david b
film shooter
I was flipping through a recent copy of Martha Stewarts' Living (don't ask) and came across a Canon photo ad with the headline "Here's a photo that will last."
Then it says "ChromaLife 100 inks and genuine Canon photo paper, you end with...photos that can last a lifetime*."
Now the fine print...
* "Lifetime claim based on accelerated testing by Canon in dark storage under controlled temperature , humidity, and gas conditions, simulating storage in an album with plastic sleeves."
Then it goes on to say...
"Canon cannot guarantee the longevity of prints; results may vary depending on printed image, drying time, display/storage conditions and factors."
So what happens when you print one and hang it on the wall?
Then it says "ChromaLife 100 inks and genuine Canon photo paper, you end with...photos that can last a lifetime*."
Now the fine print...
* "Lifetime claim based on accelerated testing by Canon in dark storage under controlled temperature , humidity, and gas conditions, simulating storage in an album with plastic sleeves."
Then it goes on to say...
"Canon cannot guarantee the longevity of prints; results may vary depending on printed image, drying time, display/storage conditions and factors."
So what happens when you print one and hang it on the wall?
S
Socke
Guest
I had one print made with an Epson Stylus 440 on ordinary paper hanging on wall which does not get direct sunlight for five years until it developed a magenta cast.
A friend bought a Canon 990 when that was new, must be three or four years now, a print on Ilford paper is hanging in direct morning light since then and hasn't changed at all, or it changed in a way I don't see
A friend bought a Canon 990 when that was new, must be three or four years now, a print on Ilford paper is hanging in direct morning light since then and hasn't changed at all, or it changed in a way I don't see
zuikologist
.........................
I think Epson make similar claims for prints made on their paper using their inks - 100 year life. Not sure under what conditions though.
S
Socke
Guest
Yep, the pigmented inks last longer than dye based inks, the paper is another factor in the equation.
The tests are usualy made with strong artificial light sources and then extrapolated to ordinary light sources.
We will know for sure around 2100
The tests are usualy made with strong artificial light sources and then extrapolated to ordinary light sources.
We will know for sure around 2100
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
david b said:
Again it depends on the conditions, If you want to hang something (not just a digital print but also a proper photo print, or a painting) on a wall you should make sure that it is matted (so the glass does not touch it), it is away form direct sunlight, uses only archival acid free materials and it has a UV filtered glass.
Anything else and your print will last less than it could.
pvdhaar
Peter
I'm always a bit suspicious when 'accelerated aging' is used to prove something. It's like cars that are tested for 100.000 miles somewhere in Finland in a month, because the climate is so harsh out there. It's not the same as sitting in a traffic jam day in day out and having solvents and exhaust gasses eat away at the plastics..
The same goes for these inks/papers. Humidity and UV is one thing, but the air's filled with much more than that. Carpets, paint, wall paper and even lacquers on wooden floors give off chemicals that oxydize paper, dies and pigments. And that's when there are no people in the room giving off odors. Of course digital images can be re-printed when required, but I find 'lifelong' claims a bit smelly (no pun intended).
I think Socke is right, we'll only know 100 years later from now..
The same goes for these inks/papers. Humidity and UV is one thing, but the air's filled with much more than that. Carpets, paint, wall paper and even lacquers on wooden floors give off chemicals that oxydize paper, dies and pigments. And that's when there are no people in the room giving off odors. Of course digital images can be re-printed when required, but I find 'lifelong' claims a bit smelly (no pun intended).
I think Socke is right, we'll only know 100 years later from now..
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Peter
Of course you are right, however an image framed using the right materials and away from direct sunlight MAY last a lifetime (or it may not we can't be 100% sure now), an image stored in the wrong conditions WILL not last a lifetime, and actually will last much less than the former.
Of course you are right, however an image framed using the right materials and away from direct sunlight MAY last a lifetime (or it may not we can't be 100% sure now), an image stored in the wrong conditions WILL not last a lifetime, and actually will last much less than the former.
JohnL
Very confused
At least if it was printed digitally and you keep the file, it can be reprinted in the future to an identical (or higher) standard. Colour negatives are also subject to deterioration, again especially if storage conditions are not ideal.
david b said:
I am glad that you added the "(don't ask)" part.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
If an inkjet print lasts 5 years hanging on my wall then that is OK. After 5 years years I would want to look at something different anyway.
Bob
Bob
S
Skinny McGee
Guest
JohnL said:
I think the problem with that is in 20 yrs. the files that you have now will not work on the machines that we have then...
dmr
Registered Abuser
david b said:
One of the local casinos has a current promotion "$100,000 a year for life" or some other number, I don't remember. Anyway, the fine print at the bottom of the ad says: Life is defined as 10 years.
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
How about something like
"guaranteed for life*"
*life as defined by the average life-cycle of a diseased, and psychologically impaired fruit fly
On a more serious note however, I did a number of ink jet transfers to glass a few years ago, on a printer that while high quality, is in no way archival. In the process of doing the transfer, I used Golden (brand) clear matte acrylic medium to attach to the glass, as well as to coat the pictures, and texture their surface.
They've been hanging in more or less direct light for 4 years now, with no perceivable change in the colors, etc.
The thing about the Golden stuff is that most of it not only filters out UV, but it also locks the picture away from air...basically the only degrading comes from within the paper, or the inks themselves. Kind of like sealing a mummy in a vacuum.
With a bit of knowledge, you can mix the acrylic medium to a consistency, and apply it in such a way that you won't be able to tell that a print is covered by it.
"guaranteed for life*"
*life as defined by the average life-cycle of a diseased, and psychologically impaired fruit fly
On a more serious note however, I did a number of ink jet transfers to glass a few years ago, on a printer that while high quality, is in no way archival. In the process of doing the transfer, I used Golden (brand) clear matte acrylic medium to attach to the glass, as well as to coat the pictures, and texture their surface.
They've been hanging in more or less direct light for 4 years now, with no perceivable change in the colors, etc.
The thing about the Golden stuff is that most of it not only filters out UV, but it also locks the picture away from air...basically the only degrading comes from within the paper, or the inks themselves. Kind of like sealing a mummy in a vacuum.
With a bit of knowledge, you can mix the acrylic medium to a consistency, and apply it in such a way that you won't be able to tell that a print is covered by it.
Last edited:
hms624
"Precocious" Pariah
Even if that were true, it is not of much significance. Unless you pull a Rip Van Winkle and fall asleep for those 20 years, I am assuming that it is possible to continually update your archived digital pictures to whatever format is being used at the time.
blakley
blakley
I was worried - I thought you were gonna say the fine print was a warning that they'd send somebody out to finish you off as soon as the print starts to fade...