Life Span of an Inkjet Print

[bahmed22]

1. Does an Inkjet color print has the same lifespan as of a color

lab print. If not, is the difference siginificant.

 

2. How do coloro laser printers and color inkjet printers compare

with regards to price, qaulity and life of the prints.

[beauh44]

Hi Bakhtiar,

 

1) In many cases an inkjet print can last longer, if taken care of properly. (Mounted behind glass, avoid exposure to direct sunlight, etc.) See: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

 

2) For the most part, (affordable) color laser printers just aren't ready for photography yet. I'd stick with inkjets. Good luck!

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

From what I've seen, my answer to number 2 would be: cheaper, poorer, and not as long.

[andrew_rodney1]

This very much depends on the ink and papers and type of papers. There are some bogus

claims in recent advertising showing up. For example, one manufacturer is making the

claim that their printer produces a print that lasts over 100 years. But you must use a

specific ink and paper combo or all bets are off. They tell you this in TINY fine print in

their ads. Another company claims their prints will last well over 100 years but the testing

was done with light fast testing that is totally different from how the rest of the industry

tests lightfastness. Instead of testing under 450/500 lux at 12 hours a day (somewhat

typical of room lighting), they are using only 120 lux at 12 hours a day to get these values.

That's pretty darn dim lighting but worse, it's measuring a process with a rubber ruler.

And this company claims that this paper they sell will do this with any printer. They don't

tell you the paper isn't water resistant. Papers that are not totally water resistant are

problematic unless you live in an environment as dry as the Sahara desert. That's because

any moisture will affect archivability.

 

Check with the guy in the know; Henry Wilhelm of Wihelm Imaging Research

(www.wilhelm-research.com).

[kelly_flanigan1]

Toner base prints last longer than inkjet; at least the decade plus worth of test we have run internally. Toner based work can be total total crap or great. There are a huge range of machines. Some are offic box store cheapies; only a grand. The local power company has one that leases for 7000 bucks a month; and is about 20 feet long; and has an onsite tech. Most print shops use units that are betwwen theses two examples. When maintained on a contract; the fee might be 150 to 500 per month; even if you own the machine. High end units for photos might cost 50 to 70k; have way better drum rotation; have way better color calibration. A non maintained machine might have streaks; dings on the drum; toner with moisture. Some folks calibrate their color copiers on a regular basis; others never do. So what your local printers turn out; the quality varies ALL over the map. Units in larger cities can be expensive 100K color copiers; that are made for photos; and are used my ad agencies many times. These are rarer; and in a way different performance class than a worn out loss leader color copier; in an office box store. The self serve color copier machines are often the last step before the scrapman.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Reds poop outr quickly in plain inkjet; ir direct sunlight. The fading can be radical in only one week; with plain inkjet sets. The CMYK dyes each fade at different rates. Red fades the quickest. The life of an image is color dependant. Outdoor images use pigmented inks; for alot more color fading resistance.

[bill_tuthill]

Red eh, Kelly? In my Epson prints it has been cyan that fades first.

Anyway Bakhtiar, it's only the pigment-based inks (e.g. Epson 2200)

that have a prayer of outlasting photo prints. With dye-based inks

I see fading within months when a print is exposed to sunlight, and

within years in an office environment, not under glass. Whereas I

left a photo print on the dashboard of my car for over a year, and

detected no fading. In my area Frontier 4x6 prints from digital files

cost less than Epson materials to produce the same image.

[beauh44]

Dye based inks are improving. For example, Wilhelm Imaging rates the prints from an HP 7960, which uses dye-based inks, in some cases at over 100 years. I'm not so sure we can generalize anymore. Best wishes . . .

[andrew_rodney1]

-->Dye based inks are improving. For example, Wilhelm Imaging rates the prints from an

HP 7960, which uses dye-based inks, in some cases at over 100 years.

 

Apparently only when using HP #85 ink on HP Premium Plus Paper. Anything else and all

bets are off.

[Spearhead]

Andrew brings up an important point that should really be emphasized on its own: <i>"Archival"</i> can only be used in reference to a specific ink/paper pair. I hear "archival printer" used regularly, but it's meaningless on its own.

[bill_tuthill]

Most interesting -- Wilhelm's tests indicate several H/P prints

will outlast Crystal Archive (40 years), and that Agfa Sensatis photo paper will outlast Kodak Edge/Royal Generations (22 vs 19 years).

Wilhelm's numbers for dye-based Epson prints are longer than my

experience, perhaps because done under glass: 6 years for Photo Paper

and 24 years for Heavyweight Matte.

[andrew_rodney1]

Pigmented inks are really the products you want for longevity. Dyes are getting better. The

ink/paper combo should not be over looked.

 

The other bogus marketing claims I've seen is that some are providing stat's based upon

the print being under 100% UV glass which helps with the longevity numbers but is

somewhat bogus (and not the standard way the rest of the industry measures these

things). So these claims are a bit like dynamic range spec's for scanners. There's a lot of

measuring with a rubber ruler here.

[jack paradise]

Interesting reading about print longevity

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Apr04/Wilhelm.htm

[jtk]

I can't speak to the archival character of digital prints, and nobody else can do more than speculate based on reasonable tests (various schemes involving UV, as with paint tests).

 

HOWEVER I can say that I've got very printable century-old negatives and very handsome century-old prints in my collection, beautiful 1940 Kodachrome slides and unfaded 1945 Kodachrome PRINTS...I happen to have an AGFACOLOR print that I made in 1975, specifically to test our local procedure for extending Agfacolor's unfortunately short typical life...we just washed for an extra hour and used 3X formaldehyde solution (vs then standard Agfa procedure)...this 30-yr-old print DOES show signs of fading (call it 1/4 stop and perhaps 5M shift), but it still looks good, has decent blacks.

 

What I'm saying is that most comments about photochemical paper archival nature are bogus and irrelevant...dashboard tests etc...no fine art item is exhibited in bright continuous light, not paintings nor prints, and especially not photos, and none are exhibited without glass if they are believed to actually have value as objects...which virtually no photographs do, as we all know: look at the miserable lack of both creativity and photographic integrity in contemporary photographic venues.