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
M
MB_
Let me add to this: I am printing on Kodak Premium Picture Paper (high
gloss) and I intend to keep the photos in an album.
Mel
gloss) and I intend to keep the photos in an album.
Mel
F
fay10
I use Generic Gloosy 4x6 Paper from the New Zealand Equivulent Of Tandy
Store.."Dick Smith Electronics" and they cost about $15NZ For 50 Sheets..
They claim a life of Fifty Years Plus!!
Store.."Dick Smith Electronics" and they cost about $15NZ For 50 Sheets..
They claim a life of Fifty Years Plus!!
C
Caitlin
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.
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.
S
SleeperMan
Caitlin said:
Canon claims their Photo paper Pro (PR-101) is supposely to last over 100
years with their original ink.
But, then again, we discussed this in looong thread "Epson beats them
all"....
read it and make your opinion...
S
Stevie Boy
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
Steve
of lasting quality of various types of printers.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html
Steve
R
Richard
MB_ said:
While Canon printers are outstanding in most regards, longevity is not
great.
The best Wilhelm-Research reference I could find was for the Canon
S900 6 cartridge printer. Using Canons longest lasting paper and
Canon ink, the lifespan was 27 years. Another site,
http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm , lists the following
paper tests:
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
R
Richard
Please forgive me if my other post got through to your server. IMB_ said:
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
S
SleeperMan
Richard said:
That'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!
H
Hecate
Yes. I just r4ead a couple of articles from separate sources, which
did ink fade tests over a 3-6 month period. They found the Canon inks
were the least stable.
H
Hecate
What you are missing it that Canon tests in ideal conditions. Livick
tests in "real world" conditions.
C
Caitlin
Hecate said:
I'm afraid I'd agree. Not that Canon are lying necessarily - but it all
depends what they were testing for... I don't know enough about pigment
based inks to know how much better these are, but I'd probably still use a
lab printer to print my most precious prints (I say this - but haven't
actually done it yet!) Digital photography and the use of home printers is
a grave risk to personal photographic history I think that may see a lot of
family photos lost in decades to come.
M
Matthias
Stevie Boy said:
This paper from the same site does mention the BCI-6 inks from Canon:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/is_t/WIR_ISTpaper_2002_02_HW.pdf
(result: between 6 and 27 years when framed and under glass).
S
Stevie Boy
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.
Today is not the time for Digital photography to take over, this will take
years like any shift in direction for technology until it does I don't see
photo labs disappearing.
Steve
C
Caitlin
Stevie Boy 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.
S
SleeperMan
Hecate 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.
All thise just means the noone can even approximately calculate hoe long
prints will last in real world by using test results.
BTW...as Stevie said...i really wonder why all this fuzz abour lifetime, as
you ALWAYS have a perfect backup copy...and that's why i don't really care
too much about life...
M
Matthias
SleeperMan 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.
J
John McWilliams
Fear not. The risks for the average unaware digital Joe are probablyCaitlin said:
less than for his predecessor who stored his negatives next to the furnace.
As to formats, yes, there are some who today have info on floppy disks,
and yes, in 20 years people may not know what CDs are or were. But even
today, for info you really want, you can go get your 78 rpm record disks
converted to mp4s, AIFFs, mp3s and/or WAVs.
S
SleeperMan
Matthias said:
If one gets 5 years result and another gets 100 years result, there's very
wrong with both of them...either first one wants to shit on certain brand,
or other one is lying...as simple as that.
In any way, guessing how people will store photos is just stupid. IF i
store them in dark place, so all those UV exposure tests fail, while if i
store them in a frame on bright part of my room, they all fail again...
They say like ...what...5 minutes of exposing to light per day...I
mean...who are they to tell me that i must look at my photos everyday and
look them only 5 minutes...??? I'll bloddy look them all day long if i want
to...or never
))I was not refeffing to distance, but a goal. There's not important where you
go, you always end up in Ohio...right?
S
SleeperMan
Caitlin said:
Now, now...
i must disagree completely...
Don't look so far in the future. See what happened with good old
floppies...We copied all our data from floppies to modern CDR's. Nothing was
lost. And we still know what floppies are (or were). And only stupid ones
keep only one copy. Same will happen in the future. When CDR's will become
obscene, we will copy all contents to another, modern media. Note that this
is already happening with DVD's.
Laziness has nothing to do with it. Let's say you have analog camera and
36 available shots. You go to the trip, you make some 20-25 shots, no more
because 1) you THINK for every shot if it's worthed and 2) you are liimited
with shots so you're afraid that if you shoot this one, you'll went out of
shot for later possible scenes. When you get home, you end up with some
10-15 good shots and rest is useless.
Now imagine digital camera. You have 200-500 shots available, you shoot each
and every crap you see. When you get home, you end up with 500 photos, from
which 50-100 are good, rest is crap. This crap is easily deleted from PC -
it's jsut a matter of minutes.
NOW...see the difference? in first part you have 10-15 shots, while in
second one you have ten times more...
There is WAY bigger risk in having analog negative film stored than digital
CDR. You can't have 10 negatives (originals - there's only one original. If
you copy it, copies won't be as good), while you can have 10 CDR's - all
equal originals.
Now which system has bigger risk? Note that printing a photo is not meant
for last ages, but simply to show people your shots. You can always make
another one from intact original, while you can't make equally good one from
50 years old negative.