Longevity of inkjet Matte papers?

[Arthur Entlich]

There is no "law" that makes you use 240 or 360 dpi with Epson printers.

The differences between those and 300 dpi is minimal if even visible on
the final print. If you were to use 300 dpi rather than 240 dpi, for
instance, the results would be superior.

The very early Epson drivers did tend to artifact at less than exact
divisors, but that hasn't been the case for years now.

If you were to stick with 300 dpi the results would be quite acceptable,
as good as most other printers at the same resolution.

Art

 

[Pat]

Anybody have words of wisdom about longevity of inkjet Matte papers?
According to Wilhelm's testing they are more durable against fading
than glossy "Photo" papers. Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.

Whereas Epson Photo Paper with Epson dye-based inks starts to fade in
my kitchen (filtered sunlight) within months, although it lasts about
a year in my office (flourescent lights) before I notice cyan fading.

I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters. Some net.advice
indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
Canon also offers a matte paper.

I don't own an Epson printer so will not enter into the ink/pigment
debate other than to say the HP Premium Plus Photo Paper is pretty
resistant to fade. Another option is good, cotton paper like a water
color paper cut down to the right size.

You have 2 other option available to you.

First off, if you are doing most 1 or 2 sizes, go to a good glass shop
and get a stack of good glass. It's pretty cheap and won't let much UV
through (.01% ?). It's good insurance and if you swap out pictures,
the glass will stay in place to protect the next one. I think a 5x7 is
about $2.

Second, if you planning to keep them up for a while and they have value
to you, then send them out to a really great print shop. Commercially
printed printed look stunning and are more resistant to fade.

 

[John McWilliams]

There is no "law" that makes you use 240 or 360 dpi with Epson printers.

The differences between those and 300 dpi is minimal if even visible on
the final print. If you were to use 300 dpi rather than 240 dpi, for
instance, the results would be superior.

The very early Epson drivers did tend to artifact at less than exact
divisors, but that hasn't been the case for years now.

If you were to stick with 300 dpi the results would be quite acceptable,
as good as most other printers at the same resolution.

Er, I know it's plenty early, but don't you mean ppi? Here it's clear in
context, so no misunderstanding, but in the interest of accuracy....

John

 

[rafe b]

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.

Here's the PDF. The author is Ed Iracki, who bills
himself (in the PDF) as "Senior Technology
Consultant, DuPont Fluorosurfacing."

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/dupont.pdf
(approx 1.7 Mb)

The first 1/2 or 2/3 of the PDF is pure marketing.
The good stuff (such as it is) is at the end.

This was from a presentation in May of 2003
in Scottsdale, AZ. (http://imi.maine.com/)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[frederick]

Here's the PDF. The author is Ed Iracki, who bills
himself (in the PDF) as "Senior Technology
Consultant, DuPont Fluorosurfacing."

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/dupont.pdf
(approx 1.7 Mb)

The first 1/2 or 2/3 of the PDF is pure marketing.
The good stuff (such as it is) is at the end.

This was from a presentation in May of 2003
in Scottsdale, AZ. (http://imi.maine.com/)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Interesting article.
I don't see reference in it to gas fading with pigment.
Note the exposure conditions for the "window test" about 9 times the
light intensity, and at higher temperature than normal DPR tests for
inside display. I'm surprised that ultrachrome pigment prints (let
alone the dye ink prints) lasted as long as they did - considering that
the test was designed to be equivalent to outdoor South Florida exposure.

 

[rafe b]

Interesting article.
I don't see reference in it to gas fading with pigment.

You're right about that. The reference was to UV
sensitivity, not gas fading.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Interesting article.
I don't see reference in it to gas fading with pigment.
Note the exposure conditions for the "window test" about 9 times the
light intensity, and at higher temperature than normal DPR tests for
inside display. I'm surprised that ultrachrome pigment prints (let
alone the dye ink prints) lasted as long as they did - considering that
the test was designed to be equivalent to outdoor South Florida exposure.

If I'm reading this correctly, Epson Ultrachrome pigment inks
are "surprisingly sensitive to UV" and in Iracki's Window Test
will show yellow fading to 80% of when-new within two years,
and to 0% (!!!) in around 7.5 years.

Yikes. At the end of last week, Arthur was making fun of me
for getting Longs Drugs to make me Frontier RA-4 prints.

 

[frederick]

If I'm reading this correctly, Epson Ultrachrome pigment inks
are "surprisingly sensitive to UV" and in Iracki's Window Test
will show yellow fading to 80% of when-new within two years,
and to 0% (!!!) in around 7.5 years.

Yikes. At the end of last week, Arthur was making fun of me
for getting Longs Drugs to make me Frontier RA-4 prints.

Bung your Frontier prints in a window test like that, and see how they go.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I agree that the terms are often interchanged incorrectly, and I did so
in my quoted message (below).

In this case I was just trying to maintain the O.P. use as to try to
avoid confusion.

So, in the spirit of clarification:

Wherever I indicated dpi, what I really mean with output to printer file
pixels per inch (ppi).

In most cases, dpi refers to the dots produced by the printer (per inch)
and in the case of inkjet printers, many dots are required to correspond
to one pixel on the screen to equate the color and luminosity (density)
of that pixel.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I've just looked over the Dupont "slide" show, and I find several
aspects somewhat manipulative.

The first is that the scales used on the bar charts change with
different products. For instance, the Photo Dye inks (window display
test) show the full chart's height as 1 year. The dye inks, without
other protection (what paper isn't indicated) is 1/2 year.

On the Ultrachrome ink bar chart (again, window display test) the chart
is 5 years to the top, and the UIltrachrome inks show about 13-14 months
(a bit over double that of the photo dye inks).

They don't show the bar chart for testing the Ultrachrome inks with the
"standard fluorescent test- bare bulb", however, they do show it for the
PhotoDye inks (2.6 years).

Finally, they mention that their idea of failing can be one of dozens of
possibilities, but do not indicate which failure occurred. The type of
"failure" may differ considerably.

Whenever a company shows selective test results, I am suspect. I
suspect the Ultrachrome inks under standard fluorescent display
conditions probably fared quite well, and that is why they were left out
of the test. Direct sunlight is very hostile and I don't expect a thin
layer of ink to survive it well. I also expect that UV filtration will
make for considerable improvement, since UV is a major cause of fading.
Their display film seems to increase magenta quite a bit with time.

Also, perhaps I missed it, but they indicate six different film types
but I can't find a chart which explains which are which, as they are
only identified A-F.

I do not see where these tests show pigment inks being more susceptible
to UV or Gas than dye inks.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I was not "making fun" of you. I was pointing out the advantages of
pigment ink versus most silver halide color prints in real life display
settings.

You need to compare apples to apples. What type of fading occurs with a
RA-4 print under similar conditions?

More to the point, who really cares what happens to the prints under
Florida sun and heat (unless you are printing ads that are going to be
outdoors in Florida) - that's just not how prints are displayed. In a
more normal display environment Ultrachrome ink prints on the proper
paper will outlast most, if not all, color silver halide prints,
especially under glass.

As someone, perhaps yourself noted, Kodachrome has great dark keeping
but Ektachrome does much better in light situations (like regular
projection). Each colorant has different environmental factors which
alter it. Subjecting a print to Florida light and heat isn't normal
display. It is somewhat like taking a book and tossing it in a oven at
475 degrees F and when it bursts into flames and chars after a few
minutes, saying that is an accelerated test for paper and proves paper
will become carbon after 100 years at 75 degrees F.

As I stated before, reasonable accelerated testing can give an idea
about performance between media and inks, but taken to extremes it
becomes meaningless.

Art

 

[David J. Littleboy]

I've just looked over the Dupont "slide" show, and I find several aspects
somewhat manipulative.

Whenever a company shows selective test results, I am suspect. I suspect
the Ultrachrome inks under standard fluorescent display conditions
probably fared quite well, and that is why they were left out of the test.
Direct sunlight is very hostile and I don't expect a thin layer of ink to
survive it well. I also expect that UV filtration will make for
considerable improvement, since UV is a major cause of fading. Their
display film seems to increase magenta quite a bit with time.

I didn't get anywhere near as far along as you did: I noticed the differing
scales being used, and that it reeked of being nothing other than an
extended ad for Teflon. (Hmm. I'd think the patents on Teflon would have all
run out, so I'm surprised to see them doing what looks like desperate
grasping at staws for a new application of the material. Maybe the copyright
on the name is still in force, so they're frantically trying to get some
more milage from it.)

Also, perhaps I missed it, but they indicate six different film types but
I can't find a chart which explains which are which, as they are only
identified A-F.

Presumably those were different versions of the product they are trying to
sell.

I do not see where these tests show pigment inks being more susceptible to
UV or Gas than dye inks.

They don't. They do show them being merely twice as resistant to them,
though, which is a bit of a surprise.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Raphael Bustin]

They don't. They do show them being merely twice as resistant to them,
though, which is a bit of a surprise.

The closest I found is this bullet item (on p. 37): "Unlaminated Epson
Ultrachrome Pigment Ink surprsingly sensitive to UV."

My apologies. My memory (of the presentation) is clearly flawed, or
else I mis-attributed my original statement... or simply imagined it.

One thing you learn at these conferences is that *every*
presenter is there to sell something. There's no pure science.
Everyone's got an agenda.

Mine (as a mere attendee) was to visit Sedona, Oak Creek
Canyon, and the Grand Canyon, prior to the conference.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[David J. Littleboy]

The closest I found is this bullet item (on p. 37): "Unlaminated Epson
Ultrachrome Pigment Ink surprsingly sensitive to UV."

If you look at the graphs carefully, there's one for dye ink and one for
pigment ink that claims that (without Teflon(TM)) dye prints last 6 months
and pigment prints last a year. I think that was the test where the prints
were left in full sun.

My apologies. My memory (of the presentation) is clearly flawed, or
else I mis-attributed my original statement... or simply imagined it.

My appologies in return: I didn't mean to shoot the messenger<g>. The
presentation might be flawed, but I do think that (a) it's interesting, and
(b) that bullet item comment that you quoted there is actually justified.
Wilhelm has glass-protected pigment prints lasting at least 10 times longer
than dye prints, so "only" lasting twice as long is interesting.

I agree with someone else's comment in this thread that sitting in full
Florida sun for a year is pretty insanely excessive abuse and rather
irrellevant. I remember leaving a textbook on a window ledge (i.e. "behind
glass") for a month or two and finding a partly gray (original color) and
partly bright green ("faded" color) textbook.

But inversely, Wilhelm appears to only test under glass or other protection,
so I don't think Wilhelm is the last word, either. Our CEO thumb tacks
photos to the bookcase, and so I think unprotected performance is also
something that needs to be tested for, for real people in real life.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Hey, it happens to all of us (especially as one ages...). I was
surprised by the original statement, because, in general, the physics of
pigments is such that they would be expected to survive better than dyes
in most circumstances, so I was intrigued by any data showing otherwise.

The presentation, as you state, is geared to sell the Dupont film
coatings, which may indeed have some value toward increasing fade
resistance. I don't know how much better they are than other (probably
much less costly) laminates. The Teflon, as they imply, is probably
great for graffiti prone areas, since Teflon is amazingly resistant to
most solvents, making it easy to clean.

I do wonder about the manufacturing process in terms of hazardous
output, and even the safety of handling it more than necessary. I think
there have been some suggestions it may have health issues connected
with it.

Also, even the vinyl type laminates are darn slippery to handle once
applied, I can just imagine what Teflon coated prints are like.

However, beautiful country to be able to take some photos in, so, as you
state, no loss ;-)

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I'm surprised by your statement that Wilhelm doesn't test bare images.

In most of the results I have read from his website he seemed to have a
column showing UV glass, regular glass and no glass, and sometimes
certain UV or other spray coatings.

I do find the Dupont numbers a bit suspect in terms of the small
differential between the dye and pigment inks (as you stated 6 months
versus about 13-14 months). However, part of this may be that after a
certain level of light intensity, just about any colorant will fade
pretty rapidly.

I have always been a little critical of full sun exposure tests. Indoor
lighting, even in the brightest of setting is usually considerable lower
intensity.

Art

 

[David J. Littleboy]

I'm surprised by your statement that Wilhelm doesn't test bare images.

Yes. I should have qualified that: in the stuff that I found in a rather
cursory look. E.g. the link I referenced in a previous note.

In most of the results I have read from his website he seemed to have a
column showing UV glass, regular glass and no glass, and sometimes certain
UV or other spray coatings.

OK. I missed those.

I do find the Dupont numbers a bit suspect in terms of the small
differential between the dye and pigment inks (as you stated 6 months
versus about 13-14 months). However, part of this may be that after a
certain level of light intensity, just about any colorant will fade pretty
rapidly.

I have always been a little critical of full sun exposure tests. Indoor
lighting, even in the brightest of setting is usually considerable lower
intensity.

Yep.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Bung your Frontier prints in a window test like that, and see how they go.

Done, as already stated. I left an RA-4 print on the dashboard of my car
for two summers, May 2001 to September 2003. I'm in San Jose California.
Afterwards I compared it to a 4x6 double-print produced at the same time.
The photograph was of a Macbeth chart with 18 color and 6 gray patches.
I could not detect any fading whatsoever. This was Agfa Prestige paper,
which in Wilhelm's tests didn't fare as well as Fuji Crystal Archive.

 

[Bill Tuthill]

I suspect the Ultrachrome inks under standard fluorescent display
conditions probably fared quite well, and that is why they were left out
of the test. Direct sunlight is very hostile and I don't expect a thin
layer of ink to survive it well. I also expect that UV filtration will
make for considerable improvement, since UV is a major cause of fading.

Nonetheless UV exists in the real world. In my kitchen it's filtered
by glass that removes many of its harmful components. E.g. I have never
gotten a sunburn thru glass!

Let me just say that when Wilhelm's testing shows pigment-based inkjets
regularly outperforming RA-4 prints by a 5:1 margin, I would expect them
to perform much better in the window test than they actually did.

Yellow ink lasting two years (if true) is a ***huge*** disappointment,
especially insofar as yellow is critical in a CMYK or CcMmYK device.

 

[Bill Tuthill]

If you look at the graphs carefully, there's one for dye ink and one for
pigment ink that claims that (without Teflon(TM)) dye prints last 6 months
and pigment prints last a year. I think that was the test where the prints
were left in full sun.

Full sun behind glass, right? That's very different from sun without glass.
It's a window test, eh. (Sorry I didn't read the whole PDF because its
blue-gradient background took so long to display.)

I agree with someone else's comment in this thread that sitting in full
Florida sun for a year is pretty insanely excessive abuse and rather
irrelevant.

I disagree. Conditions in my kitchen somewhat resemble the Florida test,
if only for several hours per day.

But inversely, Wilhelm appears to only test under glass or other protection,
so I don't think Wilhelm is the last word, either. Our CEO thumb tacks
photos to the bookcase, and so I think unprotected performance is also
something that needs to be tested for, for real people in real life.

One of the posters on this thread asserted that Wilhelm often tests prints
unprotected by glass, but I've never seen a PDF with those data.