Durability of inkjet prints, photo prints

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Tuthill, Apr 23, 2004.

  1. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Apr04/Wilhelm.htm

    "A Canon S900 printer with their own branded
    paper produces a print that will last for 38 years; with
    Staples Office supplies paper this is dramatically reduced to
    three years. Again with HP printers and their own paper, the
    life of a print is rated at 73 years, with the same office
    paper this is reduced down to 2 years. These are tests on
    the papers alone; put in a third party refill cartridge and the
    lifespan of the print will reduce by a comparable amount."

    "Perhaps the biggest shock for most people comes from
    Kodak themselves. Kodak is a brand name that all
    photographers have grown up with and come to trust. Kodak
    launched a range of Photo Quality paper called the Ultima
    inkjet paper which is being marketed as Brilliant Colour
    photographs that will last for 100 years on any printer
    platform, on any ink set. This claim is based on a distortion
    of the test method. Based on Kodak's testing the new EPSON
    Picture Mate would have a print life of 500 or possibly 800
    years. Kodak states that a 100 year lifespan is available for
    any printer and lists the printers on the back, including the
    Lexmark printers. According to Mr Wilhelm, that even using
    Kodak's own testing method, there is no Lexmark printer
    that could even come close to that. Kodak's claim is simply
    false and there is no disclaimer for that."
    Bill Tuthill, Apr 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, Bill Tuthill
    <> writes
    >http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Apr04/Wilhelm.htm
    >
    > "A Canon S900 printer with their own branded
    > paper produces a print that will last for 38 years; with
    > Staples Office supplies paper this is dramatically reduced to
    > three years. Again with HP printers and their own paper, the
    > life of a print is rated at 73 years, with the same office
    > paper this is reduced down to 2 years. These are tests on
    > the papers alone; put in a third party refill cartridge and the
    > lifespan of the print will reduce by a comparable amount."
    >
    > "Perhaps the biggest shock for most people comes from
    > Kodak themselves. Kodak is a brand name that all
    > photographers have grown up with and come to trust. Kodak
    > launched a range of Photo Quality paper called the Ultima
    > inkjet paper which is being marketed as Brilliant Colour
    > photographs that will last for 100 years on any printer
    > platform, on any ink set. This claim is based on a distortion
    > of the test method. Based on Kodak's testing the new EPSON
    > Picture Mate would have a print life of 500 or possibly 800
    > years. Kodak states that a 100 year lifespan is available for
    > any printer and lists the printers on the back, including the
    > Lexmark printers. According to Mr Wilhelm, that even using
    > Kodak's own testing method, there is no Lexmark printer
    > that could even come close to that. Kodak's claim is simply
    > false and there is no disclaimer for that."
    >
    >

    In view of that company's (shocking) history over the longevity of its
    colour material in the 60s and 70s, this should not come as a surprise.
    --
    David Littlewood
    David Littlewood, Apr 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Bill Tuthill

    > Perhaps the biggest shock for most people comes from
    > Kodak themselves. ... Kodak
    > launched a range of Photo Quality paper called the Ultima
    > inkjet paper which is being marketed as Brilliant Colour
    > photographs that will last for 100 years on any printer
    > platform, on any ink set. This claim is based on a distortion
    > of the test method


    Someone pointed out the 100 year claim for this Kodak paper last fall and I
    went to the Kodak site to see how they were testing it. They had quite a bit
    of info on the site, enough to figure out their assumptions and extrapolate to
    Wilhelm's conditions as well.

    Basically they are testing for consumer display conditions while Wilhelm is
    testing for much more rigorous museum and fine art display situations. If you
    apply the Wilhelm test criteria to Kodak's own data then 100 years for Kodak
    dropped down pretty quickly to 18-20 years for Wilhelm, and the Epson
    Ultrachrome tests producing 50-90 years with Wilhelm's criteria would become
    250-450 years with Kodak's conditions :).

    This was mainly due to two reasons. Kodak assumed a much lower viewing light
    intensity, I think around 200 lux instead of 450 lux the Wilhelm assumes. This
    would cut the 100 years to 50 right away.

    Second, Wilhelm's "fade criteria" was the minimum amount of fading that would
    be noticeable to a skilled observer and for most color patches this was around
    7 % loss of density. Kodak said fade was acceptable so long as the consumer
    would still enjoy the pictures (go figure that one out!) and said 18-30%
    density loss was acceptable to this criteria. They gave a chart showing how
    much longer it took to get to 30% compared to 5-7% and it was substantial,
    accounting for most of the reset of the difference (Kodak also assumes lower
    humidity than Wilhelm, which also extends print life).

    Also, Kodak assumes that after a "generation" or two the prints would be kept
    in dark storage (ie, locked away in an album) rather than being displayed under
    light.

    So using the same accelerated test data you can argue 100 years or you can
    argue 18-20 years, depending on the display environment conditions.

    That's why I like Wilhelm's numbers, everything from digital prints to
    Ilfochromes are tested the same way, but manufacturers tend to test to less
    stringent conditions that make their products seem longer lasting than they
    would under Wilhelm's tests.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Apr 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Sebastian Po Guest

    Canon and all the others... They all lie!
    At the end of it all we have a benchmark and none of the inkjet's can equal
    it... A conventional photograph. When they all stop postulating and trying
    to fool us into accepting their idea that the world really is flat...

    We might get some clear indications. As it is now, all inkjet papers and
    inks are inferior to photographic prints. Measure their life against that
    benchmark, and I'll be willing to look at inkjet prints for sale. Unitl
    then... They are all liars and fraudsters, Kodak being the worst.

    S
    -----------------
    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Apr04/Wilhelm.htm
    >
    > "A Canon S900 printer with their own branded
    > paper produces a print that will last for 38 years; with
    > Staples Office supplies paper this is dramatically reduced to
    > three years. Again with HP printers and their own paper, the
    > life of a print is rated at 73 years, with the same office
    > paper this is reduced down to 2 years. These are tests on
    > the papers alone; put in a third party refill cartridge and the
    > lifespan of the print will reduce by a comparable amount."
    >
    > "Perhaps the biggest shock for most people comes from
    > Kodak themselves. Kodak is a brand name that all
    > photographers have grown up with and come to trust. Kodak
    > launched a range of Photo Quality paper called the Ultima
    > inkjet paper which is being marketed as Brilliant Colour
    > photographs that will last for 100 years on any printer
    > platform, on any ink set. This claim is based on a distortion
    > of the test method. Based on Kodak's testing the new EPSON
    > Picture Mate would have a print life of 500 or possibly 800
    > years. Kodak states that a 100 year lifespan is available for
    > any printer and lists the printers on the back, including the
    > Lexmark printers. According to Mr Wilhelm, that even using
    > Kodak's own testing method, there is no Lexmark printer
    > that could even come close to that. Kodak's claim is simply
    > false and there is no disclaimer for that."
    >
    >
    Sebastian Po, Apr 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: David Littlewood

    >In view of that company's <<Kodak>> (shocking) history over the
    >longevity of its colour material in the 60s and 70s, this should
    >not come as a surprise.


    There's a chapter in Wilhelm's book that describes how Kodak convinced many
    professional wedding and portrait photographers in the 1960's and 70's to
    switch from b/w to Kodak color with promises the prints would last "a
    lifetime". When Kodak prints began fading and cracking after 2-3 years and
    people's wedding, graduation and family portraits were lost many people sued
    and several of these businesses went bankrupt. Kodak had to agree to cease
    such false advertising with the FTC but still continued to push their products.

    You can now download a free PDF with this chapter in it ... Ch 8 "Color Print
    Fading and the Professional Portrait and Wedding Photographer -- What to Do
    About a Troubling Situation" ... http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html
    and click the download link for this chapter.

    After reading this several years I lost a lot of respect for Kodak and now I
    always take uncorroborated manufacturer's numbers with a bit of skepticism.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Apr 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Bill Tuthill

    SteveJ Guest

    I have newer seen a report on the Dye Sub printers life time. One thing
    about them the overcoating put on the prints is tough and very hard to tare
    into.


    "Sebastian Po" <> wrote in message
    news:Dpfic.6713$...
    > Canon and all the others... They all lie!
    > At the end of it all we have a benchmark and none of the inkjet's can

    equal
    > it... A conventional photograph. When they all stop postulating and trying
    > to fool us into accepting their idea that the world really is flat...
    >
    > We might get some clear indications. As it is now, all inkjet papers and
    > inks are inferior to photographic prints. Measure their life against that
    > benchmark, and I'll be willing to look at inkjet prints for sale. Unitl
    > then... They are all liars and fraudsters, Kodak being the worst.
    >
    > S
    > -----------------
    > "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Apr04/Wilhelm.htm
    > >
    > > "A Canon S900 printer with their own branded
    > > paper produces a print that will last for 38 years; with
    > > Staples Office supplies paper this is dramatically reduced to
    > > three years. Again with HP printers and their own paper, the
    > > life of a print is rated at 73 years, with the same office
    > > paper this is reduced down to 2 years. These are tests on
    > > the papers alone; put in a third party refill cartridge and the
    > > lifespan of the print will reduce by a comparable amount."
    > >
    > > "Perhaps the biggest shock for most people comes from
    > > Kodak themselves. Kodak is a brand name that all
    > > photographers have grown up with and come to trust. Kodak
    > > launched a range of Photo Quality paper called the Ultima
    > > inkjet paper which is being marketed as Brilliant Colour
    > > photographs that will last for 100 years on any printer
    > > platform, on any ink set. This claim is based on a distortion
    > > of the test method. Based on Kodak's testing the new EPSON
    > > Picture Mate would have a print life of 500 or possibly 800
    > > years. Kodak states that a 100 year lifespan is available for
    > > any printer and lists the printers on the back, including the
    > > Lexmark printers. According to Mr Wilhelm, that even using
    > > Kodak's own testing method, there is no Lexmark printer
    > > that could even come close to that. Kodak's claim is simply
    > > false and there is no disclaimer for that."
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    SteveJ, Apr 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Bill Tuthill

    Sebastian Po Guest

    All my event work is output on the spot via Olympus dye-sub and it is as
    permenant as a real photo. I have some images on dye-sub (the old Sony
    printers) which are nearly 10 years old and although slight fading is
    evident, no colour shift has taken place. The only drawback is the cost!.


    "SteveJ" <> wrote in message
    news:0cwic.14148$cF6.580050@attbi_s04...
    > I have newer seen a report on the Dye Sub printers life time. One thing
    > about them the overcoating put on the prints is tough and very hard to

    tare
    > into.
    >
    >
    > "Sebastian Po" <> wrote in message
    > news:Dpfic.6713$...
    > > Canon and all the others... They all lie!
    > > At the end of it all we have a benchmark and none of the inkjet's can

    > equal
    > > it... A conventional photograph. When they all stop postulating and

    trying
    > > to fool us into accepting their idea that the world really is flat...
    > >
    > > We might get some clear indications. As it is now, all inkjet papers and
    > > inks are inferior to photographic prints. Measure their life against

    that
    > > benchmark, and I'll be willing to look at inkjet prints for sale. Unitl
    > > then... They are all liars and fraudsters, Kodak being the worst.
    > >
    > > S
    > > -----------------
    > > "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Apr04/Wilhelm.htm
    > > >
    > > > "A Canon S900 printer with their own branded
    > > > paper produces a print that will last for 38 years; with
    > > > Staples Office supplies paper this is dramatically reduced to
    > > > three years. Again with HP printers and their own paper, the
    > > > life of a print is rated at 73 years, with the same office
    > > > paper this is reduced down to 2 years. These are tests on
    > > > the papers alone; put in a third party refill cartridge and the
    > > > lifespan of the print will reduce by a comparable amount."
    > > >
    > > > "Perhaps the biggest shock for most people comes from
    > > > Kodak themselves. Kodak is a brand name that all
    > > > photographers have grown up with and come to trust. Kodak
    > > > launched a range of Photo Quality paper called the Ultima
    > > > inkjet paper which is being marketed as Brilliant Colour
    > > > photographs that will last for 100 years on any printer
    > > > platform, on any ink set. This claim is based on a distortion
    > > > of the test method. Based on Kodak's testing the new EPSON
    > > > Picture Mate would have a print life of 500 or possibly 800
    > > > years. Kodak states that a 100 year lifespan is available for
    > > > any printer and lists the printers on the back, including the
    > > > Lexmark printers. According to Mr Wilhelm, that even using
    > > > Kodak's own testing method, there is no Lexmark printer
    > > > that could even come close to that. Kodak's claim is simply
    > > > false and there is no disclaimer for that."
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Sebastian Po, Apr 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Bill Tuthill

    DigiGeek Guest

    On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:02:04 GMT, "SteveJ" <> wrote:

    OK folks - I used to be a big dye sub fan when inkjet was in it's
    infancy. It is my opinion that all this garbage about 38 years vs 50
    to 80 years is TOTALLY absurd!

    Let's see - right now, I can print my digicam prints on high quality
    paper at less than 15 cents per sheet using software at less than $30
    (PC Photo Kiosk for example). By the way, I have put my prints under
    running water to check for moisture problems. I can also archive my
    photos to CD's, tape, stone tablets, DNA strips etc. and now I'm
    supposed to worry about prints fading when my grand kids try to look
    at them?? Has ANYONE thought about the fact that unlike analog film,
    if and when the time comes to worry about that, the photo can simply
    be REPRINTED! By the time it matters in 2085, we'll be able to bring
    back the DEAD from digiprints - just kidding!

    Bottom line, dye sub, coating and other forms of "extending life" of
    prints will be as relevant as FORTRAN by the time it matters....

    >I have newer seen a report on the Dye Sub printers life time. One thing
    >about them the overcoating put on the prints is tough and very hard to tare
    >into.
    >
    >
    >[Dye-Sub, extended life coating of prints BS blah - blah ...
    DigiGeek, Apr 25, 2004
    #8
  9. Bill Tuthill

    nixjunk Guest

    >Has ANYONE thought about the fact that unlike analog film,
    >if and when the time comes to worry about that, the photo can simply
    >be REPRINTED!


    Do you actually want to go through the process and hassle of having to reprint
    possibly hundreds or even thousands of pictures?

    The safest methodI think is printing to Fuji Crystal Archive paper at a
    photolab and then forgeting about it.
    nixjunk, Apr 25, 2004
    #9
  10. Bill Tuthill

    DigiGeek Guest

    On 25 Apr 2004 09:16:28 GMT, ixjunk (nixjunk) wrote:

    >>Has ANYONE thought about the fact that unlike analog film,
    >>if and when the time comes to worry about that, the photo can simply
    >>be REPRINTED!

    >
    >Do you actually want to go through the process and hassle of having to reprint
    >possibly hundreds or even thousands of pictures?
    >
    >The safest methodI think is printing to Fuji Crystal Archive paper at a
    >photolab and then forgeting about it.
    >

    Hmmm - you seemed to miss the main point! The relative difference in
    archival storage of dye sub vs. coated inkjet is already not
    significant. The advantage in digital is that at least if I need to
    reprint I CAN! What will you do when your precious paper is damaged or
    LOST - DREAM about what you used to have??? Get real...
    DigiGeek, Apr 25, 2004
    #10
  11. Bill Tuthill

    nixjunk Guest

    >Hmmm - you seemed to miss the main point! The relative difference in
    >archival storage of dye sub vs. coated inkjet is already not
    >significant. The advantage in digital is that at least if I need to
    >reprint I CAN! What will you do when your precious paper is damaged or
    >LOST - DREAM about what you used to have??? Get real...
    >


    That would be a minor reprinting process but what you are saying is no worries
    when it comes to all my printing because I can always reprint. Losing or
    damaging a print here and there is much different than having to reprint
    possibly hundreds or thousands of pics. Why not get it right the first time and
    save yourself the headache, worry, and time lost due to mass reprinting.
    nixjunk, Apr 25, 2004
    #11
  12. Bill Tuthill

    Larry Guest

    In article <>, torrex6
    @cs.comnixjunk says...
    > >Hmmm - you seemed to miss the main point! The relative difference in
    > >archival storage of dye sub vs. coated inkjet is already not
    > >significant. The advantage in digital is that at least if I need to
    > >reprint I CAN! What will you do when your precious paper is damaged or
    > >LOST - DREAM about what you used to have??? Get real...
    > >

    >
    > That would be a minor reprinting process but what you are saying is no worries
    > when it comes to all my printing because I can always reprint. Losing or
    > damaging a print here and there is much different than having to reprint
    > possibly hundreds or thousands of pics. Why not get it right the first time and
    > save yourself the headache, worry, and time lost due to mass reprinting.
    >
    >
    >


    There really is no available way to affordably "get it right the first time"

    Nothing we are using currently has the built in ability to last like the old
    silver halide B&W prints did.

    Its really that simple.

    Unless you are willing to pay BIG BUCKS for a lab to use the very best photo
    paper known to exist, your photos will last for a few years then fade away...

    The advantage of digital is the digital file.

    If enough of them are kept stored away, (and changed to new medium as
    apropriate) they wont fade away like most color negatives and positives do,
    and will be available for re-printing when needed.




    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Apr 25, 2004
    #12
  13. Bill Tuthill

    Skip M Guest

    "DigiGeek" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:02:04 GMT, "SteveJ" <> wrote:
    >
    > OK folks - I used to be a big dye sub fan when inkjet was in it's
    > infancy. It is my opinion that all this garbage about 38 years vs 50
    > to 80 years is TOTALLY absurd!
    >
    > Let's see - right now, I can print my digicam prints on high quality
    > paper at less than 15 cents per sheet using software at less than $30
    > (PC Photo Kiosk for example). By the way, I have put my prints under
    > running water to check for moisture problems. I can also archive my
    > photos to CD's, tape, stone tablets, DNA strips etc. and now I'm
    > supposed to worry about prints fading when my grand kids try to look
    > at them?? Has ANYONE thought about the fact that unlike analog film,
    > if and when the time comes to worry about that, the photo can simply
    > be REPRINTED! By the time it matters in 2085, we'll be able to bring
    > back the DEAD from digiprints - just kidding!
    >
    > Bottom line, dye sub, coating and other forms of "extending life" of
    > prints will be as relevant as FORTRAN by the time it matters....
    >
    > >I have newer seen a report on the Dye Sub printers life time. One thing
    > >about them the overcoating put on the prints is tough and very hard to

    tare
    > >into.
    > >
    > >
    > >[Dye-Sub, extended life coating of prints BS blah - blah ...

    >

    I does matter to those of us who sell the actual print to clients, art
    photographers and wedding photographers, for instance. Our clients won't be
    pleased to see that a print they paid $$$ for fade in a short length of
    time, or any length of time for that matter.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Apr 25, 2004
    #13
  14. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: DigiGeek

    >It is my opinion that all this garbage about 38 years vs 50
    >to 80 years is TOTALLY absurd!


    Why? Wilhelm is running the accelerated tests exactly the same way for digital
    prints as he is for conventional prints so why do you think the results are
    invalid for digital prints but valid for conventional ones?

    Many of the conventional print processes have been in existence long enough for
    him to verify the accelerated light numbers with lower light intensity for much
    longer times, basically indicating that the test methodology works, with a
    small reciprocity failure adjustment.

    Are you just anti-digital?

    >Has ANYONE thought about the fact that unlike analog film,
    >if and when the time comes to worry about that, the photo can simply
    >be REPRINTED!


    For family snapshots, sure you can do this (if you can find the file). But
    Wilhelm is concerned mostly about mounted and framed fine art collections in
    museums or private collections that people have purchased. Getting one of
    those prints reprinted is a different story. If you are selling your work you
    need to be aware of these issues.

    >right now, I can print my digicam prints on high quality
    >paper at less than 15 cents per sheet using software at less than $30
    >(PC Photo Kiosk for example).


    Different world than what Wilhelm's testing for. Somehow I doubt you're
    selling many copies of your work at the art shows.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Apr 25, 2004
    #14
  15. Bill Tuthill

    Savidge4 Guest

    Savidge4, Apr 25, 2004
    #15
  16. "DigiGeek" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:02:04 GMT, "SteveJ" <> wrote:
    >
    > OK folks - I used to be a big dye sub fan when inkjet was in it's
    > infancy. It is my opinion that all this garbage about 38 years vs 50
    > to 80 years is TOTALLY absurd!
    >
    > Let's see - right now, I can print my digicam prints on high quality
    > paper at less than 15 cents per sheet using software at less than

    $30
    > (PC Photo Kiosk for example). By the way, I have put my prints under
    > running water to check for moisture problems. I can also archive my
    > photos to CD's, tape, stone tablets, DNA strips etc. and now I'm
    > supposed to worry about prints fading when my grand kids try to look
    > at them?? Has ANYONE thought about the fact that unlike analog film,
    > if and when the time comes to worry about that, the photo can simply
    > be REPRINTED! By the time it matters in 2085, we'll be able to bring
    > back the DEAD from digiprints - just kidding!
    >
    >


    IMHO, it's a good point that you can reprint from digital sources but
    the longevity even of these is not established. CD-R and especially
    CD-RW have finite lifetimes as do magnetic storage methods. The
    plastic base of magnetic tape does not last for ever either. I think
    the only way you could stand some chance of really keeping digital
    sources would be to copy them to the currently best known media on a,
    possibly conservative, regular schedule.


    --
    James V. Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland, USA
    James Silverton, Apr 25, 2004
    #16
  17. Bill Tuthill

    DigiGeek Guest

    On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:12:35 -0400, "James Silverton"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"DigiGeek" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:02:04 GMT, "SteveJ" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>[snip]

    >
    >IMHO, it's a good point that you can reprint from digital sources but
    >the longevity even of these is not established. CD-R and especially
    >CD-RW have finite lifetimes as do magnetic storage methods. The
    >plastic base of magnetic tape does not last for ever either. I think
    >the only way you could stand some chance of really keeping digital
    >sources would be to copy them to the currently best known media on a,
    >possibly conservative, regular schedule.


    Good point! This is what I've been doing for over a decade! I am
    saying that doing this is far better than relying on some form of
    paper archive!

    As for my customers, I offer the following guarentee - "..if my prints
    fade or become discolored while BOTH of us are alive - I'll gladly
    give you a free reprint!"
    DigiGeek, Apr 25, 2004
    #17
  18. Bill Tuthill

    DigiGeek Guest

    On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 06:05:27 -0700, "Skip M" <>
    wrote:

    >"DigiGeek" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:02:04 GMT, "SteveJ" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> OK folks - I used to be a big dye sub fan when inkjet was in it's
    >> infancy. It is my opinion that all this garbage about 38 years vs 50
    >> to 80 years is TOTALLY absurd!
    >>
    >>[snip]
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >[Dye-Sub, extended life coating of prints BS blah - blah ...

    >>

    >I does matter to those of us who sell the actual print to clients, art
    >photographers and wedding photographers, for instance. Our clients won't be
    >pleased to see that a print they paid $$$ for fade in a short length of
    >time, or any length of time for that matter.


    Todays inkjet inks will NOT fade in a short time! I suggest you do
    some reading on modern inkjet formulas and coating techniques. Numbers
    like 50 to 80 years are becomming more common. Besides, if you have a
    backup CD or DVD, you can always have your body thawed after death to
    handle reprints for your clients grand children.

    Who knows what NEW printing techniques will exist 50 to 100 years from
    now. This whole discussion may be moot as BOTH dye sub and inkjet
    printing may be OBSOLETE!
    DigiGeek, Apr 25, 2004
    #18
  19. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> Skip M" <>wrote:
    >>
    >>I does matter to those of us who sell the actual print to clients, art
    >>photographers and wedding photographers, for instance.


    >From: DigiGeek
    >
    >Todays inkjet inks will NOT fade in a short time!


    Some will fade quickly, some won't fade for a long time, depending on the paper
    and ink. Two examples ... with the new HP dye ink printer Wilhelm projects 73
    year print life for one paper, 2 year print life for a second paper, which
    shows the importance of picking the right paper. And Epson's PGPP paper is
    projected to last around 5 years with ink from the 1280 and over 50 years using
    the 2200's pigmented inks, which shows you have to pick the right ink.

    Saying "Todays inkjet inks will NOT fade in a short time!" is just too broad a
    statement.
    Bill Hilton, Apr 25, 2004
    #19
  20. Bill Tuthill

    Tom Guest

    "DigiGeek" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > As for my customers, I offer the following guarentee - "..if my prints
    > fade or become discolored while BOTH of us are alive - I'll gladly
    > give you a free reprint!"



    I'm glad my grandmother's portrait photographer did not give this inane
    "guarantee".

    Tom
    Tom, Apr 25, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Experienced but Undocumented

    Durability of optical mice

    Experienced but Undocumented, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    468
    Gary G. Taylor
    Jul 15, 2003
  2. shipwreck

    Newbie question about Nikon durability.

    shipwreck, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,554
    ajmburke
    Jun 2, 2010
  3. Harry

    Backprinting photo prints - inkjet or laserjet?

    Harry, Jan 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,447
    MPHunt
    Jan 25, 2004
  4. Inkjet prints lifetime in photo album

    , Feb 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    880
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Feb 11, 2005
  5. texture on my inkjet photo prints

    , Oct 9, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    276
    Arthur Entlich
    Oct 12, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page