Epson 1280 prints NOT Waterproof, 2200 prints ARE, Right?

This is correct, right? Dye versus pigments?

This would be the final deciding factor to go with the 2200...


Slick

 

2200 prints are not waterproof. They are more water resistant.

Andrew.

 

Thermal prints are waterproof (if you can afford a thermal printer).
Silver halide prints are essentially waterproof although they require
re-washing and drying if you get water spots on them. They are also beyond
the means of most do-it-your-selfers if you are starting with a digital
image. (Remember enlargers in home darkrooms?) With ink jet prints, none are
completely waterproof. They type of ink makes a difference. The type of
media makes a bigger difference (porous media is more prone to water
damage).

 

Why are you concerned about waterproof?? Water is not going to be a
good thing for any of these printers.

The issue with dye (1280) is fading.

Also, you can buy a 1280 and then get 3rd party pigment ink
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

 

Yeah, that's what i meant.

I mean you can accidentally spittle some saliva
on a 2200 print and basically wipe it off.

Whereas the 1280 print would dissolve the ink
noticably.


Slick

 

Why not be concerned? I mean, sure, the ultimate designation may
be under glass, but until then, all sorts of accidents can and will
happen.

I understand that the 2200 is more archival.

I also have read all sorts of warnings against using 3rd party
inks, in terms of clogging heads and such.


Slick

 

Yeah, that's what i meant.

Nope, it depends on the paper used. Do that with Epson's Colorlife and it will
instantly wipe ink off. Even though it is one of Epson's longest lasting papers
it is very susceptible to water damage. If they still have it Epson's plastic
film "paper" allows you to be able to dunk a print made with Epson dye inks
into water with no damage. Leave it in long enough and it will start dmaging
the print. It depends on paper.

 

So you print it again. It's not like it costs $100 to make a print or
something.

 

While the Ultrachrome inks are more moisture resistant than dyes, I wouldn't
take either one for a swim. If you get it wet, leave it alone and see how
it works out. If it doesn't, re-print it.

 

(zbzbzb) wrote in

Well, I can only comment about the papers I've tried, but prints from my
new C84 using DuraBrite inks on plain paper, Epson Matte Paper Heavyweight,
and Epson Durabrite Ink Glossy Photo Paper are water PROOF. The only
concern is wrinkling of the paper.

I've run a plain paper print under the water faucet, and it just wrinkles
the paper. It has no effect on the ink.

I've splashed prints on the other 2 papers with about a tablespoon of water
flicked at them, leaving large water droplets all over the prints like they
got left out in the rain for 30 seconds. Then, I let them sit.

No effect on the ink. 10 minutes later, I can walk over and wipe drops off
without damaging the print. If the water's clean, it won't even leave
spots.

On the papers I've tried, DuraBrite ink is >>WATER PROOF<<.

 

Oh. I thought the "DuraBrite" inks were the only pigment based inks Epson
made. Are "Ultrachrome" inks different?

 

Yeah, it's a different inkset altogether. The DuraBrite inkset was designed
with commercial and store-front window display in mind. Furthermore, I
*think* DuraBrite is 100% pigment whereas I *know* Ultrachrome is a
dye/pigment blend with which Epson has tried to combine the best of both
worlds (i.e., gamut and durability).

Epson claims water "insolubility" for DuraBrite, but they do not make the
same claim for Ultrachrome.

 

Colorlife isn't recommended for pigment inks AFAIAA.

Andrew.