Epson 4000 ink permanence data on Wilhelms web page

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ThomasH, Jun 3, 2004.

  1. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    ThomasH, Jun 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ThomasH

    Huey Fong Guest

    Why would they research Canon? They are funded by Epson... Funny that, eh?

    HF
     
    Huey Fong, Jun 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ThomasH

    Rick Guest

    Canon and HP are a full three years behind Epson in development
    of ink technology. Canon's are especially poor -- they run and
    smear easily, and have virtually no water resistance.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jun 4, 2004
    #3
  4. ThomasH

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    Check out the new HP Designjet 30 and 130. They have long life prints
    and a wider colour
    gamut than the Epson 4000. Lower cost as well and no frequent ink
    wasting head cleaning.

    They are said by many pro photographers to have the best colour around
    at the moment.

    https://www.designjet.hp.com/Products/30_130_announce_EMEA.html?pageseq=902320

    www.macwarehouse.co.uk/images/pdf/Designjet130review.pdf

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Jun 4, 2004
    #4
  5. ThomasH

    DM Guest

    Wilhelm keeps changing his numbers now and then. Just look at
    the new numbers for fuji's crystal archive paper. I don't place
    much faith in Wilhelm's reports. Specially with inkjet printers.
    I wouldn't be surprised to find a drastic revaluation in a couple
    of years' time.
     
    DM, Jun 4, 2004
    #5
  6. They're an independent research and testing laboratory. Much of their
    work is on contract for various materials manufacturers -- Lyson, HP,
    Epson, and so forth.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 4, 2004
    #6
  7. ThomasH

    David Chien Guest

    I am surprised about absence of data about top of the
    Nevertheless, it is funny to see the numbers changing so fast and
    often. They used to have reports for various inkjets that seemed like
    wow! (eg. Epson 870 line in this report:
    http://www.fineartpublishing.com/download/wilhelm_permanence_01_30_00.pdf
    ) But despite the 6-7 years reported for the Epson 870 & Epson Photo
    Paper, guess what?

    http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/
    http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/links.htm

    Super-rapid fading of the Epson 870 photo prints to orange within a
    few days/weeks!

    It was such a bad problem, they even called up Epson 870 owners to
    offer a full 100% buyback purchase of the printer if you were
    dissatisfied to prevent lawsuits. (yep, even got a call here myself)

    Now why on earth would Wilhelm state 6-7 years when many people saw
    fading in a few months or less?!? Poor testing proceedures? Never
    bothered to do the simple thing -- stick a photo print up on the walls
    bare? Actually do any real thinking & testing before posting up results?

    ---

    Now, after many protests and comments, they took down their original
    publications and years later have new data up. Oh, my gosh! The epson
    picturemate "inkjet" printer makes prints that'll last 104 years vs. the
    Fuji Crystal Archive at 40 years?!?

    Everyone, look at these tests first:
    http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/index.html

    Beg and pray any inkprints will actually even last over 10 years on
    display. All of a sudden, inkjet prints, which haven't been around more
    than 20 years, last longer than tried & true photo prints? Sounds a lot
    like the fiasco with Kodak slides a few decades past -- stated they'll
    last a long time, faded fast in reality.

    Wilhelm's tests are so far off from reality for most inkjet photo
    printer users that you'd be disappointed if you expected prints to last
    anywhere as long as they toot.

    ----

    Realistically, see
    http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1870&pq-locale=en_US

    Heck, even Kodak is doing better here with a more 'realistic' test of
    print longevity by putting into consideration humidity and ozone levels
    in 'real homes'.

    whether their statements that their Colorlife Paper actually will
    last >100 years w/o fading is just marketing hype, IMO.

    (how many century old books have you seen in a museum or library
    archive still looking freshly printed w/o restoration/preservation?)

    ---

    Now, on the other hand, if you're willing to UV/IR shield the print
    under extremely stable and controlled conditions, sure, you'd get
    hundreds of years of life perhaps. see how the Declaration of
    Independence is preserved today:

    http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters_preservation_01.html

    But realistically, save the digital images so you can make another
    print in a few years from now, because they'll fade and they sure as
    heck won't last the years these silly testing companies say they do
    under 'lab' environments.
     
    David Chien, Jun 4, 2004
    #7
  8. ThomasH

    Huey Fong Guest

    The man has totally lost credability. You can't say a print will last 25
    years and no one else can achieve that life.
    HF
     
    Huey Fong, Jun 4, 2004
    #8
  9. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    Of course, as long you will not corroborate with test results
    etc., it is not more than a private opinion! I correct myself:
    the *.prf paper has this data!

    Personally I made such bad experiences with HP, that many, many
    convincing will have to happen until I will spend (or rather
    waste) my money on their ink printer again.

    I would always take an oscilloscope or a signal analyzer or a
    calculator from from HP! But wait a moment, they do not do that
    anymore, its now called Agilent. They try to become "an US
    Canon/Epson/Sony" mass product house, crossed breed with a
    "IBM like computing house." Hooooow attractive.
    Thanks for the hint, but I cannot help myself to conclude:
    It is a lousy web page with a lousy, barely substantial
    presentation. And don't you think 1200 x 600 dpi is a very,
    very miserable resolution??? This simply cannot be a match
    to Epsons 2400dpi or to Canon's 2pl technology!

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Jun 4, 2004
    #9
  10. ThomasH

    Rick Guest

    Epson's R800 is 1.5pl and 5760x1440dpi. No individual dots
    visible even with an 8X loupe. Incredible.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jun 4, 2004
    #10
  11. ThomasH

    Don Forsling Guest

    Writing about Henry Wilhelm's data on longevity of various printer paper/ink
    longevity prospects...

    Do you mean he _had_ (in your eyes) credibility and _then_ lost it, or he
    _never_ had any credibility? If it's the former, it'd be nice if you'd be
    specific about what caused him to lose credibility if your eyes--credibility
    he once had.

    You're quite right when you say "YOU can't say a print will last 25 years
    and no one else can achieve that life." You're right, you can't say that
    "no one else can achieve that life." That's because nobody doing the
    research can be absolutely sure they are testing _all_ the papers and _all_
    the inks that exit. Whether or not you've missed one or more potential
    samples is an unknown. But that's true with most research.

    What the researcher can do is test for ink/paper/image stability, fading,
    etc., etc. by speeding up the known destructive processes over a fairly
    short period of time and then projecting the results in a "at this rate,
    it'll take this long for X to happen." estimate. This sort of thing is
    done to project life cycles of hundreds of different materials, machines,
    and so on and on.

    Maybe, in the case of inks,papers and such, nobody can project perfectly,
    but I suspect that Wilhelm does it better than anyone else. We'll all have
    to life another 25-30 years to know for sure.
     
    Don Forsling, Jun 4, 2004
    #11
  12. ThomasH

    Skip M Guest

    That is bunk of the type that I thought GP was the only one capable!
    have a Canon i9000 (3 gen old), and I've taken a print from it on Ilford
    paper and put it under running water, then rubbed my thumb over it. No
    smearing!
    Please make sure of your facts before you say things like that!
     
    Skip M, Jun 4, 2004
    #12
  13. ThomasH

    Rick Guest

    How old was this print?

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jun 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Yes, but you've picked on the *one* big glitch that has occurred. The
    effect of ozone, perhaps, was not adequately tested (that's the way I
    remember the outcome, anyway). This was a case of the controlled
    conditions turning out not to include an important part of the real
    world conditions. That's been corrected.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 4, 2004
    #14
  15. Personally, I find the issue amusing. Who cares how long the print
    lasts as long as it doesn't fade too quickly? If it fades after five or
    ten years, I'll dig into my photo archive and print a new copy on my
    latest-technology printer. No big deal, really.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 4, 2004
    #15
  16. ThomasH

    Skip M Guest

    A day or so, less than 36 hours, I think. But you didn't say anything about
    age of print, just that they run and smear easily and have virtually no
    water resistance.
     
    Skip M, Jun 5, 2004
    #16
  17. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    This is a massive bunch of nonsense and a proof that you have
    never been using a Canon printer. Like with their cameras and
    lenses, Canon did a splendid job and cut severely into Epsons
    domain.
    I have the same A3 printer! Excellent, quiet, fast. Think Tank
    technology helps to save inks and forced practically Epson to
    finally provide separate inks as a standard solution. And the
    S9000 is enormously resilient against drying out if not used
    for a while. My former HP demanded to replace the print head
    after a month or two of idle pause. The clogs were irreversible.
    The S9000 cleans up itself and keeps going with a splendid result.

    I use Canon paper and original ink only, though.
    Correct. See steves digicams tests, and luminous-landscapes
    and everybody or rank said that we have finally a product
    which is a serious match to the Epsons! Now the S9900 uses
    also red and green ink. Steves-Digicam test states that they
    have widest red and green gamut covered by this method.
    I must see it action! The thing I miss though are bigger
    tanks (like in the Epson 4000) and wider format. 17" would
    be perfect.

    Thomas

     
    ThomasH, Jun 5, 2004
    #17
  18. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    ....what is *the* best thing about digital photography! I agree
    and thus I am basically sufficiently happy with inks lasting for
    (estimated) 30 years (like the Canon inks.)

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Jun 5, 2004
    #18
  19. ThomasH

    Rick Guest

    No, they haven't "cut severely into Epson's domain". Canon has
    no equivalent of Epson's archival pigment inks. Dye based inks
    (which are all Canon has to offer at present) are far less water
    resistant than pigment inks.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jun 5, 2004
    #19
  20. ThomasH

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    2400dpi and most of the 6 ink cartridges hold 69cc ink. And no ink
    wastage thro constant
    cleaning. The rated stand down without use is 3 months without printhead
    blockages.

    Cheap to buy and maintain. And outstanding colour with archival dye inks.

    https://www.designjet.hp.com/pdf_refer.html?pdflink=Data/30-130 brochure.pdf&pageseq=902321

    https://www.designjet.hp.com/pdf_refer.html?pdflink=Data/datasheets/130_datasheet.pdf&pageseq=902321

    Click to view the .pdf file.


    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Jun 5, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.