Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence
 

In rec.photo.digital Kennedy McEwen wrote:

What's your experience?

My experience of the issue is well documented in the archives of this
and other forums where the subject was discussed at the time. I was
also the first point of contact Epson made within their European
customer base when they finally decided to act in resolving the problem
instead of ignoring it. Again, all verifiable in the open archives
should you require evidence.

My experience is that I've never had an Epson inkjet print (dye-based
OEM ink on various papers) that lasted longer than a year without fading
when posted in our kitchen, even in spots not receiving direct sunlight.

Epson inkjet prints do last a long time under fluorescent light, even
so-called full-spectrum fluorescent, but sunlight seems to be a killer.

Has anybody had success with some paper or other (with dye-based ink)?

Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence
 

In article , Bill Tuthill
writes
In rec.photo.digital Kennedy McEwen wrote:

What's your experience?

My experience of the issue is well documented in the archives of this
and other forums where the subject was discussed at the time. I was
also the first point of contact Epson made within their European
customer base when they finally decided to act in resolving the problem
instead of ignoring it. Again, all verifiable in the open archives
should you require evidence.

My experience is that I've never had an Epson inkjet print (dye-based
OEM ink on various papers) that lasted longer than a year without fading
when posted in our kitchen, even in spots not receiving direct sunlight.

Epson inkjet prints do last a long time under fluorescent light, even
so-called full-spectrum fluorescent, but sunlight seems to be a killer.

Has anybody had success with some paper or other (with dye-based ink)?

They all last when displayed under glass, as is now recommended by Epson
for dye based inks. However, I have several dye prints on Matte
Heavyweight and Archival Matte (although Epson suggest this is for
pigment only) which have been open to the elements in my kitchen (quite
a severe environment given cooking by-products) for several years.
Whilst they look OK, they are only in direct sunlight during late
afternoon and early evening and not at all in winter.

If you are really after long print life though, don't use dye inks -
Epson or otherwise.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence
 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Bill Tuthill
writes
In rec.photo.digital Kennedy McEwen wrote:

What's your experience?

My experience of the issue is well documented in the archives of
this and other forums where the subject was discussed at the time. I was
also the first point of contact Epson made within their
European customer base when they finally decided to act in
resolving the problem instead of ignoring it. Again, all
verifiable in the open archives should you require evidence.

My experience is that I've never had an Epson inkjet print (dye-based
OEM ink on various papers) that lasted longer than a year without
fading when posted in our kitchen, even in spots not receiving
direct sunlight. Epson inkjet prints do last a long time under
fluorescent light, even
so-called full-spectrum fluorescent, but sunlight seems to be a
killer. Has anybody had success with some paper or other (with dye-based
ink)?

They all last when displayed under glass, as is now recommended by
Epson for dye based inks. However, I have several dye prints on Matte
Heavyweight and Archival Matte (although Epson suggest this is for
pigment only) which have been open to the elements in my kitchen
(quite a severe environment given cooking by-products) for several
years. Whilst they look OK, they are only in direct sunlight during
late afternoon and early evening and not at all in winter.

If you are really after long print life though, don't use dye inks -
Epson or otherwise.

That's the bottom line - dye inks fade.

My old Canon S9000 produces prints that still look great, but man, they fade
like mad just pinned to the wall - even well out of direct sunlight.
However, early on, before I was really aware of the fading issue, I did a
series of about 30 A3 prints for a client - almost all were printed on the
S9000, but a couple were output by labs on two different photographic
machines (a Pegasus and an Agfa machine) - they're all framed under glass in
an office, and remarkably, 4 years down the track, the Canon prints still
look just as good as the photographic process prints, so it seems
restricting the airflow over the prints slows the fading considerably.

Naturally I've told the client I'll replace the prints with pigment-based or
photographic-process prints once fading becomes an issue.

Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence
 

In rec.photo.digital Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Has anybody had success with some paper or other (with dye-based ink)?

They all last when displayed under glass, as is now recommended by Epson
for dye based inks. However, I have several dye prints on Matte
Heavyweight and Archival Matte (although Epson suggest this is for
pigment only) which have been open to the elements in my kitchen (quite
a severe environment given cooking by-products) for several years.
Whilst they look OK, they are only in direct sunlight during late
afternoon and early evening and not at all in winter. If you are really
after long print life though, don't use dye inks - Epson or otherwise.

Thanks!

I really don't like the look of Epson Heavyweight Matte, although I did
chew thru a box of it recently, so we'll see what happens.

Recently there was a fad about microencapsulated inks, or something, for
example Epson Colorlife paper. That fad passed, maybe due to high cost,
or possibly it didn't work. Colorlife paper is discontinued now.

Glass framing is rather silly for cheapo inkjet prints, it seems to me.
Better to spend the extra money on RA-4 photographic prints.

Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence
 

In article , Bill Tuthill
writes

Glass framing is rather silly for cheapo inkjet prints, it seems to me.
Better to spend the extra money on RA-4 photographic prints.

Add up your costs; those "cheapo inkjet prints" are usually more
expensive than RA-4 photo prints.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence
 

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
Add up your costs; those "cheapo inkjet prints" are usually more
expensive than RA-4 photo prints.

Hell yes, you can't buy the ink for the cost of photographic prints these
days, let alone paper as well.
Even 8*12's can be had for $2, and 6*4's as low as 15 cents in some places.

MrT.

Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence
 

In rec.photo.digital Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Glass framing is rather silly for cheapo inkjet prints, it seems to me.
Better to spend the extra money on RA-4 photographic prints.

Add up your costs; those "cheapo inkjet prints" are usually more
expensive than RA-4 photo prints.

True. I meant "cheapo" in the sense of quality.

Here is information on what happened to Epson Colorlife:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GO9V

Ilford Classic Pearl might be the same paper, and is rated with
good longevity (about the same as Epson Heavyweight Matte).
However Ilford Classic Pearl costs over $.50 a sheet.

Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence
 

In article , Bill Tuthill
writes
In rec.photo.digital Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Glass framing is rather silly for cheapo inkjet prints, it seems to me.
Better to spend the extra money on RA-4 photographic prints.

Add up your costs; those "cheapo inkjet prints" are usually more
expensive than RA-4 photo prints.

True. I meant "cheapo" in the sense of quality.

I think you are deluding yourself - the quality of some inkjet output
would be hard to beat with traditional photo printing.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)