New fading test

[ray]

I have a Canon IP5000 and am trying OEM vs. aftermarket inks. I
initially did a 6 month in sunny window fade test. This takes quite a
while to get results. I then decided to try a UV lamp that I have. In
2 hours it produces about the same amount of fading as did 6 months
in the sunny window. The results from sunny window to UV correlate
well. So far I have only tested 3 inks on 5 types of paper. I realize
that this only tests one aspect of fading, but can probably be used to
rule out bad performers. I tried ink swab with Q tip on photo paper
and found poor correlation between this method and printed samples. I
suspect this is because it applies too much ink and is not as even as
printed samples. If anyone is interested I can post my results. If
anyone is willing to send a sample printout I will test and post
results. All I need is a 4x6 print as per my sample. So far the best
results have been Canon ink on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper.
Magenta ink is most prone to fading with it being about 75% gone in 2
hours for poor performers.

 

[measekite]

I have a Canon IP5000 and am trying OEM vs. aftermarket inks. I
initially did a 6 month in sunny window fade test. This takes quite a
while to get results. I then decided to try a UV lamp that I have. In
2 hours it produces about the same amount of fading as did 6 months
in the sunny window. The results from sunny window to UV correlate
well. So far I have only tested 3 inks on 5 types of paper. I realize
that this only tests one aspect of fading, but can probably be used to
rule out bad performers. I tried ink swab with Q tip on photo paper
and found poor correlation between this method and printed samples. I
suspect this is because it applies too much ink and is not as even as
printed samples. If anyone is interested I can post my results. If
anyone is willing to send a sample printout I will test and post
results. All I need is a 4x6 print as per my sample.

So far the best
results have been Canon ink on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper.

That figures. Wilhem and PC World will agree. The cultish pundits will
still not accept this.

 

[Frank]

I have a Canon IP5000 and am trying OEM vs. aftermarket inks. I
initially did a 6 month in sunny window fade test. This takes quite a
while to get results. I then decided to try a UV lamp that I have. In
2 hours it produces about the same amount of fading as did 6 months
in the sunny window. The results from sunny window to UV correlate
well. So far I have only tested 3 inks on 5 types of paper. I realize
that this only tests one aspect of fading, but can probably be used to
rule out bad performers. I tried ink swab with Q tip on photo paper
and found poor correlation between this method and printed samples. I
suspect this is because it applies too much ink and is not as even as
printed samples. If anyone is interested I can post my results. If
anyone is willing to send a sample printout I will test and post
results. All I need is a 4x6 print as per my sample. So far the best
results have been Canon ink on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper.
Magenta ink is most prone to fading with it being about 75% gone in 2
hours for poor performers.

You should also spray some of the after market ink photos with Krylon
digital photo spray as part of your test.
Frank

 

[Hendo]

I have a Canon IP5000 and am trying OEM vs. aftermarket inks. I
initially did a 6 month in sunny window fade test. This takes quite a
while to get results. I then decided to try a UV lamp that I have. In
2 hours it produces about the same amount of fading as did 6 months
in the sunny window. The results from sunny window to UV correlate
well. So far I have only tested 3 inks on 5 types of paper. I realize
that this only tests one aspect of fading, but can probably be used to
rule out bad performers. I tried ink swab with Q tip on photo paper
and found poor correlation between this method and printed samples. I
suspect this is because it applies too much ink and is not as even as
printed samples. If anyone is interested I can post my results. If
anyone is willing to send a sample printout I will test and post
results. All I need is a 4x6 print as per my sample. So far the best
results have been Canon ink on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper.
Magenta ink is most prone to fading with it being about 75% gone in 2
hours for poor performers.

Hi Ray,

I am currently performing a simular test, and have performed several
test in the past involving the OEM's and 11 aftermarket inks
manufactures on 18 different papers.

I am very curious on how your results turn out. You should also compare
Epson inks and papers to Canon inks and papers. The results may
surprise you.

 

[ray]

Hi Ray,

I am currently performing a simular test, and have performed several
test in the past involving the OEM's and 11 aftermarket inks
manufactures on 18 different papers.

I am very curious on how your results turn out. You should also compare
Epson inks and papers to Canon inks and papers. The results may
surprise you.

I would be interested in your test methods and which inks do well. Did
you post your results yet? What papers and inks are you testing? Most
of the commercial tests that are run seem to be limited as to what
they test.

After trying a couple of methods what I finds that works well for me
is to print cyan, magenta, yellow, and black at 100%, 75%, 50% and
25%. For color balance the gray bands should be gray, sure enough if
the gray bands are off the colors don't match. I expose the prints to
UV. I have a broad spectrum lamp. It is similar to a florescent lamp
but has no phosphors and is made from quartz rather than glass so that
it emits a broad spectrum up into the short UV range. 4 hours of this
will bleach some magenta to almost white. I prepare samples by having
equal amount exposed to the light and shaded. After 2 hours of expose
I look at the sample. Magenta seems most prone to fading, followed by
cyan, yellow and black. The gray at less than 80% is printed with
color ink. Most of the grays will shift towards a blue green which
indicates a loss of magenta. I scan the samples and use Photoshop to
measure the colors. It agrees well with the visual look. For
promising candidates I have a Noise Ninja calibration chart with 150
color samples. I also have a couple of test photographs. These seem
to correlate well with the simple color samples.

As for my results. For paper I have a clear cut winner. For the inks
I have tried the paper seems to perform in rank order with the inks.
My clear cut winner is Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper. Coming in
second place is Canon high resolution paper, Kirkland from Costco, and
Canon Plus is next step down, Konica is next, and last place honors
goes to my former employer HP. Inks are more complicated and I have
more to try so if there is interest I will post again.

Again if anyone is interested I will try my fade test on samples they
provide. I may even supply the paper. All I need is a 4x6 print of
my color bands. Swabs of ink on paper do not equate to printed
samples.

After I find an ink and a paper I like I may try the clear coats on
top. I have walls full of panoramas that I have taken. Some more
than 4 years old. Some of the oldest ones have hardly changed, some
of the newer ones have shifted color badly, none have really faded
noticeably. Unfortunately I did not write the ink and paper
combination on the back so I am looking for some combination that will
last the 14 years that I am expected to last.

 

[Fred McKenzie]

I have a Canon IP5000 and am trying OEM vs. aftermarket inks. I
initially did a 6 month in sunny window fade test. This takes quite a
while to get results. I then decided to try a UV lamp that I have. In
2 hours it produces about the same amount of fading as did 6 months
in the sunny window.

Ray-

About 4 years ago I did a crude test by printing a photo on three
printers, and leaving the 8 1/2 X 11 prints in the rear window of my car
for one year.

The "surprising" result was that the surface of the Office Depot Premium
High Gloss Photo Paper became chalky by the end of the year. A fingernail
easily scratched away the surface.

There may be something other than UV that causes this effect, such as
oxidation and heat. Have you noticed any such effects from your UV test?

Fred

 

[Burt]

Ray-

About 4 years ago I did a crude test by printing a photo on three
printers, and leaving the 8 1/2 X 11 prints in the rear window of my car
for one year.

The "surprising" result was that the surface of the Office Depot Premium
High Gloss Photo Paper became chalky by the end of the year. A fingernail
easily scratched away the surface.

There may be something other than UV that causes this effect, such as
oxidation and heat. Have you noticed any such effects from your UV test?

Fred

From what I've read, UV and ozone are the two issues with fading. Damage to
the surface of the paper may be a different issue. The "torture test" you
mention also subjected the paper to extremely high temperatures. Even in
occasionally fog-bound San Francisco the temperature inside the car can be
much higher than the ambient temperature outside.

 

[sam]

Ray-

About 4 years ago I did a crude test by printing a photo on three
printers, and leaving the 8 1/2 X 11 prints in the rear window of my car
for one year.

The "surprising" result was that the surface of the Office Depot Premium
High Gloss Photo Paper became chalky by the end of the year. A fingernail
easily scratched away the surface.

There may be something other than UV that causes this effect, such as
oxidation and heat. Have you noticed any such effects from your UV test?

Fred

Not on the UV test. 3 years ago when I lived in Las Vegas I did some
fade tests by placing prints outdoors in the direct sun. Ambient was
115 with surface temperatures up to 185. I did see chalking on some
specimens, and peeling of the coating on others. I think it was too
severe of a test.

 

[BD]

That figures. Wilhem and PC World will agree. The cultish pundits will
still not accept this.

And don't forget - for information on Felder Machinery, and on mountain
biking in Santa Cruz, see http://www.wilhelm.com.

Right, Milquetoast?

 

[Arthur Entlich]

For a start, can you tell us more about the type of UV lamp this is? Is
it a sun lamp, a filtered UV lamp, short wave, long wave, mixed? Is
there much visible light or mainly "black" light when it is on? Does it
use fluorescent tubes or an arc lamp source, etc?

Art

 

[sam]

For a start, can you tell us more about the type of UV lamp this is? Is
it a sun lamp, a filtered UV lamp, short wave, long wave, mixed? Is there
much visible light or mainly "black" light when it is on? Does it use
fluorescent tubes or an arc lamp source, etc?

Art

The lamp was originally designed to erase EPROM's. For safety
it can only be used with the supplied plastic case. It is a broad
spectrum lamp. It is similar to a florescent tube except that it has
no phosphor coatings in the inside, hence it is not florescent. The
other difference is the bulb is made from quartz instead of glass
so that it can emit the shortwave UV. Broad spectrum means
that it also gives visible light. The specimen by design is placed
about 1" from the bulb. I was surprised by how quickly it will
fade a print. It will only work on 2" by 3" samples. I realize that
UV is only one aspect of fading, but I feel that if a sample does
poorly on UV it probably will not be an outstanding performer.

Yes I use 2 different news readers with two different names.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

OK, now that your lamp type has been described somewhat, I have some
more questions:

How large a bulb is it, and how much heat is produced? How far away
from the samples?

Lastly, what type of lifespan does a bulb like that have (more out of
interest than having to necessarily altering the fade tests).

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

OK, I am familiar with this type of lamp. I used one when I used to
collect "fluorescent minerals" although that one came with a cobalt
glass filter to remove most of the visible light spectrum.

Art

 

[ray]

OK, now that your lamp type has been described somewhat, I have some
more questions:

How large a bulb is it, and how much heat is produced? How far away
from the samples?

Lastly, what type of lifespan does a bulb like that have (more out of
interest than having to necessarily altering the fade tests).

Art

ray wrote:

The unit is rated 115 volts .16 amps or 18 watts. So the bulb is
probably about 10 watts. It has a reflector and the fixed case puts a
2" by 3" specimen about 1" from the source. By design results are
repeatable unlike daylight exposure or back of car window. The
specimen probably does not exceed 100 degrees for paper. For EPROMS
they got only slightly warm to the touch. I am not sure of the
lifetime of the bulb but would guess in hundreds of hours based on it
being a gas discharge tube similar to florescent and my experience in
using the larger units of the same design when I was an engineer. When
you write firmware for an 8051 every code change required and UV erase
and rewrite. At the time I worked for HP with about 100 engineers in
the lab so the UV eraser got a workout and I don't remember it burning
out.

 

[thoss]

OK, now that your lamp type has been described somewhat, I have some
more questions:

How large a bulb is it, and how much heat is produced? How far away
from the samples?

Lastly, what type of lifespan does a bulb like that have (more out of
interest than having to necessarily altering the fade tests).

This thread has been very interesting. But has anybody tested laminated
prints and how these fade?

 

[Fred McKenzie]

This thread has been very interesting. But has anybody tested laminated
prints and how these fade?

Thoss-

You might take Ray up on his offer to test your samples.

From what I've read, attempts to improve print longevity using lamination
or other coatings/sprays, make a small improvement. However, a print that
would fade in a short time (like a year?) would still fade relatively soon
(like 15 months?) if protected.

Suppose you wanted to make a long-lasting poster for use outdoors. You
print using the best ink you have and laminate it. At least it will be
waterproof, assuming you don't drive a nail through it!

Fred