Acid Free Injet Paper

[Rainsey]

Over the past few year I have been moving away from traditional photo prints
at the time of development and rather, if 35mm film, scanning them on my
Nikon 4000ED scaning or taking straght digital shots on my now antiquated
D30 and printing them out on a photo quality deskjest.

My original Epson 1200 died earliy in its life and I am currently using a
Canon S800, in both cases using the particular vendors photo quality paper.
The results have been outstanding.

Also over the past year or so my wife has been involved heavily in
scroapbooking and using the above mentioned printers to print out photos for
her work. A recent aquisition is a funky little pen that, when used on paper
will show the pH in a graduated color scale, yellow for acid and green for
alkaline.Use the pen on a standard lab printed photot and it comes out
neutral at 7.0. Use it on HP,Canon or Epson photo quality inkjet paper and
it shows that the paper is extremely acid.

Oh.. forgot to mention also have a HP photo printer. So.. have contated HP
in this instance to find out how their paper is supposed to be long lasting
if it is acid, have done the same to Canon and am yet to aproach Epson. So I
put the question to the forum, has anyobe out there found or know of a pH
neutral inkjet paper and if not, how the photon are the prints expected to
meet the vendors marketed longevity if they are extremely acid??

Comments welcome.

Cheers


Graham

[Douglas MacDonald]

On Sat, 01 May 2004 07:25:10 +0000, Rainsey wrote:

> So I
> put the question to the forum, has anyobe out there found or know of a pH
> neutral inkjet paper and if not, how the photon are the prints expected to
> meet the vendors marketed longevity if they are extremely acid??
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Graham
---------------------
First up... Inkjet prints and longevity should never be used in the same
sentence. Canon in particular on anything other than plain paper, cannot
hold an image due to gases in the air evaporating the ink from inkjet
papers. Ceramic dust and some clay (namely Koalin) used to get the gloss
on paper cannot absorb the inks. Read the same for all the others but in
lesser amounts.

No one has yet discovered if the accelerated tests used to "guess" the
life of a print have any real bearing on the actual life of a print.
Nearly all the testing so far is on the lightfastness of ink. If you use
Epson "watercolour" paper, you can have the acid free environment you seek
but your prints will look dull and lifeless with depressing colour
brightness ...but they will last.

If just one inkjet printer manufacturer would admit the problems with
their prints disapearing off the paper, and compare apples with apples, I
might be little less sceptical. As it is, I say they are all crooks and
liars, decieving the public just to make sales.

If they had in the beginning put a chemical photo (we have proof of how
long they last) beside an inkjet print and then did their tests, we might
actually get some meaningful results. As it is, Some geezer paid by Epson
sticks a print under a lamp and switches it on and off to simulate
daylight and then with an algorythm only he and Epson can understand...
Announces prints made with Epson inks will last 100 years. What a
load of bullshit!

This little duck has a different announcement to make. I've printed many
pictures on many printers over the last 10 years and I have some real life
knowledge of this situation.

I made a print on a Canon i320 inkjet printer about 2 years ago when they
came on the market. I also had an identical print made on a Fuji minilab
a day later. Canon (in their wisdom) claimes a print life of 20 years for
prints made on this printer with Canon Photo Glossy paper.

I pinned both of them on a message board in my office and
guess what? The 'real' photo still looks like a real photo. The inkjet?
Well, I can still make out what the picture is but it's pretty crook
stuff, colour drifted off to yellow afte 3 months. Image faded noticably
after 4 months, thank you for your deception Canon.

Dye Sublimation is where longevity is, not with inkjets. Dye sub printers
typically cost about twice as much as inkjets and cost between 65 cents
and $1.80 for a 6" x 4" print. They are continious tone which for the
new to digital - is a real photograph.

Douglas

[Rainsey]

Douglas,

Thank you kindly for the imformative response. Probably out of the question
but I will investigate the Dye Sublimation printer.Just for the record, I
have probably some 6 - 7 years experience in printing out my digital photos
and I admit, those whotos that I have had pinned to my filing cabinet in not
too direct sun have quite sunstantially faded. Then again, so have some of
my lab printed shots as well.

Canon, I think, do indicate to have the printers mounted behind glass and
out of direct strong light. These prints that I have done this to and those
in photot albums, even up to 5 - 6 years old, show no noticable degredation.
Then again the proof of the pudding will be in another 5 years.

I am bitterly disapointed with the vendors as when I have tried to speak to
them the response I get identifies total ignorance on their part. Either the
question is too hard, or they are told to be quite of this particular topic.

Cheers

Graham

"Douglas MacDonald" <nospam@technoaussie.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.01.09.41.38.282000@technoaussie.c om...
> On Sat, 01 May 2004 07:25:10 +0000, Rainsey wrote:
>
> > So I
> > put the question to the forum, has anyobe out there found or know of a
pH
> > neutral inkjet paper and if not, how the photon are the prints expected
to
> > meet the vendors marketed longevity if they are extremely acid??
> >
> > Comments welcome.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > Graham
> ---------------------
> First up... Inkjet prints and longevity should never be used in the same
> sentence. Canon in particular on anything other than plain paper, cannot
> hold an image due to gases in the air evaporating the ink from inkjet
> papers. Ceramic dust and some clay (namely Koalin) used to get the gloss
> on paper cannot absorb the inks. Read the same for all the others but in
> lesser amounts.
>
> No one has yet discovered if the accelerated tests used to "guess" the
> life of a print have any real bearing on the actual life of a print.
> Nearly all the testing so far is on the lightfastness of ink. If you use
> Epson "watercolour" paper, you can have the acid free environment you seek
> but your prints will look dull and lifeless with depressing colour
> brightness ...but they will last.
>
> If just one inkjet printer manufacturer would admit the problems with
> their prints disapearing off the paper, and compare apples with apples, I
> might be little less sceptical. As it is, I say they are all crooks and
> liars, decieving the public just to make sales.
>
> If they had in the beginning put a chemical photo (we have proof of how
> long they last) beside an inkjet print and then did their tests, we might
> actually get some meaningful results. As it is, Some geezer paid by Epson
> sticks a print under a lamp and switches it on and off to simulate
> daylight and then with an algorythm only he and Epson can understand...
> Announces prints made with Epson inks will last 100 years. What a
> load of bullshit!
>
> This little duck has a different announcement to make. I've printed many
> pictures on many printers over the last 10 years and I have some real life
> knowledge of this situation.
>
> I made a print on a Canon i320 inkjet printer about 2 years ago when they
> came on the market. I also had an identical print made on a Fuji minilab
> a day later. Canon (in their wisdom) claimes a print life of 20 years for
> prints made on this printer with Canon Photo Glossy paper.
>
> I pinned both of them on a message board in my office and
> guess what? The 'real' photo still looks like a real photo. The inkjet?
> Well, I can still make out what the picture is but it's pretty crook
> stuff, colour drifted off to yellow afte 3 months. Image faded noticably
> after 4 months, thank you for your deception Canon.
>
> Dye Sublimation is where longevity is, not with inkjets. Dye sub printers
> typically cost about twice as much as inkjets and cost between 65 cents
> and $1.80 for a 6" x 4" print. They are continious tone which for the
> new to digital - is a real photograph.
>
> Douglas

[stanb]

The same fading issues may occur with dye subs as they do with all prints:
I dont doubt that they will last longer than dye based inks used by most
desktop inkjets, but as to how long they will actually last, its anyones
guess ( too many variables and we really cant test in real life - real time
conditions anyway ). An alternative is pigment based resin inks used in a
few desktop, and comercial inkjets - these promise a longevity, especially
on matt papers which rival traditional darkroom prints. They are also
impervious to gas fading which is probably what has happened to your prints
and a common cause of rapid fading - especially canon BCI6 inks in Canon PPP
paper.

you should have a look at DPreview's printer forum, plenty of information,
and links to follow up over these and all photo printing issues ( nice thing
about it is it has contributors from all walks of life so users of virtually
everything from a cheapo destop to a 5 figure commercial printer
contibute).. In the meantime I'll keep an eye on my epson 2100 - 8 months in
and no fading issues anywhere

"Rainsey" <graines@gmeng.com.au> wrote in message
news:K3Wkc.7544$TT.6263@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Douglas,
>
> Thank you kindly for the imformative response. Probably out of the
question
> but I will investigate the Dye Sublimation printer.Just for the record, I
> have probably some 6 - 7 years experience in printing out my digital
photos
> and I admit, those whotos that I have had pinned to my filing cabinet in
not
> too direct sun have quite sunstantially faded. Then again, so have some of
> my lab printed shots as well.
>
> Canon, I think, do indicate to have the printers mounted behind glass and
> out of direct strong light. These prints that I have done this to and
those
> in photot albums, even up to 5 - 6 years old, show no noticable
degredation.
> Then again the proof of the pudding will be in another 5 years.
>
> I am bitterly disapointed with the vendors as when I have tried to speak
to
> them the response I get identifies total ignorance on their part. Either
the
> question is too hard, or they are told to be quite of this particular
topic.
>
> Cheers
>
> Graham
>
> "Douglas MacDonald" <nospam@technoaussie.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.05.01.09.41.38.282000@technoaussie.c om...
> > On Sat, 01 May 2004 07:25:10 +0000, Rainsey wrote:
> >
> > > So I
> > > put the question to the forum, has anyobe out there found or know of a
> pH
> > > neutral inkjet paper and if not, how the photon are the prints
expected
> to
> > > meet the vendors marketed longevity if they are extremely acid??
> > >
> > > Comments welcome.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > >
> > > Graham
> > ---------------------
> > First up... Inkjet prints and longevity should never be used in the same
> > sentence. Canon in particular on anything other than plain paper, cannot
> > hold an image due to gases in the air evaporating the ink from inkjet
> > papers. Ceramic dust and some clay (namely Koalin) used to get the gloss
> > on paper cannot absorb the inks. Read the same for all the others but in
> > lesser amounts.
> >
> > No one has yet discovered if the accelerated tests used to "guess" the
> > life of a print have any real bearing on the actual life of a print.
> > Nearly all the testing so far is on the lightfastness of ink. If you use
> > Epson "watercolour" paper, you can have the acid free environment you
seek
> > but your prints will look dull and lifeless with depressing colour
> > brightness ...but they will last.
> >
> > If just one inkjet printer manufacturer would admit the problems with
> > their prints disapearing off the paper, and compare apples with apples,
I
> > might be little less sceptical. As it is, I say they are all crooks and
> > liars, decieving the public just to make sales.
> >
> > If they had in the beginning put a chemical photo (we have proof of how
> > long they last) beside an inkjet print and then did their tests, we
might
> > actually get some meaningful results. As it is, Some geezer paid by
Epson
> > sticks a print under a lamp and switches it on and off to simulate
> > daylight and then with an algorythm only he and Epson can understand...
> > Announces prints made with Epson inks will last 100 years. What a
> > load of bullshit!
> >
> > This little duck has a different announcement to make. I've printed many
> > pictures on many printers over the last 10 years and I have some real
life
> > knowledge of this situation.
> >
> > I made a print on a Canon i320 inkjet printer about 2 years ago when
they
> > came on the market. I also had an identical print made on a Fuji minilab
> > a day later. Canon (in their wisdom) claimes a print life of 20 years
for
> > prints made on this printer with Canon Photo Glossy paper.
> >
> > I pinned both of them on a message board in my office and
> > guess what? The 'real' photo still looks like a real photo. The inkjet?
> > Well, I can still make out what the picture is but it's pretty crook
> > stuff, colour drifted off to yellow afte 3 months. Image faded noticably
> > after 4 months, thank you for your deception Canon.
> >
> > Dye Sublimation is where longevity is, not with inkjets. Dye sub
printers
> > typically cost about twice as much as inkjets and cost between 65 cents
> > and $1.80 for a 6" x 4" print. They are continious tone which for the
> > new to digital - is a real photograph.
> >
> > Douglas
>
>

[Douglas MacDonald]

"stanb" <soxy1@NOSPAMcyberone.com.au> wrote in message
news:40948076@news.comindico.com.au...
> The same fading issues may occur with dye subs as they do with all prints:
------------------
Not so Stan. I have 6 yo dye sub prints from one of the early Sony (Pro)
printers and they are in as good condition as chemical prints. Not so the
prints from Epson's so called "Pro Printer" of the time.

Pigment inks "might" offer some longevity but the cost of those prints is
ridiculous when you can upload images to BigW and a few other Dlabs and have
prints for 47¢ each which incidentally is less than half the cost of an
Epson "Dura-brite" ink print.

Hi-Ti dye-sub printers cost 60¢ per print too and the printers themselves
cost under $500 to buy in Australia. Why then would you bother with inkjets?
Enlargements at $60 per square metre up to 1.2m wide mean there is still no
price / longevity justification for inkjet printers. It's all advertising
and the frothing at the mouth for doing it all yourself... If you can afford
it! If you really want to check out dye-sub prints, call Kodak and ask where
one of their kiosks is in your area.

Douglas

[Bushy]

Why worry so much?

When (not if!) it fades, then print another copy of the original digital
file on this years printer and be happy!

If you are in business as a photographer, then your ten year warranty on
print fading gives you fresh contact with an old customer and a chance to do
even more paying work!

Win, win!
Hope this helps,
Peter

[me]

stanb wrote:

> The same fading issues may occur with dye subs as they do with all prints:
> I dont doubt that they will last longer than dye based inks used by most
> desktop inkjets, but as to how long they will actually last, its anyones
> guess ( too many variables and we really cant test in real life - real time
> conditions anyway ).



I do think that you maybe correct. One thing that I have seen is a sort
on old prints(5yrs) is bleeding of the print where the colour has spread
in dye sub prints. Sort of turned me off Dye sub printing. Not sure if
the technology has now changed to make them better. These were 8x10
prints, good looking print when printed, very expensive to produce.

rm

[Bud]

"Douglas MacDonald" <nospam@technoaussie.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.01.09.41.38.282000@technoaussie.c om...

> First up... Inkjet prints and longevity should never be used in the same
> sentence. Canon in particular on anything other than plain paper, cannot
> hold an image due to gases in the air evaporating the ink from inkjet
> papers. Ceramic dust and some clay (namely Koalin) used to get the gloss
> on paper cannot absorb the inks. Read the same for all the others but in
> lesser amounts.

Yes I do agree to a point. I have a few prints done on my Lexmark on Kodak
Photo Paper that still look brilliant, but I have looked after them. They
are stored in a glass frame and have been displayed in the loungeroom or
bedroom for the past 5 years since I printed them. At the time I created the
prints they were scanned in from the original photographs (one is an A4
collage of photographs of my son).

When compared to the original prints the scans/prints were a little lighter,
but not much. Looking at the prints now they have faded a little more, but
the colors are still very vivid. The original photographs were displayed for
about a year then stored away in a box, whereas the prints were constantly
displayed, so I think the slight degridation is acceptable. I dont expect my
prints to be around for 100 years, but the data may be :)

Bud