So you think your inkjet prints will last?...

V

visiondr

cyclic iconoclast
Local time
1:44 AM
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
1,200
... think again. Apparently, we really don't know how long a print will last. An interesting article in the New York Times points to the difficulties in testing inkjet print longevity and the failures of some recent technologies.

http://tinyurl.com/34448r
 
Interesting.

I recently bought an Epson R260 with Claria inks because I was tired of fading by Canon inks. Time will tell. But new printers actually cost less than the ink cartidges in them, so it wasn't hard to switch.
 
VinceC said:
But new printers actually cost less than the ink cartidges in them, so it wasn't hard to switch.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And when the "new" printer becomes "old" and gets replaced by a really "new" printer, where does the "old-new" printer go? Landfill? All this disposable technology is killing us.
 
Well my informal color laserjet vs. printed ink material proved the that the former outlasts the latter. A friend of mine owns a business with a southwest facing storefront. He had a printed piece of advertising that faded in less than a month in the direct California summer sun. I made him a laserjet of the sign that lasted through the end of the summer, almost three months. It was still a good sign when he pulled it down. I was impressed. I didn't think it would last anywhere near that long.

:)
 
Trius said:
Yeah. And when the "new" printer becomes "old" and gets replaced by a really "new" printer, where does the "old-new" printer go? Landfill? All this disposable technology is killing us.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the dumps look like where you live, but stuff like printers NEVER hit the landfill here unless dumped illegally. That stuff is sorted out and placed into recycle heaps. In fact, if I fill my pickup truck full of non-landfill type stuff if costs me less to dump than a pickup full of yard waste.

:)
 
RayPA said:
Well my informal color laserjet vs. printed ink material proved the that the former outlasts the latter.
Click to expand...

However, we have a very nice color Laserjet at work. We occasionally do small runs of brochures on it, including photos, and the quality does rival 4-color offset.

But, compared to a decent inkjet print, dye or pigment, it doesn't come close. I've tried larger photos on it and it's "almost photo quality" at best. The sheen of the surface, although unlike inkjet bronzing, is unnatural.

Manufacturers are now very much in tune to permanence. The printers today may or may not produce prints that last as long as wet prints. We don't know, and we probably won't until long after I'm around.

I must say that the quality of the prints on the newer printers is outstanding, and yes, they do claim some kind of archival qualities.

I really don't know, however. The oldest nice prints I have that were done on inkjets are a bit over 2 years, and they have held up nicely -- for now that is. :)
 
Get an inorganic substrate, with a fluoropolymer ink with inorganic pigments if you want to live forever.

I guess if we are talking digital process images, why worry about multi-century permanence? Just print it again. It's not like a hand dodged Ansel Adams print. Just make sure you don't loose the file.

Accelerated tests can never predict with 100% certianty that something will hold up. They are just models for the real aging process. Models are never as complex as the real system, or else they wouldn't be models. Same thing with maps. A zero distorsion map is the same size as what it is representing.

If that place in Canada is at 0 degrees, does that mean they have to heat it in the winter?

Mark
 
I don't inkjet print my photos. I have a lab print on Fuji paper for me. No idea whether that will last a century but prints made years ago don't show fading yet.
 
Trius said:
Yeah. And when the "new" printer becomes "old" and gets replaced by a really "new" printer, where does the "old-new" printer go? Landfill? All this disposable technology is killing us.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, old printers get handed over to those that deal with refurbishing computer equipment.
 
350D_user said:
Hopefully, old printers get handed over to those that deal with refurbishing computer equipment.
Click to expand...

or at the very least shipped back to China where they can poison people safely
 
OT/Ray: That is certainly not the case in all jurisdictions and I am willing to bet not in the vast majority. It is time we mandated that the manufacturers take back old devices and pay the cost of proper recycling.
 
visiondr said:
... think again. Apparently, we really don't know how long a print will last. An interesting article in the New York Times points to the difficulties in testing inkjet print longevity and the failures of some recent technologies.

http://tinyurl.com/34448r
Click to expand...
Ilford Galerie (specially the Smooth Gloss) and Epson paper has proved to be the most stable, to me. I've had prints on other paper, and they've faded in about a year. The Ilford Galerie prints, the 5+ year-old ones are still as good as when they were printed.

I did have a portfolio printed on a mix of this paper, though, and I gave it to somebody, and half a year later the prints were awfully discolored. It turns out they kept it in the car, out in the sun, for a few months. :mad:

So, there's no silver bullet. Traditional prints are more stable, but are also prone to fading if you don't take care of them.

BTW, the prints that have lasted me years, even the ones I've exposed to mixed lighting (sun, tungsten, etc.) on purpose, are framed, behind glass. You must let them dry for at least 24hrs. after printing before enclosing them in anything.
 
Trius said:
OT/Ray: That is certainly not the case in all jurisdictions and I am willing to bet not in the vast majority. It is time we mandated that the manufacturers take back old devices and pay the cost of proper recycling.
Click to expand...
Ha! In Europe, perhaps. Here in the U.S., how commie of a suggestion! Pffft! Corporate welfare seems to be the serum of Capitalism. It's going to pay with a harsh interest unless it shapes up. Look at China (oh, the irony), with rogue, unregulated companies doing as they please. Not good for business (they'll say "not good for the consumer or for jobs") to be responsible.

But it all starts with us. We can't keep on just throwing away stuff. Buy reliable, lasting products. Not cheap at once, but cheaper in the long run. And healthier.
 
I find all rather amusing.

Ogg warned Nog not to use pigments from ground-up plants to make his cave drawings, because they were not known to have archival qualities. Ogg preferred pigments made of minerals, because of their durability and bright colors. Nog thought Ogg was not right in the head, because everyone knows that preparation of the wall surface was key, not vegetable versus mineral inks. Rather than spend a lot of time making drawings, they spent a lot of time arguing.

Both Ogg and Nog are no more, and time has erased every trace of their stick-people drawings.

Urg, who didn't give a rat's patoot which pigment was least likely to fade, used what he had and concentrated on becoming a better artist. His cave wall was discovered in France and is now very famous. Of course, Urg is likewise no more, and no one really cares about the quality of his work, just that there was work being done so long ago. His art has 'historical significance' but no one critiques it as art.

Although Ogg and Nog's work did not survive, they wasted a lot of valuable time arguing over who was right - and isn't that what's important?

Apparently.
 
Quote: "Although Ogg and Nog's work did not survive, they wasted a lot of valuable time arguing over who was right - and isn't that what's important?
Apparently."

Still not as silly as wasting time posting on a topic you think is a waste of time. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom