Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: HP wins again  (Read 3450 times)

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1120
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #20 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://Http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11674
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #21 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

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1120
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #22 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
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 07:28:32 PM by MHMG »
Logged

mearussi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 273
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #23 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. 
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1120
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #24 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
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 08:37:34 PM by MHMG »
Logged

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #25 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.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1120
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #26 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.
Logged

mearussi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 273
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #27 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.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1120
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #28 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.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 09:43:37 PM by MHMG »
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3079
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #29 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 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)
Logged

Paul Roark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #30 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
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1120
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #31 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

Logged

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #32 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.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1120
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #33 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
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1209
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #34 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
Logged

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #35 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?
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11674
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #36 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

mearussi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 273
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #37 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).
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1209
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #38 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
Logged

Panagiotis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
Re: HP wins again
« Reply #39 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?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up