Is there any way to avoid the fading problem with Canon ink?

[Cay]

Hey there,

Reading review sites (Tom's Hardware, for lack of something more in
depth on printers), I hear that color images made with the newer Canon
printers (eg. i850) turn magenta *very* quickly when exposed to air -
much faster than those printed with HPs or Epsons.

It's a pity because I had the impression that the Canons i850 made the
best looking photo and text/images prints for the 150-200$ price
range. (HP was quite fine too, but 2x as expensive after a while)

Is there any way around this, perhaps by buying Ink from 3rd parties?
Would that nessecarily make the prints look worse?

TIA
-Cay

P.S. I'll link the review here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20031124/printer_heavyweights-06.html
for pics and
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20030509/i950-09.html#conclusion
for a brief mention of the Canon fading problem

I'd appreciate you pointing me to better sites, too, if you know any.

 

[Jim Norris]

Mount them behind glass to keep the air away.

 

[Bill]

Reading review sites (Tom's Hardware, for lack of something more in
depth on printers), I hear that color images made with the newer Canon
printers (eg. i850) turn magenta *very* quickly when exposed to air -
much faster than those printed with HPs or Epsons.

Well it's all subjective...

It's a pity because I had the impression that the Canons i850 made the
best looking photo and text/images prints for the 150-200$ price
range. (HP was quite fine too, but 2x as expensive after a while)

I have a Canon i850 and some original ink and photo paper prints that
have been on the fridge since February 2003 without any visible signs of
aging, fading, or colour cast change.

I also have prints on Office Depot paper and Atlanticinkjet ink that
have been in the open since March 2003 without any ill effects.

And there are the prints in the photo albums that have not faded. I have
a 4x6 and 8x10 that are the same image. The 8x10 is under glass in a
frame, and the 4x6 is still on the fridge. When compared side by side,
there is no visible difference, aside from the size.

Is there any way around this, perhaps by buying Ink from 3rd parties?
Would that nessecarily make the prints look worse?

The biggest problem seems to be UV light from the Sun. If you keep your
prints away from direct sunlight, you should be ok. Ambient light
doesn't seem to make a big difference.

Of course, YMMV. :-/

 

[Guy Owen]

There is a very interesting Article available at Shutterbug Magazine,
located here: http://www.shutterbug.net/features/1103sb_thearchival/index.html.
It involves an interview with Henry Wilhelm of Wilhelm Research, the
laboratory that has been studying digital print media permanence for
so many years. He mentions this very problem, as related to
susceptibility to deterioration caused by ozone. The only recommended
way to protect against such fading is placing the images behind glass
or otherwise sealing them away from ozone contamination. It has also
plagued the earlier versions of Epsons printers right about the time
they started declaring their technology as "archival quality" several
years back. You might want to read through that entire article for
other insights.

The other situation affecting the fading of images is a resistance by
users to buy the higher-cost papers developed by each printer
manufacturer specifically for their printers, and using original inks.
Wilhelm's testing shows some dramatic results -- he mentions testing
with Staples Premium Glossy Photo Paper vs HP's Premium Plus Photo
Paper using an HP printer. HP tested out to a 73-year Rating vs only 2
using the Staples paper.

Guy

 

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

On 24 Dec 2003 09:03:04 -0800, Guy Owen wrote:

=>The other situation affecting the fading of images is a resistance by
=>users to buy the higher-cost papers developed by each printer
=>manufacturer specifically for their printers, and using original inks.
=>Wilhelm's testing shows some dramatic results -- he mentions testing
=>with Staples Premium Glossy Photo Paper vs HP's Premium Plus Photo
=>Paper using an HP printer. HP tested out to a 73-year Rating vs only 2
=>using the Staples paper.
=>
=>Guy

Yes, the "ordinary consumer" tends to be suspicious of
technicalities (s)he doesn't understand. There "must be
something cheaper and just as good", right? And the
"ordinary consumer" also tends to be satisfied with much
less than the best - often not even adequate quality. Too
bad.

 

[Amishman35]

The biggest problem seems to be UV light from the Sun. If you keep your

prints away from direct sunlight, you should be ok. Ambient light
doesn't seem to make a big difference.

I have a fluorescent light in my room, and if I take a piece of kilt tape and
put it over a picture, the picture fades except for the part that was taped.

 

[Amishman35]

And the

"ordinary consumer" also tends to be satisfied with much
less than the best - often not even adequate quality. Too
bad.

Remember VHS or Microsoft Windows?

 

[dslr]

I have a fluorescent light in my room, and if I take a piece of kilt tape and
put it over a picture, the picture fades except for the part that was taped.

Probably gas fading.
Both light and air composition affect fading.

 

[Bill]

I have a fluorescent light in my room, and if I take a piece of kilt tape and
put it over a picture, the picture fades except for the part that was taped.

I don't know what kind of paper you're using, but with both Canon and
Office Depot photo paper, I've had excellent results and resistance to
fading.

Some of my prints are on the fridge, held there with magnets, and they
have shown little or no fade after nearly a year.

To ensure I'm not just accustomed to any gradual fading, I have a
comparison print here. I wanted to do my own informal tests when I
bought the printer, so I scanned a 35mm film (4x6) print, adjusted it to
match the original as closely as possible using Photoshop, then printed
it on my Canon i850. The two were nearly identical when I printed the
scanned copy back in February 2003.

Today the two still look virtually identical.

 

[Old Nick]

....and in reply I say!:

Perhaps the ordinary consumer looks at the cost of these things and
reckons that somebody, somewhere, is making far too much money. Also,
there have been instances of the "best" from the genuine people being
far, far less than any damn good, and they were at OM prices.

Yes, the "ordinary consumer" tends to be suspicious of
technicalities (s)he doesn't understand. There "must be
something cheaper and just as good", right? And the
"ordinary consumer" also tends to be satisfied with much
less than the best - often not even adequate quality. Too
bad.

**************************************************** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I was frightened by the idea of a conspiracy that was
causing it all.
But then I was terrified that maybe there was no plan,
really. Is this unpleasant mess all a mistake?

 

[Korey Smith]

I have been looking at getting a Multifunction printer and was
thinking it would be nice to have a Multifunction that used separate
ink tanks for each color. I am aware that some of Canon's printers
use separate tanks for each color, but do their multifunction printers
do the same. Also, are their multifunction printers reliable?

Are there any other reliable brands of multifunction devices that use
separate ink tanks for each color?