Curious: Why is print life sooo important in a digital world?

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on this issue.

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

Not everyone lives in a digital world full-time, jumping on the computer for every little reason. Have you ever been sitting around with family or friends some late evening and, for no specific reason, just brought out the old photo album and started reminiscing over old pictures. Who wants to say "wait half of them are faded, let me go print some more." Some people treat their family photos as keepsakes and want them to last for a lifetime, if not for generations. It shouldn't become an on-going maintenance issue.

What if you send pictures to others (parents, family, friends, etc)? What if you want to sell photos or provide them to other people for some other purpose?

ssclaire

Mark O. said:

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life
of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue
to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry
if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new
one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your
first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on
this issue.

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

Click to expand...

I'm your going to sell your prints for anywhere from $100 to $1000 you want them to last a few years. Not the easiest thing to reprint hundreds of photos scattered all over the world.

• DL

Mark O. said:

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life
of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue
to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry
if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new
one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your
first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on
this issue.

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

Click to expand...

--
http://www.lashier.com

Don Lashier said:

• DL

Mark O. said:

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life
of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue
to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry
if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new
one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your
first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on
this issue.

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

Click to expand...

--
http://www.lashier.com

Click to expand...

--
http://www.lashier.com

If you're selling prints for that kind of money you should probably have them done in a lab, not on a home inkjet.

I'm talking about the standard home user.

Don Lashier said:

I'm your going to sell your prints for anywhere from $100 to $1000
you want them to last a few years. Not the easiest thing to reprint
hundreds of photos scattered all over the world.

• DL

Click to expand...

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

These are good points. And, with good photo paper costing .50 cents or more a sheet, it adds up if you have a bunch of photos printed out. If there are alternatives where you don't have to spend the extra money and time every few years, it's less costly in addition to less time consuming.

ssclaire said:

What if you send pictures to others (parents, family, friends,
etc)? What if you want to sell photos or provide them to other
people for some other purpose?

ssclaire

Mark O. said:

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life
of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue
to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry
if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new
one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your
first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on
this issue.

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mark O. said:

If you're selling prints for that kind of money you should probably
have them done in a lab, not on a home inkjet.

I'm talking about the standard home user.

Click to expand...

Mark:

Actually until color came along, home prints were archival. And today, if you are into fine art photography that is the standard by which you are judged. A 25 year print (and I’ve seen many hobbyist who sells pictures between 75 and $150 with inkjet prints) is not “museum” quality because of its life. I’ve had people spent $3 or $400 dollars framing a 25 years print and it finally has driven me to pigment printing. A good photo, properly framed, say 13 x 19 should be worth at least $375 or $450, letter sized properly framed $175.

My wife is an art consultant and has gone through the film vs digital thing. Guess what, pigment inks are just as archival as B&W prints now, it makes them “right” for museum collections. Thus longevity is important not only for home users, and print sellers but for the medium in its relationship with the other traditional art forms.

Regards,

Jeff Lee

Ps. Who just spent the money for a CIS pigment system…..

ssclaire said:

Not everyone lives in a digital world full-time, jumping on the
computer for every little reason.

Click to expand...

That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

ssclaire said:

Have you ever been sitting around
with family or friends some late evening and, for no specific
reason, just brought out the old photo album and started
reminiscing over old pictures. Who wants to say "wait half of them
are faded, let me go print some more." Some people treat their
family photos as keepsakes and want them to last for a lifetime, if
not for generations. It shouldn't become an on-going maintenance
issue.

Click to expand...

If your prints are stored in an album (ie under plastic and closed off from light most of the time) they will last a very long time regardless of what they are printed on. Now if you leave them on your window sill in the sun, that's a different story. But, anything will fade in those conditions.

Lots of people send us old photos to do (Keepsakes if you will). Unfortunately, 95% of these photos are more or less ruined and require major work to restore. In my opinion and experience, you would be far better off worrying about storing and medium durability of your original digital files than any paper prints.

ssclaire said:

What if you send pictures to others (parents, family, friends,
etc)? What if you want to sell photos or provide them to other
people for some other purpose?

Click to expand...

I will agree that if you sell your pictures they should be of the highest quality and durability. But, I'm talking about standard home users not commercial photographers.

I'm fairly sure just about any of today's inkjet prints are as durable as your standard walmart processed print and probably better in quality.

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

Long print life is very important for me. After a couple of years, I don't want to spend hundreds of hours looking for the original files, and printing the photos over again. I have many hundreds of photos of our children and grandchildren taken at family gatherings and special events. I hope these photos can be passed along after I have passed along.

I have spent quite a lot of money on my Epson 2200, Epson papers and Epson ink. I chose to go this route as I have been able to produce better prints than I have been able to get from any lab.

--
Lawrence

Mark O. said:

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life
of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue
to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry
if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new
one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your
first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on
this issue.

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

Click to expand...

Mark O. said:

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life
of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue
to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry
if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new
one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your
first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on
this issue.

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

Click to expand...

Mark, I agree with your basic premise that a typical inkjet print has an adequate life for non-commercial purposes- most of the time. However the print life thing really got hot when people started reporting print life in days or weeks in some locales, well documented. I live in North Central Forida and and have had a reject Canon print laying on my desk unprotected in front of a south facing window (low e glass) for a year and a half, and it still l looks about as good as when i rejected it. Others whose opinions I respect have put a similar print on their refrigerator and had severe color shift in a few weeks.

I watch the ongoing tests of each new printer generation and when improved real world print life makes it to consumer level printers it will be a factor in my decision to upgrade. Right now I am unwilling to give up the speed and cost of my Canon for the more expensive slower Epson 2200.

Regards, Ed

Mark O. said:

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life
of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue
to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry
if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new
one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your
first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on
this issue.

Click to expand...

I, for one, couldn't be less concerned about photo longevity. I totally agree that it's more important to take care of the digital files than the hard copies.

Photos fade, regardless of what method you use to produce them. More importantly, there are many risks to photo printouts besides fading. Many photos are ruined because of other damages than fading. When a photo becomes less than perfect, which is inevitable, what makes a difference is whether you can restore it. Digital photography has a huge advantage over traditional film photography in this regard. As long as you have the digital file, just print another and you have an equally good or even better photo than the original.

The key to photo longevity is taking proper care of your photos. Keep them in albums. Avoid direct sun light, extreme heat and humidity. But more importantly, store your digital files in a safe place.

If a photo is so good that you still want it 50 years from now, you want it on whatever the best media you can get at that time, not on the inkjet paper printed with the printer you bought last year.

I, personally, have much the same experience as you have. I've never witnessed a modern inkjet print fade or color shift under any sane handling conditions. I guess after viewing so many destroyed standard photo prints under people's typical handling, I don't put much stock into any sort of physical medium regardless of what it's supposed print life is. If I was buying a home inkjet, I'd just buy whatever made nice prints and not worry about the longevity. Experience suggest that most prints will likely get ruined long before they die of nature causes.

Also, it bothers me that home printers are designed to use up vast amounts of ink quickly. We ran a piece of photo paper typically used in our big commercial printer thru my wife's little epson. The epson ink just pooled and way over saturated the paper. Far too much ink was being applied.

E. J. Shockley said:

Mark, I agree with your basic premise that a typical inkjet print
has an adequate life for non-commercial purposes- most of the time.
However the print life thing really got hot when people started
reporting print life in days or weeks in some locales, well
documented. I live in North Central Forida and and have had a
reject Canon print laying on my desk unprotected in front of a
south facing window (low e glass) for a year and a half, and it
still l looks about as good as when i rejected it. Others whose
opinions I respect have put a similar print on their refrigerator
and had severe color shift in a few weeks.

I watch the ongoing tests of each new printer generation and when
improved real world print life makes it to consumer level printers
it will be a factor in my decision to upgrade. Right now I am
unwilling to give up the speed and cost of my Canon for the more
expensive slower Epson 2200.

Regards, Ed

Click to expand...

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

I know its important to store digital files in a safe place, but with the rate of change of technology it will require someone to be very proactive to ensure digital files are still readable in 50 years time. On the other hand, silver halide photo prints will be viewable in 50 years time, no problem. The cost per megabyte storage of silver halide is pretty good too! If the originator of the thread had a quality issue, its probably just a profile issue - isn't it? Anthony

Leon Hu said:

Mark O. said:

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life
of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue
to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry
if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new
one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your
first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on
this issue.

Click to expand...

I, for one, couldn't be less concerned about photo longevity. I
totally agree that it's more important to take care of the digital
files than the hard copies.

Photos fade, regardless of what method you use to produce them.
More importantly, there are many risks to photo printouts besides
fading. Many photos are ruined because of other damages than
fading. When a photo becomes less than perfect, which is
inevitable, what makes a difference is whether you can restore it.
Digital photography has a huge advantage over traditional film
photography in this regard. As long as you have the digital file,
just print another and you have an equally good or even better
photo than the original.

The key to photo longevity is taking proper care of your photos.
Keep them in albums. Avoid direct sun light, extreme heat and
humidity. But more importantly, store your digital files in a safe
place.

If a photo is so good that you still want it 50 years from now, you
want it on whatever the best media you can get at that time, not on
the inkjet paper printed with the printer you bought last year.

Click to expand...

Mark O. said:

If you're selling prints for that kind of money you should probably
have them done in a lab, not on a home inkjet.

Click to expand...

I think you've got that backwards. Inkjet quality exceeds lab quality except (and perhaps including) longevity. I've got some 30 yr old lab prints that are quite faded.

Mark O. said:

I'm talking about the standard home user.

Click to expand...

Even for home use I've noticed that some of my 1270 images are long in the tooth after only 6 or 8 months, although ones kept in darkeness (portfolio) are fine. It would be a bit of a pain to continually reprint and reframe.

• DL

--
http://www.lashier.com

JeffG8 said:

Guess what, pigment inks are just as archival as B&W
prints now, it makes them “right” for museum collections. Thus
longevity is important not only for home users, and print sellers
but for the medium in its relationship with the other traditional
art forms.

Click to expand...

I didn't even consider selling inkjet prints before ultrachrome came along. Previous pig printers (eg 2000) just didn't cut it imo quality wise, and dyes didn't cut it fade wise. The alternative I was considering was Iris, but ultrachrome should far outlast Iris. I'm sure the next gen will be even better but imo the 2200/7600/9600 was a landmark.

• DL

--
http://www.lashier.com

you will find a high percentage of the 'fine art' photographers moving to inkjet technology (check out http://www.nasheditions.com ). It exceeds traditional chemical color processing in longevity as well as gamut and latitude. some of the non-traditional color printing methods (4 color carbon) still exceed ink jet, but are much more labor intensive if you do them yourself, or expensive if you have them done (about $600 for a 20x24" print). The same technology you find in the higher end ink jet printers can be found in the home inkjet as well.. with quality and longevity being identical (Epson 7600/9600 vs Epson 2200).

if you're buying a home printer to print out family snapshots, then i'd assume that longevity is important as well. I know many people who have albums of very faded color snapshots from the 60's, 70's and 80's. and these were kept in albums, away from sunlight.

handling is relative to the importance of the image to the person. proofs that i print get dogeard, folded and eventually recycled or burned in the fireplace. prints get stored in acid free storage boxes with interleaving tissue between them.

Epson print drivers have different print settings based on the type of paper they are using. if you put a sheet of paper thru the 'home' printer, and it pooled, it's not the fault of the printer, it's due to a mismatch between the paper and the driver settings. with proper settings and paper, i've never had anything pool.

jim

Mark O. said:

Also, it bothers me that home printers are designed to use up vast
amounts of ink quickly. We ran a piece of photo paper typically
used in our big commercial printer thru my wife's little epson.
The epson ink just pooled and way over saturated the paper. Far
too much ink was being applied.

Mark O. said:

Mark, I agree with your basic premise that a typical inkjet print
has an adequate life for non-commercial purposes- most of the time.
However the print life thing really got hot when people started
reporting print life in days or weeks in some locales, well
documented. I live in North Central Forida and and have had a
reject Canon print laying on my desk unprotected in front of a
south facing window (low e glass) for a year and a half, and it
still l looks about as good as when i rejected it. Others whose
opinions I respect have put a similar print on their refrigerator
and had severe color shift in a few weeks.

I watch the ongoing tests of each new printer generation and when
improved real world print life makes it to consumer level printers
it will be a factor in my decision to upgrade. Right now I am
unwilling to give up the speed and cost of my Canon for the more
expensive slower Epson 2200.

Regards, Ed

Click to expand...

--
Cheyenne Cloud, LLC
Poster-Sized Digital Prints
http://www.stores.ebay.com/cheyennecloud

Click to expand...

i'd agree that the 2000 didn't cut it, but i'm still printing with an Epson 9500 and getting gallery quality prints. Most of Stephen Johnson's ( http://www.sjphoto.com ) images were done with a 9500 as well, and his are museum quality.

that aside, i'd still trade my 9500 for a 9600 :^)

jim

Don Lashier said:

JeffG8 said:

Guess what, pigment inks are just as archival as B&W
prints now, it makes them “right” for museum collections. Thus
longevity is important not only for home users, and print sellers
but for the medium in its relationship with the other traditional
art forms.

Click to expand...

I didn't even consider selling inkjet prints before ultrachrome
came along. Previous pig printers (eg 2000) just didn't cut it imo
quality wise, and dyes didn't cut it fade wise. The alternative I
was considering was Iris, but ultrachrome should far outlast Iris.
I'm sure the next gen will be even better but imo the
2200/7600/9600 was a landmark.

• DL

--
http://www.lashier.com

Click to expand...

Mark,

Mark O. said:

I'm just curious why everyone is so concerned about the print life
of paper and inks in this digital world? Since printers continue
to get better and printing a digital pic is very cheap, why worry
if the print doesn't last 25 years or whatever. Just print a new
one. You'll probably have a much better printer by the time your
first print wears out anyway even if it last only a few years.

Maybe someone can share a good reason why there is so much fuss on
this issue.

Click to expand...

This question has been dealt with now and again, and recently I shared some ideas with another forum user who has the same question as you.

In short, no one here is denying archiving your prints digitally is now the way to go to ensure your photos are kept in their original conditions and for easy storage (much less shoe boxes, only perhaps, a few jewel DVD-box for all images you store!).

But the question in a lot of people's mind is how they will share/distribute their prints to their loved ones (not talking about selling prints here, that's another topic itself). E-mail sending of pics is one method, popular and convenient, but there are other just as popular methods, which is in prints. Some people (I included) don't want to keep on turning on the computer or other e-devices just to show some friends and family some pictures, but just want them to flip through albums or display on walls their memories, and sometimes hold them and look at them anytime, anywhere. Having prints hat fade on you in a matter of months or weeks (or even days) just isn't pleasent for folks.

Sure we are learning all the time, and inkjet printing technology is far from maturity, we must also learn ways to preserve or store such prints that we tend not to bother much with lab prints before (such as gas-fading).

And not all people think it's a great idea to reprint for friends and family members every other months or weeks, even if those loved ones may take your advice to store the prints in acid-free albums (there were some who reported in this forum that prints even fade when kept in envelopes in drawers! How strange)

I agree, having to reprint your own prints you want to display in your own home makes longevity a moot issue. But giving them away as prints to friends and family members would be another. People just want the prints to last a reasonable amount of time, but a matter of months, weeks or even days.

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

fotografer said:

anywhere. Having prints hat fade on you in a matter of months...

Click to expand...

I mean 'that', not 'hat'.

fotografer said:

People just want the prints to last a reasonable amount of time,
but a matter of months, weeks or even days.

Click to expand...

Replace 'but' with 'not'. )

Sorry.

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Color photography for snapshooting caught on in the late 50's and early 60's. I remember well shooting Verichrome Pan and going down to the local camera shop to have it developed. Then, along came color. I have many fiber based color prints at home. Kodak forgot to tell us that the most carefully processed color print most lilely wouldn't last as long as the casually developed B&W print. Furthermore, the negatives would also fade and become virtually unprintable. Because of this, there's a better chance snapshots of our grandparents will outlive snapshots of us. There are those who feel the photographic history of an entire generation will fade into oblivian.

As I charge headlong into the digital age, I'm sobered by the fact that I can easily print a negative my great uncle made over 100 years ago. Aside from a little dirt, the negative is in great shape and makes a rich print. I use the same basic equipment and chemistry to make the print. On the other hand, I have a charming photo of my mother when she was six months old (she was born in 1918) sleeping in her crib. I have scanned the neg, cleaned it up in PS7 and made prints that are far better than any print of it made to date. I also have a world of paper bases to choose from. I ended up printing it on a nice cream stock.

All this is to say I'm ambivelant about the brave new digital world in which we find ourselves. I think we're demanding far more out of digital than we did from color photography. That's probably good. I'm not too concerned about file formats becoming obsolete. It might not be as easy 20 years from now to make a print I took with my Canon G2 as it is to print my great uncle's 100 year old negative, but the sheer volume of digital images being created will make it worthwhile for someone to make sure I can read the file then. In the meantime, I'm hedging my bets. I store three copies of my keepers on archive quality CD's - one file in the original RAW format, one in TIFF and my Photoshop file. I'm not fanatical about print life, but I'm careful enough to print on good quality paper, not bargain basement no name brands.

I agree with your premise, just make a new print down the road if one needs replacing. I just hope my organizational skill improve to the point I'll be able to find the file!

Doug