scott_eaton Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 <I>I also have some RA4 prints that have faded considerably in 15years that are all in albums</i><P>I will bet you a case of your favorite beverage those RA4 prints are Kodak (or an off brand) paper. Fuji had the issue addressed and fixed long before Kodak did.<P>To add to this soap opera, I've had a pair of Epson 220 (dye based) prints taped to south window since fall. One sprayed with acrylic based UV inhibitor, the other without. Both printed on epson matte heavyweight.<P> The non-sprayed print is exhibiting some signs of the yellow dye taking some abuse, but not that dramatic. Certainly not as bad as prior dye based epson's or Canon/HP. Yes, we all know the pigment based printers are the archival leaders, but the dye based inks are getting better, and they don't take a gamut range hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr._smith Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 "Better tell that to the Chinese. They've got some interesting art on silk. Dye inks. 1400+ years old, much of that time in display conditions of the times. Mostly that was hanging on walls without glass." Not quite. Inkjet dyes tested by WIR had best longivity when used on pure cotton paper. But when used on a cotton paper with a photographic layer they were a dismal failure. Same poor results with plastic coated inkjet paper. Pure cotton papers without a photographic layer usually have poor dmax and poor color saturation. Dyes do fare better when used on paper with encapsulating resins. So dyes are very sensible to the medium on which they are used. But, in any event, no dyes have proven more stable than lamp black pigments which are used in some third party b&w inkset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr._smith Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 "Yes, we all know the pigment based printers are the archival leaders, but the dye based inks are getting better, and they don't take a gamut range hit." The black ink is very important for the tonal range and professional custom profiles addressed that issue. It's the amateur using the pigment ink printers without custom profiles that had the problems. Now where seeing pigment ink printers with multi-level black inks that help both amateurs and professionals with the tonal range. Dyes inks are still limited by the medium on which they are used. Even HP's new dyes inkset limits one to HP certified inkjet paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_houghphotonet Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Thank you - I found better information in this thread concerning dye vs. pigment inks than anywhere else after half an hour of searching. Now if I just knew the costs... I am in the market for a good print device that will do everything, and what I am hearing boils down to "get a pigment based printer".<br> <br> What do I mean by "do everything"?<br> - Wedding photos (So far I've stayed away from payed shoots, but I am sure I'll be doing one of these sooner or later...). This means I don't want to gamble with dye/paper combinations that may or may not fade based on the toss of the dice. I am willing to sacrifice a little zip in the photos printed today in trade for photos that will last.<br> - Good black and white... Without having to change tanks for different papers. (so not epson 2200)<br> - Good prints on any medium. (just say NO to dyes on this note - I currently use a cheapie canon i560 and get extremely different results on every new paper I try).<br> <br> Questions:<br> - Can anyone provide a web link to somewhere that allows me to compare ink costs from one printer to the next? For example, I found a review where one gentleman states the cost of a Canon PIXMAR Pro9000 at $2.25 in (8 cartrige dye based) ink per square foot. You would think the competitive manufacturers would advertise verifiable total costs of printing... *go figure?*<br> - What print device would you recommend that fits my above criteria? At the moment I believe the only choice will be the Canon PIXMAR Pro9500 (10 cartrige pigment based) when it comes out, which I think is going to be priced at $650... NOTE: 13 inch is only mildly more attractive to me than 8.5 inch print devices. I don't believe I'd use the larger format often enough to matter.<br> <br> Thank you,<br> Charles<br> <br> chough@gmail.com<br> www.thoughtphoto.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 In the sign industry "dye vs. pigment inks" has been known since inkjets came out. Even our 1994 36" inkjet printer has dye or pigmented ink sets still available. In printing seminars back when pentiums were the hot trick, tests shows pigmented inks lasted longer. Try placing a dye sign in the direct sun with reds, they die off to pink in a week or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_thumbnail Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 <p>I am amazed at the shortness of the life of these digital prints, at least the dye based ones. I had no idea they could fade out so quickly. When I grew up, photo prints were thought of as lasting virtually forever. Would it be safe to assume all professional photographers provide prints made with pigment based inks, or they include the file along with the print?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now