M
MB_
We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
We like it.
I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
Mel
We like it.
I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
Mel
Caitlin said:The ink is more of an issue than the paper though. Any decent quality
paper will probably last 50 years. I intend to print at least some of
my photos commercially, as I have experienced the sad effect of
faded prints - most of my childhood was recorded on Polaroid film in
the 70's - most of it now faded into shadowy haze.
I don't believe that the Canon, though I think it's a great printer,
has inks suitable for long term archiving. Your best option in that
case is still commercial print laboratories. There may be some more
expensive photo printers around that offer more stable ink
technology, I'm guessing at a much higher price. The Canon, and most
standard inkjet printers no matter how good the photo quality, don't
claim to produce permanent photos. I don't know what actual length of
time they will last though.
MB_ said:We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
We like it.
I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
Mel
Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. IMB_ said:We got a new Canon IP4000 Pixma printer.
We like it.
I was just wondering: how long are the printed photos supposed to last?
Mel
Richard said:Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. I
inadvertently sent before editing.
While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
great.
The only Wilhelm-Research reference I could find was an old report for
the Canon S900 6 cartridge printer. Using Canons longest lasting
paper and Canon ink, the lifespan was estimated at 27 years. After
the "gas fade" debacle of a few years ago, these tests were redone
with added tests including gas fade. These tests produced much more
modest results with some die based prints fading within a few days to
months. I could not find these on his site.
Another site, http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm , lists the
Canon S9000 with various paper tests below. To be fair, none of the
Dye based printers do as well as pigment based printers for any
manufacturer. Fortunately, Epson has several long lasting printer
choices at different price points for those serious about longevity.
Printer Model: Canon S9000
Canon OEM Inks
Canon Photo Paper Pro, Rated At 2 Years
Kodak Premium Picture Paper, Rated At 4.5 Years
Epson Colorlife Paper, Rated At 11.5 Years
Epson Heavyweight Matte, Rated At 3.75 Years
Office Depot Premium Glossy, Rated At 4.25 Years
Red River Polar Satin, Rated At 5 Years
Red River Polar Gloss #66, Rated At 8 Years
Red River Ultra Pro Glossy, Rated At 2 Years
Red River Ultra Pro Satin, Rated At 2.75 years
Red River Premium Gloss, Rated At 2.5 Years
Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, Rated At 10.5 Years
Ilford Galerie Classic Gloss, Rated At 12.2 Years
Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. I
inadvertently sent before editing.
While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
great.
What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. LivickThat's more intense info...
BUT
someone is lying...either livick site or Canon...since livick says 2 years
with photo pro, while Canon says 100 years with same paper and same their
inks.
Now, i do believe that canon lies somewhat (it figures, right?) , but i just
DON'T believe that they lie for 98 years...nope...even if they use different
test methods, results whould be the same, if not, whole test procedure is
just a bi gwaste of time.
BTW...they still didn't test i950 with bci6 and photo paper pro...bastards!
Hecate said:What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
tests in "real world" conditions.
Stevie Boy said:This may help although it does not mention your printer it does give an idea
of lasting quality of various types of printers.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html
personal photographic history I think that may see a lot >of family photosDigital photography and the use of home printers is a grave risk to
Stevie Boy said:personal photographic history I think that may see a lot >of family photos
lost in decades to come.
Surely the advantage of Digital photography is that you do not need to
worry about the prints as you will always have a *perfect* copy backed up
either on a memory card, hard drive, cd or some other future storage
device for reference which can in future times be printed of once again
and likely due to advancement be actually a better print than the lovingly
saved original you worry about fading.
Hecate said:What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
tests in "real world" conditions.
SleeperMan said:But this is what i was taoling about...first of all, there is no ideal
condition, since in ideal conditions prints would last forever. All testers
test exposing to UV, light etc.... and all then calculate appr. life in real
world. BUT, as i said, there is NOT important HOW they test, results should
be about the same. If not, then all testers doesn't have a clue and they
just test to fool all of us.
It's like you can get from Texas to Ohio directly, or via Europe (around the
world) . At the end, there is not important where yougo, as long you get
there.
Fear not. The risks for the average unaware digital Joe are probablyCaitlin said:I agree that that is true in theory, but there are a couple of risk factors:
* Changes of technology - will the CD-R format or whatever be readable in 50
years? If you stick some disks in a cupboard for 50 years , I think the
chances of them being hard to access will be much higher than an old
fashioned neg. Think of 5.25" floppies, and the storage formats that
predated that. Of course file formats change too. JPG is fairly universal,
but how many computer file formats in use 15 years ago are still used today?
* Peoples laziness - simply because of the ease of use of Digital cameras, a
lot of people do not have the discipline to carefully file their images on
CD etc.
Don't get me wrong - I love digital photography, and the freedom it affords.
I just fear that the average photographer who is not aware of some of the
risk factors may not have the foresight to store those images safely so they
will definitely be accessible to the next generation.
Matthias said:Sorry, but your logic is wrong. The fact that somebody does a test
wrong (under overly optimistic conditions) does not imply that a
realistic test cannot be done.
If you want to measure the distance between Texas and Ohio it very
much depends on if you go directly or via Europe. In one case you'll
get an approximately correct result, in the other case your result
will be wrong. The fact that some stupid person chooses to go via
Europe does not imply that the distance between Texas and Ohio cannot
be measured.
Caitlin said:I agree that that is true in theory, but there are a couple of risk
factors:
* Changes of technology - will the CD-R format or whatever be
readable in 50 years? If you stick some disks in a cupboard for 50
years , I think the chances of them being hard to access will be much
higher than an old fashioned neg. Think of 5.25" floppies, and the
storage formats that predated that. Of course file formats change
too. JPG is fairly universal, but how many computer file formats in
use 15 years ago are still used today?
* Peoples laziness - simply because of the ease of use of Digital
cameras, a lot of people do not have the discipline to carefully file
their images on CD etc.
Don't get me wrong - I love digital photography, and the freedom it
affords. I just fear that the average photographer who is not aware
of some of the risk factors may not have the foresight to store those
images safely so they will definitely be accessible to the next
generation.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.