A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 12th 07, 12:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 361
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

Remember the semi-controversial "window" study by Edwin Iracki of
Dupont Fluoroproducts, which said Epson Ultrachrome pigment ink
showed 20% yellow fading in two years, and near 100% in 7.5 years?
We discussed it in November 2006.

Yet another study (from last winter) shows that UV causes fading
of "professional giclee" pigment inkjet prints:
http://www.goldenpaints.com/justpaint/jp14article2.php

Summary: under a Q-Lab UV-A 351 bulb, (Epson?) pigment inks on
watercolor paper faded at about half the rate of dye-based inks
on glossy photo paper, which is to say REALLY FAST. Magenta
faded most quickly, followed by yellow, then cyan, then black.
After 400 hours, all colors faded about half as fast as dye ink.
After 1200 hours, magenta had changed 60 (Delta E) versus 92
for dye ink, more than half, and yellow had changed 40 versus 54,
much more than half. EOS.

The relatively superior performance of pigment inks could be
entirely attributable to the paper, rather than ink longevity.
Dye-based inkjet prints on matte paper last at least twice as long
as dye-based inkjet prints on glossy photo paper.

  #2  
Old August 12th 07, 09:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Remember the semi-controversial "window" study by Edwin Iracki of
Dupont Fluoroproducts, which said Epson Ultrachrome pigment ink
showed 20% yellow fading in two years, and near 100% in 7.5 years?
We discussed it in November 2006.


Yes, I remember that.
IIRC exposure conditions were approximating full sun exposure in
Florida. The DuPont coating system (film) was intended for protecting
outdoor signs etc. Dupont makes some great products.
IMO, not too much point getting carried away with results for this when
you are concerned about longevity of photographs. No colour photographs
from any process would last in that environment. If you want to make
outdoor signs, get a solvent ink sign printer - don't use your photo
printer or costco prints.



Yet another study (from last winter) shows that UV causes fading
of "professional giclee" pigment inkjet prints:
http://www.goldenpaints.com/justpaint/jp14article2.php

Summary: under a Q-Lab UV-A 351 bulb, (Epson?) pigment inks on
watercolor paper faded at about half the rate of dye-based inks
on glossy photo paper, which is to say REALLY FAST. Magenta
faded most quickly, followed by yellow, then cyan, then black.
After 400 hours, all colors faded about half as fast as dye ink.
After 1200 hours, magenta had changed 60 (Delta E) versus 92
for dye ink, more than half, and yellow had changed 40 versus 54,
much more than half. EOS.


Printer and inkset not specified. Canon and HP also make pigment
inksets for photo printers. Third party ink makers also supply some
pigment inks.

Don't forget that these guys - "golden paints" - are trying to sell
expensive varnish to make prints last longer. Throwing a bit of FUD in
to the mix might help sales.


The relatively superior performance of pigment inks could be
entirely attributable to the paper, rather than ink longevity.
Dye-based inkjet prints on matte paper last at least twice as long
as dye-based inkjet prints on glossy photo paper.

Dye based inks on matte paper are a very bad idea for longevity. UV is
the least of problems to be expected.
  #3  
Old August 13th 07, 03:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Fred McKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 210
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

In article , Bill Tuthill
wrote:

The relatively superior performance of pigment inks could be
entirely attributable to the paper, rather than ink longevity.


Bill-

I did my unscientific tests using the same cheap glossy inkjet paper for
three printers, starting in August, 2002. I printed a photograph twice
for each of three printers. One set was kept indoors in a dark place.
The other set was placed inside the back window of my car, which was
exposed to the Florida sun while parked at work.

Dye-based ink from a Canon BJC-85 printer showed serious fading in one
week.

Dye-based ink from an old Epson C60 printer showed about the same
serious fading in one month.

Pigment-based ink from an Epson Photo 2000P showed no serious fading
after one year. You had to compare it to the control print to see the
slight difference.

However the cheap glossy paper didn't hold up very well! The surface
became chalky, and you could easily scratch off the image with your
fingernail. I agree that matte paper should have held up better but
don't think it would have extended the life of the dye-based ink
significantly. Two months instead of one is still a short time.

Fred
  #4  
Old August 13th 07, 01:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
tomm42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 682
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

On Aug 11, 7:02 pm, Bill Tuthill wrote:
Remember the semi-controversial "window" study by Edwin Iracki of
Dupont Fluoroproducts, which said Epson Ultrachrome pigment ink
showed 20% yellow fading in two years, and near 100% in 7.5 years?
We discussed it in November 2006.

Yet another study (from last winter) shows that UV causes fading
of "professional giclee" pigment inkjet prints:
http://www.goldenpaints.com/justpaint/jp14article2.php

Summary: under a Q-Lab UV-A 351 bulb, (Epson?) pigment inks on
watercolor paper faded at about half the rate of dye-based inks
on glossy photo paper, which is to say REALLY FAST. Magenta
faded most quickly, followed by yellow, then cyan, then black.
After 400 hours, all colors faded about half as fast as dye ink.
After 1200 hours, magenta had changed 60 (Delta E) versus 92
for dye ink, more than half, and yellow had changed 40 versus 54,
much more than half. EOS.

The relatively superior performance of pigment inks could be
entirely attributable to the paper, rather than ink longevity.
Dye-based inkjet prints on matte paper last at least twice as long
as dye-based inkjet prints on glossy photo paper.



This makes sense, watercolor paints will do the same, this is why
there are display standards. I have been inkjet printing commercially
since 2000. If your inkset is not covered by Wilhelm, ie a 3rd party
ink, a south window test is your best ACCELERATED test. Depending on
who you believe and how much bright south light I have heard 1 day = 1
year to 1 week = 1year, under standarized viewing conditions. View the
Wilhelm site to get what he feels are standardized conditions.
So all this guy is doing is accelerated testing so no surprise. Stick
a photo from a chemical printed source their and watch what happens.

Tom

  #5  
Old August 14th 07, 10:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

On Aug 13, 1:59 pm, tomm42 wrote:
On Aug 11, 7:02 pm, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Remember the semi-controversial "window" study by Edwin Iracki of
Dupont Fluoroproducts, which said Epson Ultrachrome pigment ink
showed 20% yellow fading in two years, and near 100% in 7.5 years?
We discussed it in November 2006.


Yet another study (from last winter) shows that UV causes fading
of "professional giclee" pigment inkjet prints:
http://www.goldenpaints.com/justpaint/jp14article2.php


UV causes most things to degrade. It isn't too good for paper either.

Summary: under a Q-Lab UV-A 351 bulb, (Epson?) pigment inks on
watercolor paper faded at about half the rate of dye-based inks
on glossy photo paper, which is to say REALLY FAST. Magenta
faded most quickly, followed by yellow, then cyan, then black.
After 400 hours, all colors faded about half as fast as dye ink.
After 1200 hours, magenta had changed 60 (Delta E) versus 92
for dye ink, more than half, and yellow had changed 40 versus 54,
much more than half. EOS.


The relatively superior performance of pigment inks could be
entirely attributable to the paper, rather than ink longevity.
Dye-based inkjet prints on matte paper last at least twice as long
as dye-based inkjet prints on glossy photo paper.


This makes sense, watercolor paints will do the same, this is why
there are display standards. I have been inkjet printing commercially
since 2000. If your inkset is not covered by Wilhelm, ie a 3rd party
ink, a south window test is your best ACCELERATED test. Depending on
who you believe and how much bright south light I have heard 1 day = 1
year to 1 week = 1year, under standarized viewing conditions. View the
Wilhelm site to get what he feels are standardized conditions.


If you want to do accelerated testing on the cheap for peace of mind,
then putting the print under cheap acrylic sheet plexiglass (Perspex,
Lucite) made without a UV blocker is about as aggressive a test as you
can get. Water lear is quite a bit more transparent than glass and
allows a lot more UV through. Colour A3 posters from my Canon i9000
are visibly faded after about 4 weeks on a south facing UK wall. The S
facing village notice board has a Perspex cover.

http://www.allplastics.com.au/03/fil...ingPXTD236.pdf

Tranmission graph on p3. There is a more expensive VE grade with a
very good UV blocking property.

So all this guy is doing is accelerated testing so no surprise. Stick
a photo from a chemical printed source their and watch what happens.


Cibachrome lasts surprisingly well under these conditions. But it is
not imortal.

Regards,
Martin Brown

  #6  
Old August 15th 07, 12:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 361
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

frederick wrote:
http://www.goldenpaints.com/justpaint/jp14article2.php


Printer and inkset not specified. Canon and HP also make pigment
inksets for photo printers. Third party ink makers also supply some
pigment inks.


True, but in fall of 2006, did Canon or HP make "professional giclee"
pigment ink printers? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Dye based inks on matte paper are a very bad idea for longevity.
UV is the least of problems to be expected.


According to Wilhelm, Epson dye-based inks on Glossy Photo paper fade
noticeably in 4 years, versus ~ 12 years for Heavyweight Matte paper.
That is a factor of 3, more than the difference between pigment and
dye based inks in the aforementioned study.

  #7  
Old August 15th 07, 12:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 361
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

Fred McKenzie wrote:

I did my unscientific tests using the same cheap glossy inkjet paper for
three printers, starting in August, 2002. I printed a photograph twice
for each of three printers. One set was kept indoors in a dark place.
The other set was placed inside the back window of my car, which was
exposed to the Florida sun while parked at work.

Dye-based ink from a Canon BJC-85 showed serious fading in one week.
Dye-based ink from an old Epson C60 printer showed about the same
serious fading in one month.

Pigment-based ink from an Epson Photo 2000P showed no serious fading
after one year. You had to compare it to the control print to see the
slight difference.

However the cheap glossy paper didn't hold up very well! The surface
became chalky, and you could easily scratch off the image with your
fingernail.


Thanks for reporting your study, Fred.

What do you mean by "cheap glossy inkjet paper" ?
Was this the Kirkland glossy photo paper perhaps made by Ilford?

  #8  
Old August 15th 07, 12:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 361
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

tomm42 wrote:

Stick a photo from a chemical printed source [in a sun-drenched window]
and watch what happens.


Yes, I did this with Agfa Prestige. No noticeable fading after 2 years.
I should try it again with Fuji Crystal Archive.

  #9  
Old August 15th 07, 09:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

Bill Tuthill wrote:
frederick wrote:
http://www.goldenpaints.com/justpaint/jp14article2.php

Printer and inkset not specified. Canon and HP also make pigment
inksets for photo printers. Third party ink makers also supply some
pigment inks.


True, but in fall of 2006, did Canon or HP make "professional giclee"
pigment ink printers? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Only just.

Dye based inks on matte paper are a very bad idea for longevity.
UV is the least of problems to be expected.


According to Wilhelm, Epson dye-based inks on Glossy Photo paper fade
noticeably in 4 years, versus ~ 12 years for Heavyweight Matte paper.
That is a factor of 3, more than the difference between pigment and
dye based inks in the aforementioned study.


Epson R1400 (dye) inks DPR (framed under glass):
Ultra Premium Photo Paper Gloss - 98 years
Heavyweight Matte - 98 years

Heavyweight Matte (Premium Presentation Paper Matte)isn't a typical
matte paper.
It appears to have a coating in/on it to protect dye inks.
More typical performance of dye on matte papers may be from tests of dye
inksets on Epson Archival Matte (AKA Enhanced Matte / *Ultra* Premium
Presentation Matte) or art papers - it will be lousy.
Although Matte Heavyweight is usually included in paper selection
drivers for Epson pigment ink printers, it doesn't work very well.
Pigment inksets on the "Enhanced Matte" paper typically have a display
permanence rating 100 years. That doesn't take into account the rapid
"yellowing" effect of OB depletion in that paper. Nice paper, but shame
it doesn't stay bright white for long.
  #10  
Old August 17th 07, 08:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Fred McKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 210
Default UV harms Pigment Inkjet prints

In article , Bill Tuthill
wrote:

What do you mean by "cheap glossy inkjet paper" ?
Was this the Kirkland glossy photo paper perhaps made by Ilford?


Bill-

It was "Premium High Gloss Photo Paper" from Office Depot, which came in
100-sheet packs.

It is hard to tell what company actually produced it for them. A more
recent package has a different design and "Made in Japan" printed on the
label. I suspect they occasionally change suppliers.

Fred
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What do you use for prints - inkjet or dye-sublimation? D.M. Procida Digital SLR Cameras 13 March 26th 07 10:23 AM
Protecting inkjet prints Robert Feinman Digital Photography 0 October 14th 05 03:06 PM
Protecting inkjet prints Marvin Digital Photography 0 October 14th 05 01:37 AM
16X20 Inkjet Prints Bob Williams Digital Photography 12 May 5th 05 07:06 AM
mounting inkjet prints George Digital Photography 5 January 23rd 05 09:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.