market, Have you considered having photo prints made from silver halide paper, from online labs such as OFOTO.COM? They are "real" prints, done up on doubleweight RC paper. No archival surprises--they last as long as regular prints, because they ARE real photo prints. I use them exclusively, and I do not even own an inkjet printer, because of concerns over fading. And the cost of "real" prints is less than the cost of those "do-it-yourself" inkjet prints.
Well, actually there were two. You also could use Tektronix dyesub paper but that usually wasn't economical. Note that the ALPS dye-sub really was a pigment-sub. An ALPS employee talked (in chemist lingo) what materials its "ink" was made from quite some time ago. Point of all that was that it used pigments rather than dyes (which probably also is why it's gamut wasn't the biggest one might have seen). Mike P.S. - No the ALPS printer wasn't fast, but from times I hear on the 2200, it may have been faster that that. It actually printed quite quickly, only problem is that it'd have to do it four times as it did each "ink" only one at a time.
LOL! No, it's from an old Latin comedy and means I came, I saw, I went away again ;-) -- Hecate - The Real One veni, vidi, reliqui
I disagree. There are plenty of reviews, plus "word of mouth". Personally, I'd recommend Permajet to anyone in preference to the Epson inks - as long as you can afford the initial outlay for the CIS system with the 2200. Their Blax system for B&W is exceptional and their colour system excellent. Yes, they do. But that's true of any ink/paper combination and doesn't make OEM paper a requirement or even the best solution. -- Hecate - The Real One veni, vidi, reliqui
Read the information on the site and you'll see. The problem with Wilhelm is the light source amongst other things. -- Hecate - The Real One veni, vidi, reliqui
However, I wondered if anyone could tell me whether there is a home A3 Any inkjets that'll match a true photographic print for waterproofness? Nope, but the closest you'll come for longevity out of the box may be the Epson wide-body printers with the encapsulated inks. Other than that, the technologies are different enough (and unproven since they haven't existed over 15 years) that you won't know until you've printed and hanged them for years. Home inkjets certainly won't last more than a few years, so don't bother with these to start. www.inkjetmall.com has 3rd archival inks and papers to consider. Also, FujiFilm Pictrography printers, albeit expensive, do produce photo prints that will have similar characteristics as regular photo prints, so that may be the way to go commerically (either get one cheap off ebay.com or find a local lab where you can send your print jobs). Longevity of home inkjet printers - forget it! http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/ http://wilhelm-research.com/ (but with a grain of salt since they changed all of their testing methods after the orange fading crisis) Realistically, these tests occur in 'ideal' environments and conditions, and in real life, I would not bet my life or business on any inkjet print to last more than 10 years (nor provide a warranty longer than that either). Although you can keep inkjet prints perfectly fine in cold-storage w/o light (ie. in a folder in a cabnet where some of my original HP Paintjet prints from 10+ years ago still look fine), once the prints are out under light and environmental display conditions, you can toss the longevity thing out the door. (which is why even Epson offered a 100% full price buyback of the Epson 870 during the orange fading crisis just a few years ago; which is why every year, every inkjet printer maker from Epson to Canon to HP toots 'even longer print life' than the printer they released just 1 year before. Everyone knows that unless it's pigmented or solid-dye, most of these non-pigmented dyes will fade fast over time.) Naturally, time will lead to new developments which will lengthen print life from inkjets, but don't bet a business on it yet. For the time being, dye-sub (solid dye) printers or FujiFilm Pictrography printers are the two best alternatives for long-life prints that should last a decent amount of time (again, don't bet a business on their lifespans since they haven't been out in real-life as long as film prints, so who knows the actual stability over 100 years?). Here, Fujifilm Pictrography prints are my #1 pick -- feels, looks, and acts just like a real photo print, nothing that would make a client look otherwise at the paper/medium itself, and superb prints that look just like film prints. Step down from there, going cheaper, look into printers using pigmented/encapsulated dyes such as the Epson Stylus Pro 4000, Epson Stylus Photo 2200, Epson PX-G5000 (just released in Japan, coming soon to USA), etc. If you're doing B&W prints, the B&W Piezography system is the way to go: http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/bw-buy.html
I looked at this page and it says that if the Epson 2200 printer works as well as early reports indicate, it may be the current best solution for someone who needs a moderately priced photo printer capable of high quality AND long life output. Although several posters have referred to Fujifilm Pictrography prints, I haven't seen any information that says these may have better archival properties than Epson's Ultrachrome pigment based archival inks. Does anyone have such information? In the Steves Digicams review of the Epson Stylus Photo 2200 it says that this is the ideal printer for those wanting the same longevity in their digital prints as conventional film prints. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/epson_2200.html Do you think that the quality of the printed image of a pictrography print is noticeably better than that from the Epson UltraChrome pigment inks? On Epson's web site about the Epson Stylus Photo 2200, it claims that Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper is light resistant up to 85 years. Even if this was overstated by 15 years, I think that most buyers of a photograph would be very happy with a claimed life of 70 years. The archival quality of photo paper is a very important issue, so I wouldn't think that a major company such as Epson would grossly exaggerate such a claim? The photos I sell are professionally framed under glass, so this would be in line with the expectations of Epson when making their longevity estimates. I think most purchasers realise that photographs should be kept out of direct sunlight, but perhaps I could include a notice to this effect with the prints I sell. I am impressed with the postings of Bill Hilton and his reference to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, which settled on the Epsons for their fine art replications. In addition, I found a review by Michael Reichmann which says that inkjet printing has now reached a level of maturity that requires no excuses or apologies. When referring to the Stylus Photo 2200 and ultrachrome inks, he says that quality archival inkjet printing has truly arrived! http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml After reading the replies to my questions, I think the main problem with selling inkjet prints, rather than commercial lab prints, is the perhaps outdated perceptions of the public that inkjet prints are not in the least waterproof or fadeproof. It would be mainly for this reason that I would continue to use the photo lab to do my prints. However, there is a huge convenience factor in doing your own prints, such as being able to reprint the photo without losing a lot of time if it is not quite what you wanted. You can also print non-standard shapes and sizes, something that some labs will not do without a big increase in their normal costs for the standard photo sizes. Thanks very much to all who have posted replies to my questions, I have learned a great deal, I think I am almost confident enough to sell Epson ultrachrome pics! Regards, Susan
Thanks Art for this information, it is very interesting. Can anyone tell me what the main differences are between Durabrite pigmented inks, and the current UltraChrome inks? Do you think it would be worth waiting for the new A3 Durabrite printer, rather than purchasing the Epson 2200/2100 printer? Would the Durabrite pigmented inks have better archival / lightfast qualities than the present inks used on the Epson 2200/2100? I wonder if the picture quality would be as good with the Durabrite pigmented inks as it would with the ultra chrome inks? Regards, Susan
Give or take a year or two ;-) Obviously, all inkjet inks are tested with accelerated aging testing. It's hardly a perfect science. It's a bit like saying if a piece of paper bursts into flames and becomes ashes in 2 minutes at 452 degrees F, that it will do the same thing in 40 years if it is kept at 70 degrees F. The variables aren't equal. Subjecting an ink and paper combination to very high intensity lighting and equating that to years of low intensity lighting may not really tell us what we need to know. However, as a study of comparative qualities of different ink/paper combinations, it may give us some valuable information. However, there are issues like oxidation, other radiation, volatiles and gases, humidity, air movement, and combinations of factors which are very difficult to measure for. There are a few knowns. Pigments, in general, tend to be less fugitive because they are often compounds which have a known history and are physically larger than dye molecules. Certain mordants in paper coatings tend to lock dye molecules into the paper surface better than others. Protection from UV radiation tends to reduce energizing of dye molecules or pigments which otherwise causes them to fly off the paper more easily, so glass or UV screening helps. Brighter light sources accelerate fading. Keeping any type of colored image out of direct sunlight, and away from ozone tends to lessen fading. Even pigments will fade over time if exposed to direct unfiltered sunlight. Mid-day sun is considerably brighter than the light used in most accelerated fade testing, and also considerably brighter than most indoor settings. Fluorescent bulbs give off a fair amount of UV.
Yes, I believe the ALPS printing process was really more of a thermal transfer process than anything (either wax or pigment). Dye-sub is short for dye sublimation. Sublimation is the process of something going from a solid to a gaseous state without having a liquid state. (Dry ice to CO2 is an example). True dye sub printing involves the heating of a dye coated mylar sheet with different levels of heat (usually 128 or 256). The dye is sublimated into a gas, and that gaseous form reformulates into a solid on a receptor sheet that is in near contact with the dye sheet. The process also involves using 3 or 4 different sheets (CMY or CMYK) and sometimes an additional UV filtering layer to protect the print from rapid fading. Keep in mind the whole process is using dyes which sublimate with heat, and they tend to be a bit fugitive. Dye sub is a costly process overall, because usually, regardless of the size print you make or how much of the print has color on it, the whole set of dye sheets is used (each set are one time use only). Also, you must use the paper designed to receive the dye, and they aren't cheap either. In general, inkjet will be more economical and offer more options, and with pigmented inks, probably provides pretty good permanence, as well. Art
Hi Susan, I believe I have mis"spoke" somewhat, as the new R800 wide-carriage product, like the R800 will be using the Ultrachrome inks, not the Durabrite inks. The Ultrachrome inks, as I recall, use a finer pigment particle and they also changed the ink formulas using different yellows. The problem with the Durabrite inks were that they suffered from metamorism (where the color relationships changes under different light sources). To provide more accurate color and reduced metamorism, Epson developed a new yellow ink, which, it would appear, is less stable. The original Durabrite ink set was rated at an anticipated 200 years, while the Ultrachromes are about 80. The Ultrachrome inks are supposed to be brighter and provide a broader gamut by not penetrating as deeply into the paper surface, but this led to a slight surface texture on glossy papers. The R800 ink set has two main features. One, they added a blue ink, so it has 8 colors, CcMmYBKk. Secondly, they also added a gloss optimizer. Due to the nature of pigments, they tend to dull the surface of glossy papers. The gloss optimizer coats the inks after they are set down to improve their surface reflective characteristics. The Durabrite inks have some similar issues, although less so. I imagine all of these cartridges add to the print costs. Personally, I don't like mirror gloss prints these days. Although I used to product Ciba/Ilfo/Chromes I have moved toward more tactile papers, and I even prefer photo prints with a nice velvety surface. But, you have a look you are going for and know your market. The reports I have seen on the R800 prints are pretty gushing. The extra blue ink helps to tame some of the inherent problems in CMYK printing with controlling blue/purple color balance, which has always been a bit tricky on Epson printers. I would suggest you contact Epson and ask them to send you some sample prints from both the 2200 and R800. If possible, ask them for similar subject matter to your own, and on the type of paper surface you plan to use. They will give you some idea of the differences between the two printers. The 2200 has an interchangeable black ink. One is designed for glossy applications and the other for other paper types (it has more density, but it is fairly matte). Art
You need to check your facts out better. I'm not talking about your facts on longevity; although they certainly need checking too. The Epson R800 adds a red ink as well as the blue ink. The extra black isn't a light black or even used at the same time as the other black. One black is "Matte Black" for plain paper and matte papers. The other is "Gloss Black" for glossy papers. It seems to be used on semi-gloss too. The "Gloss Optimizer" only kicks in on glossy papers. It is an option in the driver to turn off on glossy papers. You can't turn it on for matte papers though. BTW, this really doesn't add to the glossiness of the print. What it does is make the glossiness even. If you print without it you will see that the different amounts of ink makes an uneven glossiness in the right light. "Gloss Optimizer" makes it all the same. BTW, the R800 is NOT wide-carriage either. It will only print 8.5" wide paper. OK, on your longevity facts... Do you have any better science for testing the longevity of prints? If so, kindly share it. Don't tell me that I have to wait 30-100 years either. That isn't practical. None of the paper formulations will last for years, let alone decades. I need to know what to print on today. BTW, do you have any color "C" type prints from the 1970s? Have any of those faded? If you do, they have. Heck I have lots of faded Ektachrome slides from the 70s too. (Plenty of unfaded Kodachrome from the 40s and 50s though.) Photographic (light sensitive) color products have NOT had a good history of fade resistance. Ilfochrome has been the best, but never widely used. The odds are that my R800 prints will last way longer than those did. I suppose we could all resurrect true Dye Transfer printing and get real longevity, but that died for a reason. Clyde
Longevity of home inkjet printers - forget it! The site above is about 5 years old now ... when Epson brought out the 1270/780 printer with dye inks a few people found that their prints faded quickly and this was tracked to a lack of "gas fastness". Wilhelm added a test for it, Epson changed the dye inks and added a new paper to ease the problem, and the issue sort of went away. This has nothing to do with the pigment inks used in the 2200 though. Used with the best available paper (Fuji Crystal Archive) they are rated by Wilhelm at 50 years, using the exact same accelerated tests that give 80-100 years for the Ultrachrome inks. Used with other lesser papers they have an even briefer print life estimate. You should check this for yourself since tastes vary ... just get a print from one or more of your files from a local lab which uses this printer and then get a print of the same file(s) from someone like West Coast Imaging (one of the best labs in the USA), where a 8.5x11" print on their Epson 9600 goes for $15 if you pre-flight it ... http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/colorprint/giclee/giclee file.htm ... the 2200 uses the same inks and paper. For the slick glossy look most people seem to prefer the Pictography prints, for fine art images on coated watercolor the Epson looks much better ... tastes vary so it's best to run a couple of test prints. After running this test for myself (including LightJet 5000 prints, which are far superior to the Pictography printers, I feel) I'm using the Epson 4000 and making excellent 16x20" prints, which we have no problem selling. They are using Wilhelm's test numbers ... to put this into perspective, 20 years ago Kodak Ektacolor was the most popular process used by wedding and portrait photographers and the Wilhelm rating was 14-18 years, up to 18-22 years for later versions. Cibachromes (now Ilfochromes) were the favored "archival" print process for fine art landscape photographers using slide film and was rated around 30 years. The only color materials with a significantly longer rating was the dye transfer process, which has duller colors and are very expensive. So we are living in the 'good old days' compared to 20 years back. Not one person in 20 will even ask about this, I've found. And for the few that do I keep a copy of Wilhelm's ratings around and pass them out, telling them that if you keep the prints from direct sunlight they should last about 4-5x longer than conventional prints or twice as long as prints from the consumer digital print labs. Where are you selling your prints? If at an art show or on-line it's not a problem, but if you're trying to get a gallery to show them or represent you then you may have to do some convincing. There's a Yahoo group (Digital-FineArt) where this topic is regularly discussed. Some of the better photo galleries, like say Andrew Smith's in Santa Fe, are starting to sell LightJet prints along side the Ansel Adams black/whites, Eliot Porter dye-transfers and Christopher Burkett Ilfochromes so times are changing. Go for it! Bill
Could be, not sure about that name. The process the ALPS printer uses follows your description below other than not being dye-based. I'm not sure one can sublimate pigments, but that seems to be what was claimed by the ALPS employee. The ALPS "head" used a semiconductor "bar" (presumably a trannie array, but I don't know the details) for the high placement accuracy of it's thermal "spots" and for control of their heat levels. In "dye-sub" mode, it used CMY plus glossy overcoat. A friend of mine who designs printers at Xerox (former Tek division) noted how good the blacks were for a CMY printer. I used to be a design engineer at Tek for about fifteen years (but not in the Printer divsion) so I know a good many people there who work on Phaser printers (now Xerox). In truth, this isn't totally unlike an inkjet in that you only use its dyes (in the ink) one time as well. There is more waste in the dyesub methods, and some printers were really horrible in their waste of "ink". ALPS' methods were actually pretty good. As I've mentioned before, it's runtime costs were similar to inkjets at the time I bought it (compared to an inkjet using top OEM photo paper). It's capital costs were two or three hundred dollars higher. Even if the efficiency of "ink-use" by ALPS may have been a lower than an inkjet, there are sufficent margins in the selling of the cartridges so that the user's cost can be equivalent even if ALPS' margin ended up less extremely high as compared to others. I don't think they were running in "Gilette" mode, which I think was one of their downfalls in the printer market. This certainly is true now that inkjets have improved dramatically. Back when my ALPS printer was new, it blew away inkjets in terms of print quality. Wasn't even close. Now, my Canon i9900 prints better than the ALPS printer. Mike
Try putting a dry Epson 2100/2200 print in a bowl of water. You'll find it doesn't run. Leave it in there for a week, It still won't have run. -- Hecate - The Real One veni, vidi, reliqui
No guarantee that a printer that is in Japan will come to the US market either. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a replacement for the 2200.
Even using some Epson standard dye inks, with the right Epson papers will make a waterproof image. The photo quality matte, and the heavy weight matte fall into that category. This has nothing to do with fading... those papers will fade with dye inks over time. Art
