Longevity of inkjet Matte papers?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Tuthill, Nov 1, 2006.

  1. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    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.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill Tuthill

    frederick Guest

    Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > 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.
    >

    Epson HWM and Archival Matte / Enhanced Matte contain optical
    brighteners which degrade over time / exposure, causing a yellowing
    effect (the paper becomes less "white" looking when the OB effect is
    expired. Read the fine print on the Wilhelm reports, and this is explained.
    A matte finish art paper without OB (Ultrasmooth Fine Art)may be better
    for long term display for that reason, but it's also expensive.

    The dye ink fading effect you see in your kitchen is probably gas
    fading. Wilhelm are testing for this with many standard paper/ink
    combinations now. It's a problem far less likely to affect pigment
    inks. Epson now list "gas fading resistance" on their Japanese website
    for their new dye inksets. I don't know the test method they use, but
    display rating is probably for a much less severe environment than a
    kitchen.

    Heavyweight Matte is probably okay with Canon Dye inks. HWM wasn't
    designed for pigment printers - it was for Epson dye printers. In fact
    it doesn't work very well (poor saturation/resolution) with the pigment
    printers, even though it's included in the driver paper selection..
    But, if longevity is an issue, you are probably better using Canon paper
    - if some display permanence test data is available. It will probably
    have quite poor gas-fading resistance, so would need to be framed behind
    glass.

    As a general rule, if you want longevity on true matte papers, you need
    to use pigment inks.
     
    frederick, Nov 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I believe it is very difficult to draw any valid conclusions about any
    ink, paper or printer without looking at all three together. A paper that
    works well in one printer - ink combination may not work well in another.
    Likewise for other combinations of the three factors.

    Now for longevity, I would say that the two meaningful factors are ink
    and paper, but some combinations of those two with different printers may
    give unacceptable quality results.

    However for fading, you need to factor in the environment as the third
    factor. What combinations work well in dark storage, may do poor in light
    for example. Different contaminates in the air can also make a difference.

    Having said that, I would not totally ignore the experience or test
    results you may see. Just remember that different testing may lead to
    different results. It is a complex subject.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    >
     
    Joseph Meehan, Nov 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Bill Tuthill

    rafe b Guest

    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...


    > 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.



    It does matter. If you're in a position to take fading seriously,
    then you should probably be using pigment inks.

    The only alternative (such as it is) is to use papers with gelatin
    or swellable-polymer substrates. This was Epson's approach
    for a while (the 1270/1280 series) and HP's approach on the
    DJ-30 and DJ-130 series.

    As others have noted, the paper can also degrade longevity
    if it's got optical brighteners in it.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Nov 1, 2006
    #4
  5. Bill Tuthill

    Greg \_\ Guest

    In article <>, Bill Tuthill <>
    wrote:

    > 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.


    Prior to acquiring my R1800 I used a 1280 with dye inks, I have
    brochures I made on HWM double sided paper that still look good several
    years later. All my Epson HWM prints using dyes still look good. But
    many on other paper have varying results. Some would have been terrible
    if I had actually sold the prints. Some of the glossy papers displayed
    showed signs of out gassing several months after displaying matted
    behind glass.

    So far using the pigment inks of the R1800 I have been very pleased
    with color vibrance.
    --
    "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
    the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
    and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
    at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


    Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
    and never looking back.

    www.gregblankphoto.com
     
    Greg \_\, Nov 1, 2006
    #5
  6. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    "Greg" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
    >
    > Prior to acquiring my R1800 I used a 1280 with dye inks, I have
    > brochures I made on HWM double sided paper that still look good several
    > years later. All my Epson HWM prints using dyes still look good.


    That's a good recommendation, and is what I have heard about Epson HWM,
    despite comments by Frederick and RafeB about optical brighteners.
    Canon Matte Photo Paper probably has optical brighteners also, given
    the marketing blurb about it being "bright white." It costs a bit less
    than Epson HWM but is .5 mil lighter weight.

    I'm assuming that Canon dye-based inks are very similar to Epson's.
    Hopefully that's a valid assumption.

    > But many on other paper have varying results. Some would have been terrible
    > if I had actually sold the prints. Some of the glossy papers displayed
    > showed signs of out gassing several months after displaying matted
    > behind glass.


    Out-gassing of cyan? I don't know if sunlight affects it, but as I said,
    Epson (glossy) Photo Paper lasts much longer under fluorescent light,
    which maybe doesn't exacerbate outgassing. In either location, cyan is
    the first color to go, but about 10x as rapidly in filtered sunlight.

    > So far using the pigment inks of the R1800 I have been very pleased
    > with color vibrance.


    Have you exposed any of these to sunlight? I'm curious, although it's a
    moot point, because we already committed to the Canon printer/FAX/copier
    for convenience reasons. When I want long lasting, I go to Longs Drugs
    and have them make a Frontier print on Fuji Crystal Archive.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Bill Tuthill

    frederick Guest

    Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > "Greg" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
    >> Prior to acquiring my R1800 I used a 1280 with dye inks, I have
    >> brochures I made on HWM double sided paper that still look good several
    >> years later. All my Epson HWM prints using dyes still look good.

    >
    > That's a good recommendation, and is what I have heard about Epson HWM,
    > despite comments by Frederick and RafeB about optical brighteners.
    > Canon Matte Photo Paper probably has optical brighteners also, given
    > the marketing blurb about it being "bright white." It costs a bit less
    > than Epson HWM but is .5 mil lighter weight.
    >

    Don't get me wrong on this. You will see a noticeable loss of OB
    activity and subsequent yellow shift in the apparent colour of the base
    paper after a relatively short period of indirect daylight exposure.
    But a far as "looking good" goes, they can still be fine - and because
    the loss of OB means that the paper colour is shifted doesn't mean that
    the paper will continue to get yellower at the same rate.
    I am looking at two prints right now - one printed on Enhanced Matte
    about 6 months ago, one very new - and guaranteed out of the same box of
    50 a3+ sheets. Comparing the border of the prints is like chalk and
    cheese. However the printed area of the "yellowed" print still looks
    fine, and probably will still do so in 100 years.
     
    frederick, Nov 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Unfortunately, there is really no hard and fast rule when it comes to
    papers. The paper's construction, as well as the ink type are critical
    to the fade resistance.

    For example, using Epson dye inks I have some Tektronix inkjet paper
    that was made probably over 12 years ago. It was designed for their
    inkjet plotters. It came in rolls but unfortunately it is rather thin,
    but whatever mordants and other technologies they used with it, the
    images I printed on it with literally first generation Epson color inks
    have stood up to fairly harsh indoor lighting for 8-10 years now with
    only moderate loss of yellow and cyan. On the other hand, using the
    same inks, an older HP matte paper (designed for the original inkjet
    printer/plotter models) faded badly in a matter of months in bright
    fluorescent exposure. The older Epson "photo quality" matte paper
    didn't fare a heck of a lot better (maybe twice as long), however, the
    "heavy weight archival matte" has don't much better. The older Epson
    photo a medium gloss paper lost cyans almost completely with exposure to
    bright indoor lighting in a matter of a couple of years.

    Sadly, other than real or accelerated testing, I don't think one can
    make any generalization about any inkjet paper, other than to say that
    swellable polymer papers tend to give longer lasting results than
    microporous.

    Art



    Bill Tuthill wrote:

    > 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.
    >
     
    Arthur Entlich, Nov 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Greg <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
    >
    > Some of the glossy Epson papers ... showed signs of out gassing
    > several months after displaying matted behind glass.


    Why anybody would go to the trouble of matting and glass-frame mounting
    a dye-based Epson inkjet print, is beyond my comprehension. I hope you
    don't take that as a personal insult.

    Pigment-based Epson prints could be a different matter, but I suspect
    they react poorly to being placed in direct sunlight, unlike RA-4 prints
    (photo paper) which can survive many years in sunlight without fading.

    Note how Wilhelm tests under fluorescent light, the best possible condition
    for inkjet longevity, perhaps because he's paid by inkjet manufacturers.
    My personal experience says Epson 1280 prints on Photo Paper degrade about
    10 times faster in sunlight than under fluorescent light.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Arthur Entlich <> wrote:

    > ... The older Epson "photo quality" matte paper
    > didn't fare a heck of a lot better (maybe twice as long),
    > however, the "heavy weight archival matte" has don't much better.


    Hopefully you mean "has done much better.

    > Sadly, other than real or accelerated testing, I don't think one can
    > make any generalization about any inkjet paper, other than to say that
    > swellable polymer papers tend to give longer lasting results than
    > microporous.


    Is the Epson Heavy Weight Archival Matte a swellable polymer paper?

    However see this photo.net thread claiming non-archival HWM lasts longer
    with dye-based inks, because HW Archival Matte is designed for pigment inks:
    http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004MBk&tag=

    Aha, two swellable polymer papers are Epson Colorlife and
    Ilford Gallerie Classic (pearl and gloss).
     
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 2, 2006
    #10
  11. Bill Tuthill

    frederick Guest

    Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > Arthur Entlich <> wrote:
    >
    >> ... The older Epson "photo quality" matte paper
    >> didn't fare a heck of a lot better (maybe twice as long),
    >> however, the "heavy weight archival matte" has don't much better.

    >
    > Hopefully you mean "has done much better.
    >
    >> Sadly, other than real or accelerated testing, I don't think one can
    >> make any generalization about any inkjet paper, other than to say that
    >> swellable polymer papers tend to give longer lasting results than
    >> microporous.

    >
    > Is the Epson Heavy Weight Archival Matte a swellable polymer paper?


    I don't think so - but the coating on it does seem receptive to dyes -
    and it's not great with pigments.
    >
    > However see this photo.net thread claiming non-archival HWM lasts longer
    > with dye-based inks, because HW Archival Matte is designed for pigment inks:
    > http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004MBk&tag=
    >
    > Aha, two swellable polymer papers are Epson Colorlife and
    > Ilford Gallerie Classic (pearl and gloss).
    >

    I posted above that HWM had a display permanence rating of about 30
    years with Epson dye inks. It seems that with the latest "Claria" dye
    inks, DPR is 97 years. That is impressive - but Wilhelms data for gas
    fading is reported as "under test".
    Whatever, it seems that pretty good longevity on matte paper can be
    achieved with dye inks now - so long as you use the right paper.
     
    frederick, Nov 2, 2006
    #11
  12. Bill Tuthill

    Mark² Guest

    Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > 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.


    It's always a little curious how users "report many years" when the printer
    they are reporting on has only existed for about a year. :)

    > 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.


    Yes. That matters.
    Dye-based inks are simply nowhere near as stable as the pigment-based inks
    used by the 2400 and large-format Epson printers.



    Some net.advice
    > indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
    > Canon also offers a matte paper.


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 3, 2006
    #12
  13. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    In rec.photo.digital "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >> Friends who use Epson Heavyweight Matte
    >> on an Epson 2400 report many years of non-fading display.

    >
    > It's always a little curious how users "report many years" when the printer
    > they are reporting on has only existed for about a year. :)


    Sorry, I meant "Epson 1280" but neglected to back-correct my post.

    >> I'm using Canon CLI dye-based inks, if that matters.

    >
    > Yes. That matters.
    > Dye-based inks are simply nowhere near as stable as the pigment-based inks
    > used by the 2400 and large-format Epson printers.


    Right. I'm not about to buy another Epson product, I just wanted to know
    which Matte paper might offer the best longevity with Canon inks.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 3, 2006
    #13
  14. Bill Tuthill

    Skip Guest

    I've had fairly good luck with Ilford Classic Pearl. I couldn't quantify
    the length of time before fading, I really don't have any prints that
    haven't been stored in boxes, in plastic sleeve and in a portfolio or matted
    and framed behind glass. I have one printed on Lumiquest Master Canvas that
    hasn't faded in over a year. We use Epson Matte Heavyweight for proof
    books, but those aren't exposed to much sunlight, either. Works well, as
    far as we can tell with our Canon S9000.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Nov 3, 2006
    #14
  15. "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Right. I'm not about to buy another Epson product, I just wanted to know
    which Matte paper might offer the best longevity with Canon inks.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<

    Canon makes a 13x19" pigment-ink inkjet. Unlike the Epson 2400, it doesn't
    require a cartridge change to switch between matte and glossy. (In exchange
    for which, it only has one gray ink (i.e. gray + black) as opposed to the
    2400's two grays (light gray, gray, black).

    HP is also making pigment-ink printers as well.

    If you care about fading, using dye inks is a bad idea.

    I wonder what Wilhelm found to be the worst-case pigment ink + paper
    combination was???

    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IS&T_2006_09_HW.pdf

    The answer is that the worst pigment ink + paper combination (61 years) is
    better than the best wet-photographic process print _under UV-cut glass_ (49
    years).

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 3, 2006
    #15
  16. Bill Tuthill

    rafe b Guest

    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >Right. I'm not about to buy another Epson product, I just wanted to know
    >which Matte paper might offer the best longevity with Canon inks.


    ----
    Heh. I've owned the following inkjet printers in the following order.
    I've been all over the map... and right back to Epson.

    1. Epson 600 (ca. 1998)
    * finally tossed it about a year ago
    2. Epson 750 (~1999)
    * a friend owns it now. still works, AFAIK
    3. Epson 1160, new (~2001)
    4. another Epson 1160, store demo
    * One of these died after heavy use w/ MIS pigment inks
    in a CIS. The other was given up for dead, but sold to
    someone who managed to restore it. There was a while
    when both were active, side by side.
    5. Canon S9000 (~2002)
    * Died after about 1.5 years of use with MIS dye inks
    in a CIS. Micro-banding even on the best days.
    6. HP DesignJet 30 (~2004)
    * Sold on eBay after 1 year. Basically worked OK,
    but longevity happens only on HP media, which sucks.
    Shoddy paper handlig. HP service sucks.
    7. Epson 7000
    * bought on eBay, still working fine with Epson dye inks
    It was ~3 years old when I bought it in 2004.
    8. Epson R1800
    * first pigment-ink Epson I've owned. I love it (so far.)


    Epson still owns the fine-art/photographic inkjet market.
    All the others are playing catch-up. Not to say Epson
    hasn't made its share of mistakes or acted arrogantly.

    Canon and HP have some interesting products, and
    it's great that they're in the market -- if only to keep
    Epson on their toes.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Nov 3, 2006
    #16
  17. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >
    > I wonder what Wilhelm found to be the worst-case pigment ink + paper
    > combination was???
    >
    > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IS&T_2006_09_HW.pdf
    >
    > The answer is that the worst pigment ink + paper combination (61 years)
    > is better than the best wet-photographic process print _under UV-cut glass_
    > (49 years).


    Thanks for the link. It's hard to find stuff on the Wilhelm-research site.
    Epson Premium Lustre from an R800 or R1800 is 64 years, not much better
    than the 61 years you cited for Somerset Velvet.

    Here's an answer for my question (although I don't intend to display
    under glass). So Skip using Epson HWM on a Canon printer makes sense.

    25 years Epson 870/1270 Epson Heavy Weight Matte
    7 years Epson 870/1270 Epson Photo Paper (glossy)
    10 years Canon 9900i Canon Matte Paper
    6 years Canon 9900i Canon Photo Paper (glossy)
     
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 3, 2006
    #17
  18. Bill Tuthill

    rafe b Guest

    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Thanks for the link. It's hard to find stuff on the Wilhelm-research
    > site.
    > Epson Premium Lustre from an R800 or R1800 is 64 years, not much better
    > than the 61 years you cited for Somerset Velvet.


    Somerset Velvet. Now look at the ratings for
    Somerset Velvet Photo Enhanced. SV without
    the coating is useless for printing photos with
    any kind of gamut or detail. (Unless you're
    making seriously huge prints or just don't care
    about contrast, detail, or gamut.)


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Nov 3, 2006
    #18
  19. I find you comments as biased as those you claim Wilhelm is making.

    Firstly, an extra glass layer (window glass is the first one in most
    cases, can significantly cut UV levels contacting the print, whether dye
    or pigment, and since UV activation is a considerable environmental
    influence, especially on dye inks, it is completely logical to place dye
    ink prints under glass.

    Secondly, as far as outgassing goes, the Epson (can't speak for others)
    Ultrachrome pigment colorant inks have more glycols in them than the
    dye versions, to slow drying and prevent clogging, and they therefore
    tend to outglass more and longer than dye ink prints do.

    Finally, direct sunlight is not considered by anyone as a legitimate
    test for fading of fine art images. It may be for housepaint or outdoor
    banners, but it is not the way prints are supposed to be displayed.
    Fluorescent lighting is a very logical light source because it is very
    typical indoor lighting, and it is much more antagonistic than
    incandescent light which contains almost no UV.

    Art


    Bill Tuthill wrote:

    > Greg <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Some of the glossy Epson papers ... showed signs of out gassing
    >>several months after displaying matted behind glass.

    >
    >
    > Why anybody would go to the trouble of matting and glass-frame mounting
    > a dye-based Epson inkjet print, is beyond my comprehension. I hope you
    > don't take that as a personal insult.
    >
    > Pigment-based Epson prints could be a different matter, but I suspect
    > they react poorly to being placed in direct sunlight, unlike RA-4 prints
    > (photo paper) which can survive many years in sunlight without fading.
    >
    > Note how Wilhelm tests under fluorescent light, the best possible condition
    > for inkjet longevity, perhaps because he's paid by inkjet manufacturers.
    > My personal experience says Epson 1280 prints on Photo Paper degrade about
    > 10 times faster in sunlight than under fluorescent light.
    >
     
    Arthur Entlich, Nov 4, 2006
    #19
  20. I have owned Epson color inkjet printers almost since they came out
    about 10 years ago. I have many prints I made with those very first
    models, which all used dye inks. I have prints displayed on my walls
    (mainly under glass, but some not, which have been in medium household
    lighting for at least 8 years, and with the right paper (in this case
    the Tektronix I wrote about earlier) the ones under glass have shown
    minimal fading. The ones without glass has shown moderate fading.

    Using the same inks with other papers, I have had considerably poorer
    results. The paper is critical to fading issues. I still have no idea
    what Tektronix did with this paper that makes it so resistant to fading
    with those inks.

    Art

    Mark² wrote:

    > Bill Tuthill wrote:
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > It's always a little curious how users "report many years" when the printer
    > they are reporting on has only existed for about a year. :)
    >
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > Yes. That matters.
    > Dye-based inks are simply nowhere near as stable as the pigment-based inks
    > used by the 2400 and large-format Epson printers.
    >
    >
    >
    > Some net.advice
    >
    >>indicates Epson Heavyweight Matte is fine with Canon printers, but
    >>Canon also offers a matte paper.

    >
    >
     
    Arthur Entlich, Nov 4, 2006
    #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. Watcher of the Skies

    Inkjet Inks - longevity?

    Watcher of the Skies, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,139
    Bishoop
    Dec 29, 2003
  2. JM

    Server Longevity

    JM, Dec 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,125
    Toolman Tim
    Dec 12, 2004
  3. Rob Davison

    Re: Stuck Pixels and CCD longevity

    Rob Davison, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    640
    Rob Davison
    Aug 18, 2003
  4. Philip Procter

    A comparison of inkjet papers?

    Philip Procter, Nov 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    277
    Lucrezia Herman
    Dec 4, 2004
  5. muzician21

    Want to turn a glossy inkjet photo print to matte

    muzician21, Dec 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,636
Loading...

Share This Page