Longevity of inkjet Matte papers?

[frederick]

See Harald Johnson's book, "Mastering Digital Printing"
for a review of this history and *very* thorough coverage
of issues pertaining to print longevity -- including how to
test it yourself. The book is in its 2nd edition (at least)
and worth every penny.

The fact is that airborne oxidants can be just as
damaging to a print as light and heat. And here's
a surprise: airborne oxidants may be *more*
damaging to pigment ink prints than to dye-ink
prints!

Is that an opinion that Harald Johnson stated in his book?
How did he form that opinion?
It doesn't make sense - and as the technology of putting pigment on
paper using a little resin binder is technology that has been used for a
very long time.

Bottom line, for maximum longevity, all prints need
to be framed behind glass or at the very least
coated.

But longevity of some prints *not* behind glass, and *not* coated can be
more than adequate for many applications.

 

[John McWilliams]

Meanwhile we're using a dye-based printer/FAX/copier that prints faster
than our Epson (10x as fast?), costs less to run, hasn't clogged yet,
and has standard 300 dpi resolution instead of Epson's weird-ass 144.

Could you expand on what you mean by "dpi resolution"? And why is
Epson's standard a problem?

 

[David J. Littleboy]

The Canon Pro 9500 with pigment inks was announced before PMA 2006
and has 10 cartridges. Available "autumn 2006" but still not at B&H.

As per my previous message, it's now 2007.

If by "wet prints" you mean silver halide photo prints -- I own many
that have lasted over 30 years with minimal fading. Perhaps fading
is measurable but it still seems within acceptable limits. Supposedly
RA-4 (photo paper) technology has improved since then. RA-4 prints are
the conservative choice for people like me who shun the bleeding edge.

This is quite correct (especially the "acceptable limits" bit). But.

(1) In accellerated testing, pigment inkjet prints last longer.
(2) Lots of consumers have faded "drugstore prints".

Maybe so, but I really don't see why pigment inks would necessarily
last longer. Silver halide prints resist water droplets, which is more
than I can say for inkjet output.

Pigment-ink inkjet output also resists water droplets. I had forgotten that;
another reason I'm happy to have moved to pigment inkjet is that my printers
get used for my business labels, which no longer run in the rain.

But water-solubility is a real nasty: if your friends and/or customers
sneeze on their prints, they're going to be unhappy.

My mind is open to pigment-based inkjet technology, but my wallet is not
for another 10 years or so.

IMHO, given the availability of pigment inkjet, one would be nuts to use dye
inkjet. (And the R800 and R1800 aren't significantly more expensive than
other quality inkjets.)

Meanwhile we're using a dye-based printer/FAX/copier that prints faster
than our Epson (10x as fast?), costs less to run, hasn't clogged yet,
and has standard 300 dpi resolution instead of Epson's weird-ass 144.

You left off a digit there: Epson's weird-ass 1440. For practical output, I
see a difference as one provides source material up to 350 ppi or so, so 300
is inadequate for quality work.

As long as the Chrismas-card prints we make for friends last one year
when taped on refrigerators, I'll be satisfied. Note: Epson 780 prints
on Photo Paper didn't last that long. On refrigerators in morning sun,
pictures were nearly unrecognizable after one year, and after two years
there was practially no ink left to see.

Yep. That's why you want a pigment-ink printer.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[John McWilliams]

Pigment-ink inkjet output also resists water droplets. I had forgotten that;
another reason I'm happy to have moved to pigment inkjet is that my printers
get used for my business labels, which no longer run in the rain.

But water-solubility is a real nasty: if your friends and/or customers
sneeze on their prints, they're going to be unhappy.

In messing around with proofs or botched prints I have concluded: Even
with simple 6 cartridge home photo inkjet printers, in this case an
Epson R300, some combo's of paper and [dye based] inks are virtually
waterproof. Other combos are completely stuffed in that department. I
have washed all the color out of some papers, and soaked and rinsed
papers overnight, and dried them, with very little ill effect.

Had I been looking ahead, over the last two years I would have noted
what ink was used, on which papers, but I didn't.

 

[Raphael Bustin]

Raphael Bustin wrote:

Is that an opinion that Harald Johnson stated in his book?
How did he form that opinion?
It doesn't make sense - and as the technology of putting pigment on
paper using a little resin binder is technology that has been used for a
very long time.

No, that fact comes from a presentation at a conference
I attended a couple of years ago. It makes some sense
to me -- to the extent that pigment particles sit on the
surface of a page, and essentially are chunks of sold
pigment -- they present a large surface area.

OTOH, the presenter of that data was none other
than DuPont, and of course they were selling a
lamination system for (large) inkjet prints.

Not to drop names or anything, but I did chat for a
moment or two with the good Dr. Wilhelm at that
conference (he was one of the presenters.)

I have the first edition of Johnson's book and yet
am tempted to buy the 2nd ed. as well, because
it really does cover a lot of new ground.

But longevity of some prints *not* behind glass, and *not* coated can be
more than adequate for many applications.

"Some" people smoke two packs of cigarrettes
a day and yet do not die of cancer. That's
about as relevant.

I have some ancient Epson (dye ink) prints that still
look good. But others are now showing obvious
color shifts. The oldest are 8-9 years now.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[frederick]

No, that fact comes from a presentation at a conference
I attended a couple of years ago. It makes some sense
to me -- to the extent that pigment particles sit on the
surface of a page, and essentially are chunks of sold
pigment -- they present a large surface area.

For gas fading, one critical factor is relative surface area. For
pigment particles this is quite low - even though they may be quite
small particles. When I say quite low, then you need to compare with
dyestuff on coated papers.
Dye inks, when printed on "RC" (aka fast-dry) type papers are spread
over the extremely small pore structure typically of zeolites used in
the paper coating. These zeolites have surface areas measured (usually
by adsorbtion of a gas monolayer) of hundreds of square metres per gram.
(yes - this sounds improbable - but check information on zeolites!)
So, with a soluble dyestuff printed on the "wrong" papers, you have
layers of dyestuff only molecules deep "spread" over a surface exposed
to gaseous products that degrade the dyes. Retrospectively, it's easy
to see that there would be problems with testing only for UV light
resistance in accelerated tests.

Print the dye ink on "swellable polymer" papers, and the dyestuff is
protected by being locked in to layers of (AFAIK often polyacrylamide)
resin - protecting the dye from direct exposure to ozone etc.

But the inkjet makers now have some fast drying papers that seem to have
vastly improved gas-fading resistance with new dye inks. I don't know
how they do this, but assume if they include some resin in the ink to
seal the pores in the paper coatings, then that may be a way. In that
case, the claim that they make about the importance of matching ink-set
to paper or longevity may suffer is probably correct.

A further "trick" in the latest pigment inks is to micro-encapsulate
pigment in resin. This seems to have dual function. One may be to
protect the pigment and assist with coalescing of the pigment/resin in
the binder during drying - improving gloss uniformity. The other is
that it overcomes pigment surface electrical charges, so that HP and
Epson now use Carbon Black blended with blue, cyan or violet pigment to
produce neutral black (carbon black on it's own is yellowish-brown) for
monochrome printing.

OTOH, the presenter of that data was none other
than DuPont, and of course they were selling a
lamination system for (large) inkjet prints.

Not to drop names or anything, but I did chat for a
moment or two with the good Dr. Wilhelm at that
conference (he was one of the presenters.)

I have the first edition of Johnson's book and yet
am tempted to buy the 2nd ed. as well, because
it really does cover a lot of new ground.




"Some" people smoke two packs of cigarrettes
a day and yet do not die of cancer. That's
about as relevant.

I have some ancient Epson (dye ink) prints that still
look good. But others are now showing obvious
color shifts. The oldest are 8-9 years now.

The test data from Wilhelm is pretty good IMO as a *comparative*
measure. You can be fairly certain that Epson Ultrachrome Gloss or K3
or HP #38 inks printed on the papers tested will outlast wet-process
colour prints by quite a margin. But reality is that an unframed matte
print displayed in the average home environment will be destroyed by any
number of other things before it fades.

As far as wet-process colour prints go, I know that Cibachrome (now
Ilfochrome) prints don't last more than a few years displayed behind
glass in my home. Yet I hear that old-fashioned galleries still consider
Cibachrome as some kind of great standard. I expect pigment inkjet
prints will fare a lot better.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

There is no doubt that when Epson introduced the 6 color ink printers
they had a major issue with the cyan dyes in use. They were sensitive
to ground ozone, and bleached out in a matter of days in some cases. or
less.

Indeed, they had to develop new inks and papers to deal with this.
Epson eventually acknowledged that the prints should be kept under some
clean paper for 24-48 hours prior to allowing them to have full air
convection around them and that this helped to prevent this premature
fading issue. It was definitely a real issue with these inks sets.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I was not familiar with the issue of airborne pollutants (such as ground
ozone) as being more detrimental to pigment over dye colorant sources.

Do you know somewhere I can read more about this? Has Wilhelm revealed
any test results regarding this, or are their other sources. This
somewhat surprises me, but the many variables make pretty much anything
possible.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Yes, I mean silver halide color prints when I say "wet prints", and
since WIlhelm started out in this area of analysis it is interesting to
look to him for test on color photo paper (silver halide) fading.

Some inkjet prints, with the right paper are water resistant.

Keep in mind "silver halide" color prints shouldn't have any silver left
in them. It is bleached and then removed in the fixing process. What
is left behind are dye clouds made up of organic dyes, and they aren't
necessarily invulnerable to environmental factors like UV and visible
light, ozone and other reactive substances.

I'm not sure any wet lab color print, other than dye transfer is more
resistant to fading over a reasonable pigment inkjet print, and newer
inks are improving on that.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I would also question the meaning and import of this statement.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I think Dupont may have been overstating their case, for obvious
reasons, and their logic seems flawed.

The smaller the colorant's physical molecule or mass, the more capable
UV or strong oxidizers are in lifting it off the paper. It is true that
swellable polymer paper surfaces can have the dye colorant molecules
imbedded into the surface, which helps to trap it. However, pigment
"grains" are so massive relative to dye molecular structure, that we are
talking several orders of magnitude. Simply put, I would be amazed if
gaseous oxidizers or UV activity could make much of a real dent in a
resin coated adhered pigment particle.

Art

 

[Raphael Bustin]

I was not familiar with the issue of airborne pollutants (such as ground
ozone) as being more detrimental to pigment over dye colorant sources.

Do you know somewhere I can read more about this? Has Wilhelm revealed
any test results regarding this, or are their other sources. This
somewhat surprises me, but the many variables make pretty much anything
possible.

I should have a CD somewhere with the conference
proceedings. It's a matter of finding that CD and finding
the PDF for that particular presentation. (If it exists -- not
all presentations appear on the CD.) If I can find it, I'll post it.

One silver lining from the Epson 1270/1280 fading fiasco
was the heightened awareness of airborne oxidants both
at Wilhelm's facility and among consumers.

Suffice to say, the problem is real, and the market
brims with solutions to "deal" with the issue in
various ways.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Could you expand on what you mean by "dpi resolution"? And why is
Epson's standard a problem?

When I prepare a digital image for printing on RA-4 paper at the Longs Drugs
two blocks away, it must be at 300 dpi because that is the resolution of
the Fuji Frontier. It's easier to preview on the Canon than on our Epson
because I don't need to switch resolution (240 or 360).

Also, if I have a document with imported photographs, I can print it on both
the laser printers at work (600 dpi) and on the Canon, without switching
import resolution of all the pictures.

 

[Bill Tuthill]

In messing around with proofs or botched prints I have concluded: Even
with simple 6 cartridge home photo inkjet printers, in this case an
Epson R300, some combo's of paper and [dye based] inks are virtually
waterproof. Other combos are completely stuffed in that department. I
have washed all the color out of some papers, and soaked and rinsed
papers overnight, and dried them, with very little ill effect.

Had I been looking ahead, over the last two years I would have noted
what ink was used, on which papers, but I didn't.

I'm a kayaker. One of my buddies printed out topo maps of a river segment
(Jarbidge-Bruneau in Idaho) on Adventure Paper. He wasn't sure whether
he used dye-based or pigment-based inks, because he could not remember
the Epson model number. Anyway, his map was relatively waterproof,
despite all the splashing. The reds ran a bit.

 

[Bill Tuthill]

[summary of conference proceedings etc.]

Thanks for your ultra informative post on pigment particles, gas fading,
zeolites, swellable polymers, polyacrylamide, pigment encapsulate, etc.

The test data from Wilhelm is pretty good IMO as a *comparative*
measure. You can be fairly certain that Epson Ultrachrome Gloss or K3
or HP #38 inks printed on the papers tested will outlast wet-process
colour prints by quite a margin.

When displayed behind glass under fluorescent light.

I'm still not comprehending the science behind these assertions, however.
What chemistry causes RA-4 paper to fade measurably in 12-40 years,
whereas pigment inks on compatible paper types do not? Is it the light
that causes fading? What would happen in sunlight? Dark storage?

(E.g. Kodachrome outlasts Ektachrome in dark storage by at least 3:1,
but when continuously projected, the reverse is try by at least 2:1.)

Has anybody taken an Epson R800 (or equivalent) print and left it on
the dashboard of your car all summer long?

 

[Raphael Bustin]

Has anybody taken an Epson R800 (or equivalent) print and left it on
the dashboard of your car all summer long?

Not dashboard of car, but I have one just hanging on
the wall of my cubicle at work, where it occasionally
gets direct sunlight in the afternoons.. It's only been
up for a year or so. The R1800 has a "gloss
enhancer" ink channel that provides a clear coat,
but that's all the protection this print has.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[frederick]

Not dashboard of car, but I have one just hanging on
the wall of my cubicle at work, where it occasionally
gets direct sunlight in the afternoons.. It's only been
up for a year or so. The R1800 has a "gloss
enhancer" ink channel that provides a clear coat,
but that's all the protection this print has.

I've had unframed R1800 prints on my fridge for 18 months with no colour
shift noticeable.
I don't know that the glop is applied over the entire print surface -
perhaps just over highlight areas where ink density is low. If you
toggle it off in the driver and print on glossy stock, then the printed
areas seem the same as with gloss optimiser on - but you do see gloss
differential between darker areas and highlights - a little more so than
with a R2400, but the R2400 applies light shade inks in light areas
which might explain this. My guess is that the magenta, yellow, cyan,
and black inks for the R1800 and 2400 are the same.

 

[Ockham's Razor]

I've had unframed R1800 prints on my fridge for 18 months with no colour
shift noticeable.[/QUOTE]

You may not notice the degredation. Make another print and compare them.

 

[John McWilliams]

When I prepare a digital image for printing on RA-4 paper at the Longs Drugs
two blocks away, it must be at 300 dpi because that is the resolution of
the Fuji Frontier. It's easier to preview on the Canon than on our Epson
because I don't need to switch resolution (240 or 360).

When you prepare an image on your computer, you are working in ppi, not
dpi. The number of dots, or dot equivalent a printer lays down often has
no correlation to ppi you charge it with.

And, yes, there are optimum ppi settings per printer, but at 300 ppi
sent to just about any printer, the differences are either academic or
for the very closely interested.

Also, if I have a document with imported photographs, I can print it on both
the laser printers at work (600 dpi) and on the Canon, without switching
import resolution of all the pictures.

Your own eyes will be your guide, but a 300 ppi image printed on both,
vs. 240 or even 600 ppi printed on both, will be hard to distinguish,
I'll wager.

 

[frederick]

I've had unframed R1800 prints on my fridge for 18 months with no colour
shift noticeable.

You may not notice the degredation. Make another print and compare them.
[/QUOTE]
I don't need to. I have a copy of one printed at the same time in an album.