Lightfastness of UltraChrome ink™

WillieB38717 · May 5, 2002

Don Cooper said:
Ian Burley said:

This is only partly true. Some printers with a very regular half
tone dot pattern, like Canon's S800/900/9000 - yes, it's a problem,
but I know a professional photographer who routinely re-scans
ink-jet prints to obtain a more natural looking result.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what low end inkjets don't use a halftone dither,
though I do note that the new Epson 2200 doesn't seem to use
variable dots -- and the prints do suggest that it may be using
stochastic screening. Seems really odd to me that someone would
want to scan a digital haftoned print, since it doesn't produce a
good scan, but each to his own.

Member said:

No problem here - JPEG is part of the Web standard and will be
supported for eternity. Many very rarely used formats are routinely
supported in the most mundane of applications.

Click to expand...

Well, you're right if "eternity" is maybe ten years. But if you're
thinking decades I think you're wrong. Technology moves really
fast. I've got fractal images from Iterated Systems -- state of the
art six or seven years ago -- which can't be read by any program --
the 16 bit programs that could read, display, and print them can't
run under any Win 32 bit OS. And four or maybe five years ago about
90% of all web images were GIF -- and today plenty of programs
don't support the format. Heck, I don't think TrueType will be
supported in ten years, and it's really universal. And as for
hardware, I'm not convinced CD Rom will be suported in ten years.
Does your computer come with a 5.25" floppy drive? How about a 3.5"
floppy? Can you even get a Bernoulli dirve .... ? And if you got
one, could you find a driver for it?

As an aside, JPG2000 seems so much better than JPG, and it's open
source, that I'm quite puzzled why it hasn't made more of a splash.
But the pattern tends to be nothing when you think something should
happen, then a trickle, then suddenly a flood. Any thoughts on this?

Member said:

I think that's a meaningless statement - the problems associated
with conventional analogue photography are plentiful too you know!

Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing the relative merits of digital vs. film, I was
responding to the notion that you don't need to care about print
longevity because you can "just print out another one." It's just
not that simple, and as we go forward in time you'll have to budget
the time and money to keep your formats, media, and hardware
current.

Hello Don,

The new SC 2100 appears to have variable drop size. Below is a link to Epson UK's new product announcement ditty.
http://www.epson.co.uk/product/printers/photo/styphoto2100/index.htm

Also of interest to some (me!) are the estimates of cartridge life, found by clicking on the specifications link; bottom right of page. It appears light black is going to be a popular "color". I wonder, does anyone know what "bike picture" they are refering to, and where it can be found?

JohnL · May 5, 2002

Ian Burley said:
Ulysses said:

You got to some of the same points that I was going to address.

Ian Burley said:

This is only partly true. Some printers with a very regular half
tone dot pattern, like Canon's S800/900/9000 - yes, it's a problem,
but I know a professional photographer who routinely re-scans
ink-jet prints to obtain a more natural looking result.

Click to expand...

I found myself wondering: If I have the digital data (addressed
later as to how to archive THAT data), then why would I need to
scan the print, when I could just PRINT out another from the
original data? That's the way I'd do it if at all possible. Or am I
missing the point of the issue he raised?

Click to expand...

I don't know - I just addressed his technical point.

I F Burley said:

I F Burley said:

I F Burley said:

2. The media for storing the digital images aren't that great --
CDs might last ten years, maybe. Zip drives two or three years. NAS
tomorrow ....

Click to expand...

This is an important point as cheap CDs probably won't last and
even so-called archival CDs are vulnerable to physical damage. You
need to back up your backups!

Click to expand...

Exactly... if/when another favored format for archiving comes
along, naturally, I'd be moving on to that, and taking my valued
pics with me. But somehow, I foresee backwards compability being
around for a long, long time. And naturally, make sure that the
media used is suitable for archival purposes.

Click to expand...

My professional photographer associates seem to have standardised
on MO, but someone proceeded to flame me on its archival properties
too!

Archival... real genuine long term achival is a real challenge.

Just think of LP disk records: the process lasted for more or less a century, but is unusal today. Most processes last for a far shorter time today.

Both the media and the drives (the mechanism) need to last and have working device drivers. Some very hard high density tape media has a life around 28 years but to be safe half that is better.

For applications where real archival is needed fiche is still a mainstay, but that is not file format, it is presentation format.

We were better off with parchment (or chiselling marks into granite).

To say it again: to get all your ducks in order so that the drives are available and workable and supported by computers and the media also lasts in more or less pristine form so that it will spin in a drive in the normal way is a very tall order.

Perhaps the better way for an individual is always to be ready to copy the whole archive to a new technology, entirely ugly and with the added pain that the indexing and cataloging software will likely change as well with serious drudgery the result.

....John

I F Burley said:
I F Burley said:

I F Burley said:

I F Burley said:

3. The format is shaky -- do you really think JPG will be supported
in five years, not to mention any proprietary format?

Click to expand...

No problem here - JPEG is part of the Web standard and will be
supported for eternity. Many very rarely used formats are routinely
supported in the most mundane of applications.

Click to expand...

In a year or so, all of the digicams will be using some form of
backwards-compatible JPEG such as JPEG2000 or some other
derivative. I'm not worried about JPEG falling into nonexistance.
It's too universal at this point.

Click to expand...

JPEG 2000 is completely unrelated to 'ordinary' JPEG. The former
uses wavelet sampling and the latter DCT (discrete cosine transfer)
sampling - so JPEG 2000 is not backwards compatible.

I F Burley said:

I F Burley said:

I F Burley said:

So it's not quite a slam dunk for digital .......

Click to expand...

I think that's a meaningless statement - the problems associated
with conventional analogue photography are plentiful too you know!

Click to expand...

Exactly. I'd say that the slam dunk of digital has already been
thrown down. We have tons of professionials using it even now in
the studios, with lots of them making full conversion of their
systems to digital. But the real slam dunk is in the acceptance by
the mass market as a whole. All the data studies on the shift to
digital sort of prove that. It's like watching the way IE slowly
made its domination over Netscape. It took some years, but it was
inevitable for a lot of similar reasons to digital eventually
becoming dominant.

Click to expand...

A huge portion of professional output, becomes digital at some
point - publications, etc. Digital is here and it's staying.

Ian

Old Ed · May 5, 2002

Whoa, hold the phone there, good buddy...
it sounds like you're buying into Epson's marketing
hype a little too uncritically!

What we think we know about the current generation
of inks is that "gas" effects destroy them so much more
rapidly than light effects, it's useless even discussing the
latter. When I first started making prints on my trusty
Epson 870 (which has given good service) I was horrified
to see my beautiful (and expensive) glossies orange-
shifting into uselessness within two WEEKS! This kind
of lifetime does not compare to that of "regular"
photographic prints, even remotely.

So I have printed exclusively on matte paper since
then, which at least manages (but doesn't solve)
the problem.

And PUHLEESE don't quote that Epson refrain about
putting all prints under glass! If I could afford all the
glass to do that, I would have to keep them in a
warehouse instead of my house, and move them
with a forklift.

But if this UltraChrome stuff is really more like a
pigmented ink, maybe there's a ray of hope on the
horizon. I sure hope so!

Ulysses said:
I'm glad I asked you. Because most typical users want their inkjet
photos to last as long as "regular" photos they'd get from Eckards
or Wal*Mart.

The thing is that with the current stock of inkjets and papers,
they already last that long. With the introduction of Epson's new
inks, they can last even longer, depending upon the paper you use.
Much longer.

Ulysses

camquest · May 5, 2002

If a print lasts 15 years, isn't that long enough for you people? In even 5 or 10 years printers will be sooooo much more advanced and as long as you have the file archived, you can always make another print, and it will be better quality due to better technology. You have to take these ratings with a grain of salt. I don't care if a print can/will last 200 years or even 20 years. By then I'll have another printer that can produce better results. Maybe I'm just crazy. But that's my $.02.

WillieB38717 · May 5, 2002

Old Ed said:
Whoa, hold the phone there, good buddy...
it sounds like you're buying into Epson's marketing
hype a little too uncritically!

What we think we know about the current generation
of inks is that "gas" effects destroy them so much more
rapidly than light effects, it's useless even discussing the
latter. When I first started making prints on my trusty
Epson 870 (which has given good service) I was horrified
to see my beautiful (and expensive) glossies orange-
shifting into uselessness within two WEEKS! This kind
of lifetime does not compare to that of "regular"
photographic prints, even remotely.

So I have printed exclusively on matte paper since
then, which at least manages (but doesn't solve)
the problem.

And PUHLEESE don't quote that Epson refrain about
putting all prints under glass! If I could afford all the
glass to do that, I would have to keep them in a
warehouse instead of my house, and move them
with a forklift.

But if this UltraChrome stuff is really more like a
pigmented ink, maybe there's a ray of hope on the
horizon. I sure hope so!

If you promise not to tell anyone, the title of this thread is a ruse. What I would really like to talk about is "gasfastness" (what an ugly word). Trouble is, so far, the most important collection of artifacts on the subject are coming out of Bob Meyers' air conditioning duct. He's done a lot of good work there, but I would like to see the manufacturers of ink weigh in on this subject as well. Not that I need them to tell me that (paraphrasing) two eyes plus two weeks = ugly, but they could at least address this problem and post these results as well.

Another thing hinted at in the original thread is this: preliminary data on the lightfastness of UltraChrome™ ink resembles the data from dye-based ink; and if it looks like a dog, smells like a dog.... Now Im not suggesting the new ink is not pigment, but I'm wondering if it is some pigment/dye hybrid. Is this possible? Can pigment and dye be mixed in the same liquid? 30 years for the new ink on matte, 25 years for dye on matte, 70 years for C-80 pigment on matte, 200 years for 2000P pigment on matte; makes me wonder.
--
WillieB

Old Ed · May 5, 2002

Hi camquest -

Speaking for myself, a 15-year print life WOULD be OK,
considering that more prints can be made from the
"digital negative" (if you have it). Let's hope that
Epson et al work their way up to that kind of lifetime
in the near future.

But the two WEEK lifetimes often seen on their glossy
prints is NOT OK... especially considering that printing
a glossy 8x10 consumes about $1.50 in printing supplies,
as well as significant personal time. When I make that
investment, I want a much bigger payoff than two
weeks viewing.

camquest said:
If a print lasts 15 years, isn't that long enough for you people?

camquest · May 5, 2002

Old Ed said:
Hi camquest -

Speaking for myself, a 15-year print life WOULD be OK,
considering that more prints can be made from the
"digital negative" (if you have it). Let's hope that
Epson et al work their way up to that kind of lifetime
in the near future.

But the two WEEK lifetimes often seen on their glossy
prints is NOT OK... especially considering that printing
a glossy 8x10 consumes about $1.50 in printing supplies,
as well as significant personal time. When I make that
investment, I want a much bigger payoff than two
weeks viewing.

I totally agree with you. Under what condtions do most people's glossy prints deteriorate in a short amount of time (about two weeks as you said)? What causes it? Has Epson acknowledged this/these problem(s)? I hope they solve it with the UltraChrome ink and the 2100...

Ulysses · May 5, 2002

Old Ed said:
Whoa, hold the phone there, good buddy...
it sounds like you're buying into Epson's marketing
hype a little too uncritically!

Bahahah...!!©

I know that you know that I'm not THAT easily swayed, especially where Epson is concerned. Sorry if I sounded like a commercial.

But all I can comment on is about my own usage pattern, how I tend to store printed pictures, and what has happened for me. From my research into the new inks, I expect the inks to be more durable and reliable than past offerings. Pending real-world tests, of course.

And there are a variety of other reasons to like the printers that will be using the UltraChrome inks.

Old Ed said:
What we think we know about the current generation
of inks is that "gas" effects destroy them so much more
rapidly than light effects, it's useless even discussing the
latter. When I first started making prints on my trusty
Epson 870 (which has given good service) I was horrified
to see my beautiful (and expensive) glossies orange-
shifting into uselessness within two WEEKS! This kind
of lifetime does not compare to that of "regular"
photographic prints, even remotely.

Obviously, it does not. But I'm wondering: What in the world are you doing with your prints, O.E.? While I have very few prints that are literally "under glass", what I meant by the expression is that I have them protected somehow: In plastic sleeves, in acid-free albums, behind glass. Rarely do I just leave my photos free to open air. I can't do that with regular film prints without deterioration of some sort.

Old Ed said:
And PUHLEESE don't quote that Epson refrain about
putting all prints under glass! If I could afford all the
glass to do that, I would have to keep them in a
warehouse instead of my house, and move them
with a forklift.

hahahahah... I know what you mean. See the paragraph above.

Old Ed said:
But if this UltraChrome stuff is really more like a
pigmented ink, maybe there's a ray of hope on the
horizon. I sure hope so!

That's what I'm hoping and expecting. I get the feeling from talking with reps and others who know what's happening with Epson that they intend to build their future on the UltraChrome inks. Here's hoping that the gamble works.

---

Ulysses

Ulysses · May 5, 2002

Old Ed said:
But the two WEEK lifetimes often seen on their glossy
prints is NOT OK...

You're hanging your pictures on the refridgerator next to the kitchen window again, aren't you O.E.? ;-D

Donald Cooper · May 5, 2002

Thanks for the link. You're abosulutely right about the drop being variable. But something is going on. Halftoning artifacts are inherent in variable dot size printers, and I didn't see any in the samples from the 2200. It just looks so stochastic. But as I think about it, drop and dot size aren't the same thing, so maybe that's it. Or perhaps it was the magnification.

The "bike image" is the standard Epson image with the large wheel bicycle, color palette at top left, fruit at the bottom right, greyscale palette somewhere. I'm sure you've seen it. It's everywhere usually.

I wouldn't put too much stock in what colors run out first. For personal prints I run out of yellow first and that is quite strange I'm sure. Most people report cyan and then magenta. So mileage will really vary with the type of images you print. My comment here is that the cartridges do not seem to be that large.

WillieB said:
The new SC 2100 appears to have variable drop size. Below is a
link to Epson UK's new product announcement ditty.
http://www.epson.co.uk/product/printers/photo/styphoto2100/index.htm
Also of interest to some (me!) are the estimates of cartridge life,
found by clicking on the specifications link; bottom right of page.
It appears light black is going to be a popular "color". I wonder,
does anyone know what "bike picture" they are refering to, and
where it can be found?

bob d · May 5, 2002

camquest said:
If a print lasts 15 years, isn't that long enough for you people?

If you have a fine arts background, then you would understand the importance of archivability.

It's just the right thing to do.

camquest said:
In even 5 or 10 years printers will be sooooo much more advanced
and as long as you have the file archived, you can always make
another print, and it will be better quality due to better
technology.

It's WRONG for a print to fade after 5 years, and I don't think that print quality is going to get much better, it's already about as high as possible.

Bob Siegel · May 5, 2002

After much study, Epson has determined that it is the process of being viewed that causes the orange fade. If nobody every looks at the print, even if stored exposed to air, it will last thousands of years. You can even hang the prints on the fridge in full sun -- but at that location it is generally impossible to keep someone from looking at the print and causing instant fade. You can get the same effect if you display the print under opaque glass.

Ulysses said:
Old Ed said:

But the two WEEK lifetimes often seen on their glossy
prints is NOT OK...

Click to expand...

You're hanging your pictures on the refridgerator next to the
kitchen window again, aren't you O.E.? ;-D

camquest · May 5, 2002

bob d said:
camquest said:

If a print lasts 15 years, isn't that long enough for you people?

Click to expand...

If you have a fine arts background, then you would understand the
importance of archivability.

It's just the right thing to do.

Well, I'm a high school student. I don't have a fine arts background. And I don't see why someone would need a print to last longer than the person who takes it.

bob d said:
bob d said:

In even 5 or 10 years printers will be sooooo much more advanced
and as long as you have the file archived, you can always make
another print, and it will be better quality due to better
technology.

Click to expand...

It's WRONG for a print to fade after 5 years, and I don't think
that print quality is going to get much better, it's already about
as high as possible.

As good as it's going to get? Maybe the human eye can't really see a difference after XXXXdpi, but I wouldn't go on record saying that printers/print quality are as good as they're going to get.

J A K · May 5, 2002

camquest said:
As good as it's going to get? Maybe the human eye can't really see
a difference after XXXXdpi, but I wouldn't go on record saying that
printers/print quality are as good as they're going to get.

Hi Camquest:

Your are absolutely correct about performance - there is always room for improvement! IMO, greater z-axis resolution has to be on the horizon. Lets stomp out Mach banding!

Your point of view about print life is okay - I would not choose to argue with you. Please think about print life from another perspective - when you get a lot older, you too will be concerned about your children's children viewing images you hold dear to yourself today. Also, when your parents are no longer, you will consider every photograph of them a gem and hope the prints will last forever.

Sincerely,

Joe Kurkjian

Old Ed · May 6, 2002

Hi camquest - Comments below...

camquest said:
Old Ed said:

Hi camquest -

Speaking for myself, a 15-year print life WOULD be OK,
considering that more prints can be made from the
"digital negative" (if you have it). Let's hope that
Epson et al work their way up to that kind of lifetime
in the near future.

But the two WEEK lifetimes often seen on their glossy
prints is NOT OK... especially considering that printing
a glossy 8x10 consumes about $1.50 in printing supplies,
as well as significant personal time. When I make that
investment, I want a much bigger payoff than two
weeks viewing.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. Under what condtions do most people's
glossy prints deteriorate in a short amount of time (about two
weeks as you said)? What causes it? Has Epson acknowledged
this/these problem(s)?

Wow. There are hundreds of old threads in the Printers and
Printing Forum on this subject (see "orange shift"), and entire
web sites devoted to it. Here is one of the web sites:

http://home.cox.rr.com/meyerfamily/epson/epson.html

camquest said:
I hope they solve it with the UltraChrome
ink and the 2100...

You and me both, brudda!

Donald Cooper · May 6, 2002

I didn't know the pigment inks of the 2000P exhibited any orange shift. Is this incorrect?

Old Ed said:
http://home.cox.rr.com/meyerfamily/epson/epson.html

Old Ed said:

I hope they solve it with the UltraChrome
ink and the 2100...

Click to expand...

You and me both, brudda!

Old Ed · May 6, 2002

Hi Don -

I don't know of any orange shift problem with 2000P inks either.
But the topic in this thread is UltraChrome™, not 2000P inks.

I don't think any of us know much about UltraChrome™ at this
time. But Epson's reference to putting it under glass, per the
first message in this thread, suggests that it may be some kind
of dye/pigment hybrid. Keeping the 870/1270 type inks away
from air by putting it under glass was Epson's proposed "solution"
to the orange-shift problems exhibited by those (dye based) inks.

Don Cooper said:
Old Ed said:

http://home.cox.rr.com/meyerfamily/epson/epson.html

Member said:

I hope they solve it with the UltraChrome
ink and the 2100...

Click to expand...

You and me both, brudda!

Click to expand...

Leon Wittwer · May 7, 2002

The 2000P does not have orange shift problems as it uses pigments rather than dyes. Bob Meyer of orange shift fame
http://www.meyerweb.net/epson

did orange shift testing on 2000P prints. The 2200 is listed as a pigment based printer so, hopefully he said, it will have similar properties as the 2000P. It is not the same, though, as the longevity estimates are less than the 2000P. There has been speculation that Epson, in order to get a larger color gamut and reduce metamerism, reduced the longevity. Time will tell. Epson has been telling folks to mount under glass from the very beginning so it is difficult to infer 2200 performance from that. It is good strategy to protect from unpleasant surprises if nothing else.

Old Ed said:
I don't know of any orange shift problem with 2000P inks either.
But the topic in this thread is UltraChrome™, not 2000P inks.

I don't think any of us know much about UltraChrome™ at this
time. But Epson's reference to putting it under glass, per the
first message in this thread, suggests that it may be some kind
of dye/pigment hybrid. Keeping the 870/1270 type inks away
from air by putting it under glass was Epson's proposed "solution"
to the orange-shift problems exhibited by those (dye based) inks.

Don Cooper said:

Old Ed said:

http://home.cox.rr.com/meyerfamily/epson/epson.html

Old Ed said:

I hope they solve it with the UltraChrome
ink and the 2100...

Click to expand...

You and me both, brudda!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Old Ed · May 7, 2002

Hi Leon - Comments below...

Leon Wittwer said:
The 2000P does not have orange shift problems as it uses pigments
rather than dyes. Bob Meyer of orange shift fame
http://www.meyerweb.net/epson
did orange shift testing on 2000P prints.

Agreed.

Leon Wittwer said:
The 2200 is listed as a
pigment based printer so, hopefully he said, it will have similar
properties as the 2000P. It is not the same, though, as the
longevity estimates are less than the 2000P. There has been
speculation that Epson, in order to get a larger color gamut and
reduce metamerism, reduced the longevity. Time will tell.

Agreed.

Leon Wittwer said:
Epson
has been telling folks to mount under glass from the very beginning
so it is difficult to infer 2200 performance from that.

It sounds like your estimate of the "very beginning" of time
is quite a bit later than mine.

I can very clearly remember when, after months of stonewalling
about the orange shift problem, Epson started the refrain that:
"It's all a problem with the Premium Glossy paper, no problem
with the ink, but put any print you make on any paper under
glass, so no atmospheric contaminants (i.e., air) can touch it."

That was just about two years ago, as I recall.

Leon Wittwer said:
It > is good
strategy to protect from unpleasant surprises if nothing else.

Please forgive me if I sound a bit crabby... But it never
ceases to amaze me that so many otherwise rational folks
buy into this glass-mount-every-print nonsense.

Can you imagine the film photography market ever having
reached its present size if it was encumbered with that sort of
requirement? If everyone actually did that, glass manufacturing
would become our number one growth industry; and we
would likely have a world shortage of sand.

Leon Wittwer said:
Old Ed said:

I don't know of any orange shift problem with 2000P inks either.
But the topic in this thread is UltraChrome™, not 2000P inks.

I don't think any of us know much about UltraChrome™ at this
time. But Epson's reference to putting it under glass, per the
first message in this thread, suggests that it may be some kind
of dye/pigment hybrid. Keeping the 870/1270 type inks away
from air by putting it under glass was Epson's proposed "solution"
to the orange-shift problems exhibited by those (dye based) inks.

Don Cooper said:

Old Ed said:

http://home.cox.rr.com/meyerfamily/epson/epson.html

Leon Wittwer said:

I hope they solve it with the UltraChrome
ink and the 2100...

Click to expand...

You and me both, brudda!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lightfastness of UltraChrome ink&#8482;

Leading Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Ulysses

Guest

Ulysses

Guest

Donald Cooper

Guest

Senior Member

Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Donald Cooper

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts

Lightfastness of UltraChrome ink™