Independent Light Fade Testing Results for Canon iPF5000

[John Hollenberg]

Aardenburg Imaging has posted independent light fade testing results for Canon iPF5000 at the 90 megalux-hour mark (equivalent to about 45 Wilhelm years on display). They are publicly accessible on the website along with several samples made with Epson K3 Ultrachrome which were started in test at the same time.  The HP samples only have 30-40 MLux exposure and thus no comparison can be done at this time (and results for HP aren't publicly available. While many of the papers are still in test, it appears that the Canon compares favorably to Epson. Looking at the papers that have completed 90 MLux hours of testing for the iPF5000, the best performing are Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin 300 gsm, Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl 285 gsm, and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 gsm. There is a wealth of information included in each report about the amount of fading for each color at each total exposure level. Consider joining if you want to support this effort, or if you need information available in the non-public reports.

See this link:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/...19kb2NfbGlzdC80

--John

[bill t.]

Pretty interesting.  I have a moderately strong scientific and engineering background, it took me about 10 minutes to understand how to read the graphs, would be nice if it was easier for non-technical minds.  But I suppose non-techies interested enough in these types of numbers would be willing to spend the time to learn.  I think the multiplying factors included on the .pdf graphs confuse things a bit.

Has anybody tested other media like oil, acrylic, watercolor, etc?  In answer to the inevitable "how long will it last?" question I would like to be able to format the answer in terms of something like "as long as an acrylic painting under similar conditions."  Or whatever it is.

[enduser]

When life before fade gets out to 50, 100 years etc, the life of the substrate often becomes the limiting factor.  Henry Wilhelm
 has brought this topic up and I think he said in most cases the papers we use will give up before the inks.  

As for oils, watercolors and acrylics used for painting,  these have variable non-fade lives depending on the fugitive nature of the pigments.   Most tubes of paint have a rating on them and refer the ASTM or ISO test they use.

[MHMG]

I have a moderately strong scientific and engineering background, it took me about 10 minutes to understand how to read the graphs, would be nice if it was easier for non-technical minds.  But I suppose non-techies interested enough in these types of numbers would be willing to spend the time to learn. I think the multiplying factors included on the .pdf graphs confuse things a bit.

If you really want to keep it simple learn this mantra - "228 lux for 12 hours per day". Then Megalux-hours of light exposure precisely equals "years on display".  A 1:1 relationship between years on display and megalux hours of exposure is established. Yes, it's still a bit harder than if I were to just give you a "years on display" rating, but dumbing it down that far is intellectually dishonest, IMHO. In the real world, light levels vary by orders of magnitude which is why the AaI&A reports give you a table of values for illumination levels and document the test results in terms of megalux hours of light exposure.  That said, if you still insist on keeping it simple and stick to the 228 lux per 12 hours per day rule,  you can look at an AaI&A Conservation Display rating of 16-30 megalux hours, for example, and apply the 1:1 rule I just described. It means that your print will show little or no light-induced fading for 16-30 years on display (e.g., the exposure dose Fuji Crystal Archive II prints can endure and still remain in excellent condition), this range dictated by image content (i.e., the colors and tones in the specific image) and assuming an illumination level of 228 lux for 12 hours during each day on average. This 228 lux/12hr/day "specification" lands approximately in the middle between Wilhelm Imaging Research that specifies 450 lux for 12 hours per day to make is lifetime predictions, and Eastman Kodak that specifies 120 lux per 12 hours per day to make its predictions.  One big difference between WIR and Kodak and AaI&A is the failure criteria set used to determine the "display life" rating.  Kodak and WIR use a consumer-oriented threshold for "easily noticeable" fading, while the AaI&A Conservation Display ratings are intended for Fine Art Photography where collectors and museum curators want to know how much light exposure their prints can tolerate yet still remain in excellent condition, ie. where fading is not easily detected rather than an "easily noticeable" outcome as per Kodak and WIR.

My experience over many years of of image permanence research is that actual experimental data are often not the problem. Interpretation of the results is the problem. I'm trying to keep it real and intellectually honest. Others may hold different opinions about the right way to present some rather complex information.

Best regards,

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

[MHMG]

When life before fade gets out to 50, 100 years etc, the life of the substrate often becomes the limiting factor.  Henry Wilhelm
 has brought this topic up and I think he said in most cases the papers we use will give up before the inks.

It really depends on the environmental conditions. In general (there are always exceptions) light and gas pollutants are more likely to attack the image which for inkjet images is formed by the ink. Humidity and heat are more likely to degrade the paper. There is no single pathway to destruction. We must be aware of several likely pathways, and determine which pathway is most likely the "weak link" for any particular storage or display environment.  For manufacturers, the goal is to increase the robustness of the finished product to all pathways of destruction.

Best regards,

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

[MHMG]

Aardenburg Imaging has posted independent light fade testing results for Canon iPF5000 at the 90 megalux-hour mark (equivalent to about 45 Wilhelm years on display). They are publicly accessible on the website along with several samples made with Epson K3 Ultrachrome which were started in test at the same time.  The HP samples only have 30-40 MLux exposure and thus no comparison can be done at this time (and results for HP aren't publicly available.

See this link:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/...19kb2NfbGlzdC80

--John

John, thanks for posting this item.

For whatever reasons, obtaining Hp Vivera ink samples to test has been a little more challenging than getting samples for Canon and Epson. For example, I still don't have any of the new Z 3200 samples in test which use the new HP chromate red ink. AaI&A members send me what they've got, so perhaps HP printer owners think longevity is less of an issue, I don't know.  I'm hopeful this situation will be resolved soon because I want the AaI&A test database to be fully encompassing of this entire digital printing era.  Anyway, even though the Hp samples I do have in test haven't accrued as much exposure time as other samples, one can indeed compare different products at specific Megalux hour exposure doses.  So, for example, one can look at the report page listing 30 megalux hour scores for a sample that has gone 90 megalux hours total in test, and compare that to a sample that has only gone 30 megalux hours total in test. This is a fair apples-to-apples comparison at that specific exposure dose. That said, for inherently high stability print samples like those produced on all the major OEM pigment ink formulations, the tests probably need to run out to at least 100 megalux hours before a clearer picture emerges for the light fastness differences between ink formulations printed on the same papers.

As the AaI&A digital print research program matures, I will take more steps to "level the playing field" for all major brands in terms of publicly accessible versus members-only test results.  It's definitely a work in progress, and I'm working hard to balance it all out fairly.

Best regards,

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