography party line as gradually not only our prints fade, but so does our standard as time marches on.

Eventually, who will become the arbiters of these standards when both Wilhelm and Aardenburg are no more?

Our viewpoints will become moot, yet the proof will be in the pudding and the eating thereof, when in a hundred years, two hundred years, which images, in fact, will retain the integrity being bragged about currently.  There will be no disputes about which company made which claims, as probably current technology will be entirely obfuscated by advances.

All this being said, after being one the few lone voices in the wilderness for a very long time regarding Vivera inks and Z series printers, I am really glad I bought the last of my 4 Z Series printers, while I could, (with 5 year Care Pack) and hope to print the heck out of them while ink still remains available.

I don't care what they say about the new printers. The Z3200ps fits my kurmedgeonly style well.

Mark L
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 02, 2018, 05:10:03 pm
...
So in many ways, even though Wilhelm is aware of and appreciates I*, he is in fact hamstrung by ISO standards and I* remains in limbo because of this dilema.  This appears an awkward situation because there is no "officially accepted, approved" method by which to make pronouncements, when in fact, the entire densitometric process is so outdated as to be obsolete. It does not surprise me that companies leverage this reality to incorrectly inform their customers, and make outrageous claims on longevity in the face of the lack of updated or current standards that are "approved".

Marketing has ever been thus.  And although Wilhelm knowingly participates in this "corporate illusion", there is little else he can do while at the same time staying in business.  It all seems like a CATCH 22 to me.  Unfortunately, now, ALL the companies have lost credibility, by allowing this chicanery to continue... 

Mark L

I think you've probably got that right.  It's all good until Dorothy's dog, Toto, runs behind the curtain to reveal the real Wizard of OZ. He still turns out to be a nice guy :)
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: enduser on July 02, 2018, 08:23:25 pm
We began making pictures on walls in caves and on rocks with pigments, then on paper-like substrates with brushes or anything that would lay down color. Then engraving was replaced by b&w photography which led to color photo on paper and now inkjet on paper. 

Does anyone share my belief that the next step will be electronic media? In a way that has happened in shopping places where static and moving electronic images are everywhere you look. I think the image will move to some form of electronic paper. Many people are working now to perfect something similar to an image on a paper-like electronic film.

Our printers will only be in museums then and a color picture will perhaps outlast any conventional print.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 02, 2018, 08:46:52 pm

Does anyone share my belief that the next step will be electronic media? In a way that has happened in shopping places where static and moving electronic images are everywhere you look.


I guess you mean electronic displays, and sure, that trend is indeed already happening. It will continue unabated for many years ahead with both reflective and transmissive screens. The permanence and fine art issues will change to questions like  "Can I use a Sharpie to sign my electronic display and how long will it last?" :)

I will still be making physical prints. and teaching my grandchildren inkjet printing and film processing if any of them care to learn!
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 02, 2018, 09:05:12 pm
Does anyone share my belief that the next step will be electronic media? In a way that has happened in shopping places where static and moving electronic images are everywhere you look. I think the image will move to some form of electronic paper. Many people are working now to perfect something similar to an image on a paper-like electronic film.

Our printers will only be in museums then and a color picture will perhaps outlast any conventional print.

Agreed... I predicted the same 9 years ago... :)

https://luminous-landscape.com/image-disembodiment/

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: deanwork on July 02, 2018, 09:29:30 pm
My opinion is all of these things are happening simultaneously. As far as the majority of “art photography” being shared its already Instagram. And I’m even talking about people with MFAs in Photography on their 60’s, as well as kids in their 20’s.

But at the same time there is a real resurgence in making digital negatives for 19th century process. Jon Cones business is having kind of a jump start it seems with people ordering his system all over the world. I’m having people in two states asking me to teach a workshop on digital aspects of alternative process and I’ve been testing several methods this month of doing it. It’s gotten me actually excited about hand made photography ( and chance) again.

A few years ago I thought HD flat panels were going to take over still photography in the gallery / museum context. It’s not happening anywhere I’m aware of. My feeling is it’s just too cold of an art form and nobody is buying that kind of tv art. People can see that online streamed to their tv for free. And if you are in that realm anyway why not shoot 4 k video with sound that technology is available everywhere now. Once again who is buying video art, even in San Francisco? 20 years ago Bill Gates bought the digital rights to all kinds of artists’ archives, like Ansel Adams, etc. Everyone was going to be looking at still visual art at home on their hd flat panels. Seems quaint now. Never happened.




I guess you mean electronic displays, and sure, that trend is indeed already happening. It will continue unabated for many years ahead with both reflective and transmissive screens. The permanence and fine art issues will change to questions like  "Can I use a Sharpie to sign my electronic display and how long will it last?" :)

I will still be making physical prints. and teaching my grandchildren inkjet printing and film processing if any of them care to learn!
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: John Nollendorfs on July 03, 2018, 01:32:56 pm
I still think an image is not a photograph until you make a print! HP's ink system has clearly demonstrated superiority when it comes fade resistance. But I believe most of our prints  will end up in landfills before the image has faded.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: deanwork on July 03, 2018, 03:09:52 pm
Not mine. They will end up under people’s beds.



I still think an image is not a photograph until you make a print! HP's ink system has clearly demonstrated superiority when it comes fade resistance. But I believe most of our prints  will end up in landfills before the image has faded.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 03, 2018, 07:02:57 pm
Not mine. They will end up under people’s beds.

Believe it or not, that's where one of Alexander Gardner's priceless Imperial glass plate negatives of Abraham Lincoln was found... decades later in a wooden box under the bed at his Granddaughter's home. It's now in the stewardship of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC!  So, John, you might be doing remarkably well if some of your work ends up being discovered under a bed someday ;D It means somebody cares at least enough to know it shouldn't be thrown away, and that simple act may eventually inspire others to care for it even more!

Not to beat the horse, but that's where the material choices of the artist/printmaker comes into play. Choosing one's printmaking materials wisely will help to ensure a photograph gets through what Mike Johnston (The Online Photographer (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html)) likes to call the "trough of no value".  And when it does, people might just value it more than ever for any number of reasons that may not be so obvious today. You never know.

For us modern day inkjet printmakers, that's where inks and media really do matter. I'm looking forward to seeing how HP chemists and engineers have addressed the ink/media longevity questions with the new Z9 printer model. Until then, I'm happy to keep soldiering on with my Z3200.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: mearussi on July 03, 2018, 09:36:28 pm
We like to bandy around longevity numbers as if they were somehow absolute, but they're not, the numbers are meant to be comparative. We can say that the new Epson ink will last for 100-200 years depending on paper and display/storage conditions but we really have no way of actually knowing.

I can't speak for others, but my reason to care about fade resistance has nothing to do with whether my prints last for the next two centuries (my ego just isn't that big  ;)). It's just that I have seen so many badly faded prints in offices that, to me as a photographer who sells his prints, are an embarrassment to the profession as a whole and gives all of us a bad name and reputation, whether it's our photo or not, and I just don't want my print to be one of them. 

When I sell a print I have to assume it will be abused, either by too much light or indoor pollution, so I strive to print using the best OEM ink I can afford and then apply either a varnish spray or a roll on coating (if it's canvas) knowing that even this may not be sufficient, but it's the best I can do.

I'm not saying fade resistance is the only criteria, or even the most important one, but it's certainly in the top three along with color quality and smoothness of tonal transitions in determining which printer to use. But every time I see a post about someone asking how cheaply they can print using some 3rd party ink that will fade in a few years it's like fingernails on a blackboard, especially when they say they plan on selling prints using these inks, because I know when their prints fade in a few years (or less) that it will give the entire profession a bad name.

People generalize (and customers are people) so when they buy a cheap print from photographer A that fades fast you can't blame them for assuming that all the other photographer's prints could fade just as fast. How would they know? How can anyone know, even another photographer, given that the cheap 3rd party ink looks as good as OEM when initially printed?

There is no print certification system available or any objective way of assigning a FR (fade resistance) rating to one. We just don't enough test information even if we combined all of Mark and Wilhelm's test data, because their focus is on measuring the fading not in preventing it. The best I've been able to peruse from their combined sites is to use the best inks and then apply some some sort of protective coating to it (Eco Print Shield seems to be the best tested).

But until some sort of rating is available (if ever) the best we can do is to try to uphold high quality standards for ourselves and hope the good quality prints on the market out number the bad. 
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 04, 2018, 03:44:29 pm

I can't speak for others, but my reason to care about fade resistance has nothing to do with whether my prints last for the next two centuries (my ego just isn't that big  ;)). It's just that I have seen so many badly faded prints in offices that, to me as a photographer who sells his prints, are an embarrassment to the profession as a whole and gives all of us a bad name and reputation, whether it's our photo or not, and I just don't want my print to be one of them. 

When I sell a print I have to assume it will be abused, either by too much light or indoor pollution, so I strive to print using the best OEM ink I can afford and then apply either a varnish spray or a roll on coating (if it's canvas) knowing that even this may not be sufficient, but it's the best I can do.

I'm not saying fade resistance is the only criteria, or even the most important one, but it's certainly in the top three along with color quality and smoothness of tonal transitions in determining which printer to use. But every time I see a post about someone asking how cheaply they can print using some 3rd party ink that will fade in a few years it's like fingernails on a blackboard, especially when they say they plan on selling prints using these inks, because I know when their prints fade in a few years (or less) that it will give the entire profession a bad name.


A very thoughtful comment, and one that I have not really considered before you mentioned it.  Thanks for that.


There is no print certification system available or any objective way of assigning a FR (fade resistance) rating to one. We just don't [have] enough test information even if we combined all of Mark and Wilhelm's test data, because their focus is on measuring the fading not in preventing it. The best I've been able to peruse from their combined sites is to use the best inks and then apply some some sort of protective coating to it (Eco Print Shield seems to be the best tested).


This is what troubles me the most in my research on print permanence. The independent labs simply aren't getting the necessary funding to test enough print process combinations (printer/ink/media) in order to motivate the manufacturers to make stronger and more steady progress. If you can't measure it, you can't prevent it. The I* metric can measure it very accurately, but without the funds to test a more comprehensive range of materials, that measuring sophistication may very well be a moot point.

The printer and media manufacturers in turn tend to count on this slow moving train so as not to have to ramp up R&D on image permanence beyond a basic minimal level. Inks matter, media matters, coatings matter, and absolutely no inkjet printer/ink/media processes behave like other traditional photographic processes which means print permanence research still matters.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 04, 2018, 05:41:53 pm
A very thoughtful comment, and one that I have not really considered before you mentioned it.  Thanks for that.

This is what troubles me the most in my research on print permanence. The independent labs simply aren't getting the necessary funding to test enough print process combinations (printer/ink/media) in order to motivate the manufacturers to make stronger and more steady progress. If you can't measure it, you can't prevent it. The I* metric can measure it very accurately, but without the funds to test a more comprehensive range of materials, that measuring sophistication may very well be a moot point.

The printer and media manufacturers in turn tend to count on this slow moving train so as not to have to ramp up R&D on image permanence beyond a basic minimal level. Inks matter, media matters, coatings matter, and absolutely no inkjet printer/ink/media processes behave like other traditional photographic processes which means print permanence research still matters.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
The other major problem is that without manufacturer input there will never be a common standard and way to measure it.  Standards organizations require input from all parties to arrive at a consensus standard that can then be used by all (during my work career I was involved with both ASTM and USP).  this is the biggest failing IMO.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 04, 2018, 06:13:00 pm
The other major problem is that without manufacturer input there will never be a common standard and way to measure it.  Standards organizations require input from all parties to arrive at a consensus standard that can then be used by all (during my work career I was involved with both ASTM and USP).  this is the biggest failing IMO.

After more than a decade with literally no contact from any of the major printer or media manufacturers, a major printer manufacturer has recently expressed serious interest in the Aardenburg testing protocol and the I* metric. The dialogue is currently ongoing, but Aardenburg's policies haven't changed. i.e., no cherry picking of the test results, no vendor control over the publishing venue. And much to my surprise, it hasn't scared this manufacturer away. Time will tell.

cheers,
Mark
Http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 04, 2018, 06:48:19 pm
The other major problem is that without manufacturer input there will never be a common standard and way to measure it.  Standards organizations require input from all parties to arrive at a consensus standard that can then be used by all (during my work career I was involved with both ASTM and USP).  this is the biggest failing IMO.

I may be very cynical here, but I believe that most printers have very poor fading resistance. Here we are talking about the pigment high end ones with overall good performance, but if a standard were defined, it seems obvious that it would be applied to all printers, even those that would have extremely poor results.

I am not sure that the Epson and Canon of this world think that their business would benefit from having to write on their spec sheets that the prints produced by 99% of their printers fade within a year...  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 04, 2018, 07:19:19 pm

I am not sure that the Epson and Canon of this world think that their business would benefit from having to write on their spec sheets that the prints produced by 99% of their printers fade within a year...  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard

Fading within a year is indeed still present in the market place, but cheap third party ink only unless environmental conditions are truly extreme. Even color prints made with low cost traditional wet process photofinishing will easily exceed that 1 year mark under typical indoor environmental conditions.

The irony here is that all of the major OEM printer manufacturers currently produce aqueous pigmented inksets which can achieve 100+ megalux hour ratings on carefully chosen media using the strict Aardenburg "little or no noticeable fading" Conservation Display Rating criteria set as the judge of the test. HP may well achieve it on a wider variety of media, Epson less so, and Canon perhaps now in last place, but with lots of statistical overlap due to ink/media compatibility issues. Yet with wise media choices all can get there.

IMHO, a 100+ megalux hour Conservation Display rating from Aardenburg Imaging & Archives is the goal when assessing lightfastness performance. It qualifies 100 years of continuous display at light levels (225 lux or less for 12 hours per day) that any print owners with common sense can easily achieve. And hence, with even more controlled management of time on display, museums and archives can also preserve these materials for centuries. If the prints don't hold up well over time, chances are something other than exposure to light is the source of the degradation.

The battle front has now clearly shifted to media yellowing from various mechanisms including heat, light, and gas pollution, but without testing, the total printer/ink/media combined performance cannot be assessed.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: mearussi on July 04, 2018, 07:44:05 pm
The other major problem is that without manufacturer input there will never be a common standard and way to measure it.  Standards organizations require input from all parties to arrive at a consensus standard that can then be used by all (during my work career I was involved with both ASTM and USP).  this is the biggest failing IMO.
I was not thinking of an "official" universal Fade Resistance standard accepted by international organizations but more of a unofficial standard we print makers could use among ourselves as a guide in how to maximize our print life.

For instance, if a chart existed that had a listing of all inks and the most commonly used several dozen papers and canvases in conjunction with the various coatings and mountings, anyone could just look up their combination used and see where it ranked with the approximate fade rate.

It's true that generating the initial data set would be a huge, expensive and initially time consuming undertaking, but once done would be very simple to use. So if I'm using an Epson P4000 on Hahnemuhle Cezanne canvas coated with Eco Print Shield I'd be able to look that up and see what its fade resistance rating is and put that rating on the certificate I'd give to the buyer. This would create a decent standard that any printer could use and we wouldn't need the approval of any organization to do so. Using the rating would be voluntary and the info freely available.

Mark would have a better idea than anyone else how much it would cost, but I do wonder if this were presented in a Crowdfunding way the donations might come in.

Just a thought. 
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 04, 2018, 08:22:52 pm

Mark would have a better idea than anyone else how much it would cost, but I do wonder if this were presented in a Crowdfunding way the donations might come in.

Just a thought.

It's combination mathematics. Imagine you identify 12 printer models, 5 major ink sets, 12 media, 6 different coatings, and two image targets (i.e., one B&W, the other full color). That's 12x5x12x6x2 = 8640 samples to print and test!  If we could get the testing economics down to $1K per sample (much less is not realistic due to the labor intensiveness of the work), that's a chunk of money needing to be raised. Paring the list way down to, say 6 printer models, 3 ink sets, 10 media, 2 coatings, and color only - 6x3x10x2x1 = 360 unique samples. Much more manageable. Aardenburg has done over 300 combinations to date on a shoe string budget and a lot of volunteer labor, but I can hear it now... "Why didn't you include this, or why didn't you include that?"..

That said, if the printmaking community came together to develop a good list and the manufacturers and/or printmaking community participated in funding the project, the idea of a comprehensive published list of results is indeed possible.

Come to think of it, the Aardenburg Imaging & Archives lightfade test results database is already proof of this concept. Completed with many crowd sourced samples, volunteers, and donations, we got over 300 samples tested to date.  However, the funding was never there to get much past proof of concept, and now there are entirely new ink sets and new media which logically need to be added to the database :)

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburkg-imaging.com
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: enduser on July 04, 2018, 08:46:06 pm
Of course, on reflection, whatever people use to create images, they will hopefully continue to do so. Engravers will continue to engrave, artists of all types will keep on producing art by whatever means comes to mind.  My point is only that another method is almost here and it will add to the fantastic ways people make pictures (art), and or images.
Speaking of longevity, I use a 24" HP Designjet.  It uses pigment black and dye colors. The genuine HP dye inks don't last any longer before fading than the better third part dyes, so I use refillable carts. Fading doesn't matter in my case; I have a love of old posters and I do prints for family and when they fade a bit I just re-print them.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 04, 2018, 09:01:52 pm
Fading doesn't matter in my case; I have a love of old posters and I do prints for family and when they fade a bit I just re-print them.

Your's is a very widely held belief in the digital age, especially among amateur printmakers. In fact it's such a pervasive argument that I'm reluctant to even debate it these days...

Except that it doesn't really work for professionals who deliver prints to clients (they will go bankrupt if they get too many reprint requests). Nor is it consolation to the buyers who no longer know how to get in touch with the print provider.  Nor to fine art print collectors who paid 4, 5, or 6 figures for a signed print. Lastly, will it be any consolation to children and grandchildren who care about your work, but the prints have faded, and you are not there anymore to fulfill the reprint request, let alone provide them with the means and know-how to access your original digital files.

So, yes, print permanence matters to only a niche market these days. However, it's an important market, and manufacturers need to continue to keep that in mind.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: mearussi on July 04, 2018, 09:09:00 pm
It's combination mathematics. Imagine you identify 12 printer models, 5 major ink sets, 12 media, 6 different coatings, and two image targets (i.e., one B&W, the other full color). That's 12x5x12x6x2 = 8640 samples to print and test!  If we could get the testing economics down to $1K per sample (much less is not realistic due to the labor intensiveness of the work), that's a chunk of money needing to be raised. Paring the list way down to, say 6 printer models, 3 ink sets, 10 media, 2 coatings, and color only - 6x3x10x2x1 = 360 unique samples. Much more manageable. Aardenburg has done over 300 combinations to date on a shoe string budget and a lot of volunteer labor, but I can hear it now... "Why didn't you include this, or why didn't you include that?"..

That said, if the printmaking community came together to develop a good list and the manufacturers participated with funding, the idea of a comprehensive published list of results is indeed possible.

Come to think of it, the Aardenburg Imaging & Archives lightfade test results database is proof of that concept. Crowd sourced samples, volunteers, donations, and we got over 300 samples tested to date.  However, the funding was never there to get much past proof of concept, and now there are entirely new ink sets and new media which logically need to be added to the database :)

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburkg-imaging.com
We work with what we have and nothing's ever perfect, but even with your "incomplete" data set some general conclusions, which if augmented by even some minimal testing, could be made much more useful and complete. For instance, Premier Art's Print Shield and Eco Print Shield have both been tested by you and Wilhelm and found to increase fade resistance. 

To further refine this, a simple test made on one high quality paper and one high quality canvas using one printer and then applying the three or four main coatings would show which coating was best and by how much.  This might require ten samples to be printed and four coatings to be bought but would provide very valuable info to everyone wanting to extend their print life, and has never been done in a professional environment before (I lack the testing facilities or I would do it myself).

Absolute perfectionism is not required to provide a useful increase in information.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 04, 2018, 09:27:31 pm
We work with what we have and nothing's ever perfect, but even with your "incomplete" data set some general conclusions, which if augmented by even some minimal testing, could be made much more useful and complete. For instance, Premier Art's Print Shield and Eco Print Shield have both been tested by you and Wilhelm and found to increase fade resistance. 

To further refine this, a simple test made on one high quality paper and one high quality canvas using one printer and then applying the three or four main coatings would show which coating was best and by how much.  This might require ten samples to be printed and four coatings to be bought but would provide very valuable info to everyone wanting to extend their print life, and has never been done in a professional environment before (I lack the testing facilities or I would do it myself).

Absolute perfectionism is not required to provide a useful increase in information.

I think you are actually confirming my previous points.  Coatings on canvas appear to be of particular interest to you, not so much others. Moreover, if only one ink set was used to test several coatings, it's highly speculative at best to extrapolate those findings to other ink sets. This is particularly true of the water-based coatings like Eco-shield. The Aardenburg database has a few examples of water based acrylic coatings (I don't recall testing Eco Shield but others like it were tested) that actually reduced light fade resistance on some Epson Ultrachrome inks and different canvas media.  Epson's new HD ink set is a further wild card. It has a remarkably non linear fade behavior with improved performance tied directly to new encapsulation chemistry that may play nice with any particular coating chemistry or not. It would be risky to extrapolate said results to HP or Canon inks with same said applied coatings.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 05, 2018, 08:27:53 am
I may be very cynical here, but I believe that most printers have very poor fading resistance. Here we are talking about the pigment high end ones with overall good performance, but if a standard were defined, it seems obvious that it would be applied to all printers, even those that would have extremely poor results.

I am not sure that the Epson and Canon of this world think that their business would benefit from having to write on their spec sheets that the prints produced by 99% of their printers fade within a year...  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
I'm not so sure about this statement as much of the fading is dependent on the strength of the light source and air quality (presence of ozone or various oxides but these may be less of a problem with indoor hangings).  Last year I reported on some images (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117420.msg973554#msg973554) I've had hanging in an office environment for ten years.  Using only the 'eyeball' test the images looked very good.  Clearly I should have had a color checker image hanging up so I could actually do some direct fading measurements 8)
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: Paul Roark on July 05, 2018, 05:15:51 pm
... The Aardenburg database has a few examples of water based acrylic coatings ... that actually reduced light fade resistance on some ...

When I was doing a lot of my own fade testing (not as sophisticated as Aardenburg Imaging) I found some coatings could increase the fade rate.  My conclusion at the time was that a thick, water-based coating had trapping moisture under it that was able to get in via the back of the paper.  So, while accelerated testing usually dries the samples and exaggerates the life, with the coating, the sprayed paper became a little hot house with the humidity trapped inside.  I now never spray non-barrier papers (i.e., matte papers), and I let the RC papers very thoroughly dry -- for days.  I use the solvent Print Shield only and then only on RC papers (sometimes glossy canvas) that are going to be displayed without glazing.   Frankly, I think a print that is displayed without glazing needs the physical protection.  And, with my mostly carbon pigment black and white images, if it's not protected by glazing, physical damage is probably the main risk.

FWIW

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 05, 2018, 05:40:01 pm
...  My conclusion at the time was that a thick, water-based coating had trapping moisture under it that was able to get in via the back of the paper.  So, while accelerated testing usually dries the samples and exaggerates the life, with the coating, the sprayed paper became a little hot house with the humidity trapped inside. ...
FWIW

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

The Aardenburg testing protocol uses microclimate environmental techniques and lower (less heat inducing) accelerated light intensity levels to make sure the overall moisture content in the sample properly corresponds to real world long term display conditions. My take on the aqeous-based acrylic dispersion coatings (e.g. BC glamor II, Clearshield, eco-shield, etc) is that the ammonia used to achieve the acrylic dispersion in water can be detrimental to the ink encapsulation polymer technology. Hence, one can never assume that just because the coating manufacturer brags about UV inhibitors and "archival" coating properties, one is guaranteed a more light fade resistant print. The total package just has to be tested with an accelerated test method that, although accelerated, still does a good job corresponding to real world natural aging conditions.

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

Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: enduser on July 05, 2018, 09:12:13 pm
QUOTE MHMG "Lastly, will it be any consolation to children and grandchildren who care about your work, but the prints have faded, and you are not there anymore to fulfill the reprint request, let alone provide them with the means and know-how to access your original digital files."

I too will fade away but the digital versions will still be on my computer when I've gone. An HP T120 at $900 and Chinese canvas is all we could afford so we just keep going with that.
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: MHMG on July 05, 2018, 09:51:18 pm

I too will fade away but the digital versions will still be on my computer when I've gone. An HP T120 at $900 and Chinese canvas is all we could afford so we just keep going with that.

Your HP T120 is an interesting but rather unusual choice for a family photo printing endeavor. I'm not aware of any print longevity data on this printer model. But more to the point, I respectfully urge you to identify at least one family member who can pick up where you leave off.  Please make sure you give that family member a very solid grounding in access to your digital image collection, otherwise it will get lost in the blink of an eye.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: David Sutton on July 06, 2018, 02:58:13 am
I too will fade away but the digital versions will still be on my computer when I've gone.

Probably not.
Any one of these will render the photos unusable:
Unreadable file format
Drive failure
Not having a computer
Family or executor losing the drives

I've seen all of the above. Nowadays "unreadable file format" may just mean the file is not a jpeg. Who knows what the popular image format may be in 20 years?

I was visiting a friend in her 70s recently and she brought out the family photo album from the 1920s. We sat down and looked at all the images, mostly about 6x9 cm, and she explained the story behind each one. There were some photos that hadn't been stuck down properly and were now lost.
Prediction: anyone who hasn't printed their photos and put them in an album will not be passing them on.
David
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: enduser on July 06, 2018, 11:36:48 pm
From wet black and white 16 x 20s using the bath tub for processing to being scientific photographer at a university to making reproductions of my wife's artwork which is in homes in many countries, I've long given thought to how to truly archive originals in a guaranteed usable fashion.
Looking back, I never imagined digital methods. As time passes one thinks, well, these floppies are not the way, they fail often. Who foresaw the thumb drive?
Will an HP pigment image on canvas or paper outlast a thumb drive? What is the recognized best way to preserve images. I'm asking for opinions from members because I have thousands of images and it's not possible to make and store them all in printed format.
I thought maybe in the "Cloud" but that also has a continuity problem. What do members think?
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 07, 2018, 12:23:15 am
I think that the maintenance of our digital data will use up an increasingly large part of our income.

At some point it may become our number one expenditure, ahead of our homes and cars.

This may become the most glaring aspect of the digital devide.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: mearussi on July 07, 2018, 08:39:56 am
From wet black and white 16 x 20s using the bath tub for processing to being scientific photographer at a university to making reproductions of my wife's artwork which is in homes in many countries, I've long given thought to how to truly archive originals in a guaranteed usable fashion.
Looking back, I never imagined digital methods. As time passes one thinks, well, these floppies are not the way, they fail often. Who foresaw the thumb drive?
Will an HP pigment image on canvas or paper outlast a thumb drive? What is the recognized best way to preserve images. I'm asking for opinions from members because I have thousands of images and it's not possible to make and store them all in printed format.
I thought maybe in the "Cloud" but that also has a continuity problem. What do members think?
Depends on what it is and its importance. 

Before digital, saving the original slide or negative in a freezer was the recommended way. For color copy work the traditional way was to make the copy on Kodachrome, since Kodachrome was the most fade resistant color film in dark storage, and then save that copy in the freezer. But with the death of Kodachrome that preferred storage technique ended. Today the best way is to make a three color separation of the art work on B&W film using (at least) 4x5 or (preferably) 8x10 film and store that in the freezer.

But for the vast majority of digital files that technique is just not realistic. Prints are the best, made using the best archival techniques, but as you pointed out also not realistic for thousands of files. For important family photos a 4x6/5x7 in an album works fine (I still have hundred year old photos in my family album) but combining various digital storage technologies is what I use for all of my work. Multiple copies on several hard drives with at least one stored on the shelf not connected to anything. You can also store some images on the cloud, or on dvds, or thumb drives, etc. Some even have off site storage in bank safe deposit boxes (depends on how paranoid you are).
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: David Sutton on July 07, 2018, 10:44:34 pm
For family photos, small copies in an album, annotated so those in the future will know what they are. Good for a long long time.
For your full catalogue of files, a third back up in a fire resistant safe in your garage or anywhere out of the house is not a bad idea. But only while you are alive. After that all bets are off. In my experience, dead people's stuff is usually sent straight to the dump. Families have other things on their mind.
For hard copies of  your prints, pigment on canvas should be okay for a few hundred years. Didn't Rembrandt use a variant of that? His stuff is still around.
However, nobody wants to look at or keep thousands of prints. They would probably get tossed as soon as you weren't around to guard them. This storage method is probably only good for 20 or 30 prints. You would have to just pick a few selects for printing and forget the rest.
Put your name on the back and date them. To tell you why would may depress you.
David
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: Panagiotis on July 08, 2018, 08:37:42 am
Question about print longevity:
Are the results reported refer to color and bw prints or better longevity can be expected for the bw prints in any given inkset?
Title: Re: HP wins again
Post by: kevinmcdnyc on July 12, 2018, 08:20:21 am
Has anyone taken possession of one of these?