HP b/w photos - 115 yr fade resistance

phils said:

Wilhelm Labs just published their results for the #59 gray photo
catridge and HP Premium Plus photo paper combination - The results
are even better than their published '73 year' quote for HP's color
prints...for b/w prints from an HP 7960, Wilhelm is claiming 115
year fade resistance.

You can find more here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040128/285208_1.html

thanks-
PJS

Click to expand...

Craig said:

phils said:

Wilhelm Labs just published their results for the #59 gray photo
catridge and HP Premium Plus photo paper combination - The results
are even better than their published '73 year' quote for HP's color
prints...for b/w prints from an HP 7960, Wilhelm is claiming 115
year fade resistance.

You can find more here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040128/285208_1.html

thanks-
PJS

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

pacolucia2000 said:

http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm

He found that many times the Wilhelm ratings will be 2x off on the
optimistic side.

Now, that said, even if they last 60 years, that's still excellent
performance for the HP printer. Impressive.

pacolucia

Craig said:

phils said:

Wilhelm Labs just published their results for the #59 gray photo
catridge and HP Premium Plus photo paper combination - The results
are even better than their published '73 year' quote for HP's color
prints...for b/w prints from an HP 7960, Wilhelm is claiming 115
year fade resistance.

You can find more here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040128/285208_1.html

thanks-
PJS

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

wazza said:

Wilhelm are highly reliable. You need to read the basis for their
tests and their experience.

Given that Livick use User Submitted prints really nullifies their
data.

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

wazza said:

Wilhelm are highly reliable. You need to read the basis for their
tests and their experience.

Given that Livick use User Submitted prints really nullifies their
data.

Click to expand...

Wazza,

Why are you so against Stephen Livick's and Bill Waterson's tests?

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

On another thread you said that the results were not valid because
they didn't "optimise" their prints, which is totally illogical.

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

Now you are saying that they are not valid because their prints are
submitted by users, i.e. members of this forum. This is also
totally illogical.

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

All the light fade tests rely on extrapolating data and we do not
know whether these extrapolations are valid.

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

whether other non-light related chemical processes will affect
fading over time, like the brightener in Epson matte papers that
eventually turns the paper yellow.

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

going to get any real life data in a useful time frame, we can at
least use both the Wilhelm and the Livick tests as a guide to
relative fade rates. As far as I am concerned, the more
information that we have, the better.

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

tests have certainly highlighted the importance of the choice of
paper. They have also shoiwn that the only real way to maximise
print permanence is to use pigment inks, and I will be a customer
for the new Epson R800.

My real concern is that printer manufacturers use the Wilhelm
results in their advertising and some people clearly believe that
the quoted lives are "real".

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

--
Chris R

Click to expand...

wazza said:

Wilhelm are highly reliable. You need to read the basis for their
tests and their experience.

Given that Livick use User Submitted prints really nullifies their
data.

In fact, none of my prints are exposed to direct sunlight - it is
all reflected natural or generally artificial light and close to
the 450 lux level.

Given that my inks are UV stabilised.

Cheers

Click to expand...

pacolucia2000 said:

I understand your point that the Wilhelm test are more controlled
and scientific. However, this does not necessarily mean they
correspond to the real world. Using fluorescent lighting only does
not necessarily have a good correlation with daylight (indirect or
not) since the spectrum of these are quite different. Their data is
a reference point taken under controlled environement but, again,
may not capture a realistic scenario. The fact is that many of us
have been getting results that are substantially lower then what
they claim. For example, does anyone expects to get 25 years with
Canon Photo Pro? Many people have been getting less than a year...

This is kind of like trusting the miles/gallon numbers that your
car maker gives you. Yes, it's a reference point, but you bet there
is a bias towards the optimistic side in there.

pacolucia

wazza said:

Wilhelm are highly reliable. You need to read the basis for their
tests and their experience.

Given that Livick use User Submitted prints really nullifies their
data.

In fact, none of my prints are exposed to direct sunlight - it is
all reflected natural or generally artificial light and close to
the 450 lux level.

Given that my inks are UV stabilised.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

I understand your point that the Wilhelm test are more controlled
and scientific. However, this does not necessarily mean they
correspond to the real world. Using fluorescent lighting only does
not necessarily have a good correlation with daylight (indirect or
not) since the spectrum of these are quite different. Their data is
a reference point taken under controlled environement but, again,
may not capture a realistic scenario. The fact is that many of us
have been getting results that are substantially lower then what
they claim. For example, does anyone expects to get 25 years with
Canon Photo Pro? Many people have been getting less than a year...

This is kind of like trusting the miles/gallon numbers that your
car maker gives you. Yes, it's a reference point, but you bet there
is a bias towards the optimistic side in there.

pacolucia

wazza said:

Wilhelm are highly reliable. You need to read the basis for their
tests and their experience.

Given that Livick use User Submitted prints really nullifies their
data.

In fact, none of my prints are exposed to direct sunlight - it is
all reflected natural or generally artificial light and close to
the 450 lux level.

Given that my inks are UV stabilised.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

almost by definition, as the results are needed now not in 90 years
or so from now.

I spent many years working in material science where lifetime
prediction is a key factor. As with all predictive techniques,
elimination of variability is essential if you are to measure real
effects, otherwise they just get lost in "variability noise".

UV is used for estimating print lifetimes as it is a common common
standard in most accelerated (light) aging tests as the UV source
is

a : controllable with low variability,

b: accelerates aging relative to visible and IR light,

c: has known scaling factors to compare UV aging to visible light
aging (with over 50 years of experimental work to back it up).

I was using these methods back in the 60s to predict paint /
plastic lifetime performance and the real time results fit
prediction well - else they wouldn't still be using the test
methods (too expensive in lawsuits for a start!).

Brian

Click to expand...

pacolucia2000 said:

Brian,

The point is that these Wilhelm test, despite all the good science
behind them (I'm not being ironic here, really), are not being very
successful at predicting the life people have been experiencing in
real-world circumstances. What exactly is causing this I don't
know. But a lot of people in this forum, myself included, have
found the livick.com tests to have a better correlation to what we
are getting than the Wilhelm tests.

Maybe Wilhelm should keep their high-standards of testing but offer
another number/test method with different parameters that offer
people a better estimate of what the print life will be. In many
areas (I work in Engineering myself) you offer a "typical case"
number and a "worst case number" with different environmental
assumptions for each. Wilhelm would do a better service to people
if they confronted them with these two scenarios. Of course, I know
it is naive to expect they will do this because there are many
market pressures behind these numbers and printer manufacturers
want to look good.

Click to expand...

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

Brian,

The point is that these Wilhelm test, despite all the good science
behind them (I'm not being ironic here, really), are not being very
successful at predicting the life people have been experiencing in
real-world circumstances. What exactly is causing this I don't
know. But a lot of people in this forum, myself included, have
found the livick.com tests to have a better correlation to what we
are getting than the Wilhelm tests.

Maybe Wilhelm should keep their high-standards of testing but offer
another number/test method with different parameters that offer
people a better estimate of what the print life will be. In many
areas (I work in Engineering myself) you offer a "typical case"
number and a "worst case number" with different environmental
assumptions for each. Wilhelm would do a better service to people
if they confronted them with these two scenarios. Of course, I know
it is naive to expect they will do this because there are many
market pressures behind these numbers and printer manufacturers
want to look good.

Click to expand...

but I wonder, would you, as an engineer, want to give a worst case
lifetime prediction when someone else built and maintained the
equipment (with no controlling input from you) but you were
responsible for the outcome?

That, I think, is the problem with all this type of discussion. All
that good science / technology / engineering can do is to provide a
product with measurable and predictable properties at a price and
performance that the customers will accept. The testing process
confirms that the performance standards on which the product is
sold are met.

When the product performance has to be idiot (sorry "Customer")
proof then the product will either become unsaleable (too highly
specified for the market place) or unsellable (to low a predicted
worst case performance).

I'm not involved in the printing / paper business (spent most of
my life in materials R&D) but I am a firm believer in showing
customers what the product can do if it is handled properly, with
suitable warnings about detrimental effects of incorrect usage and
storeage.

Anyway, we will never solve such issues here - thank the lord that
as you say, there are forums like this where we can share
experiences and get a better "real world" understanding of how
things work!

Brian

Click to expand...

pacolucia2000 said:

I understand your point that you have to standardize to a
reasonable set of variables and present a measurement. You cannot
account for all user mistakes. This is what wilhelm does and it is
valuable within certain limits.

I would still think though, that you can adjust your measurement
parameters to try to match reality more closely can't you? For
example, if they use Y light intensity, maybe they could show us
results also with 2xY light intensity. If they are using 50%
humidity, maybe they can aslo show us the results with 80%
humidity. If they are using W air pollutants, maybe they could show
us results with 2xW pollutants... This is all I'm saying:

They could show us more datapoints even if they don't want to
"guarantee" anything.

I agree it would not be reasonable to expect they would guarantee
anything with lawyers and all...

Going back to the hp tests, I suggest we meet in 115 years to see
if the Wilhelm test was on the mark Fair?

pacolucia

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

Brian,

The point is that these Wilhelm test, despite all the good science
behind them (I'm not being ironic here, really), are not being very
successful at predicting the life people have been experiencing in
real-world circumstances. What exactly is causing this I don't
know. But a lot of people in this forum, myself included, have
found the livick.com tests to have a better correlation to what we
are getting than the Wilhelm tests.

Maybe Wilhelm should keep their high-standards of testing but offer
another number/test method with different parameters that offer
people a better estimate of what the print life will be. In many
areas (I work in Engineering myself) you offer a "typical case"
number and a "worst case number" with different environmental
assumptions for each. Wilhelm would do a better service to people
if they confronted them with these two scenarios. Of course, I know
it is naive to expect they will do this because there are many
market pressures behind these numbers and printer manufacturers
want to look good.

Click to expand...

but I wonder, would you, as an engineer, want to give a worst case
lifetime prediction when someone else built and maintained the
equipment (with no controlling input from you) but you were
responsible for the outcome?

That, I think, is the problem with all this type of discussion. All
that good science / technology / engineering can do is to provide a
product with measurable and predictable properties at a price and
performance that the customers will accept. The testing process
confirms that the performance standards on which the product is
sold are met.

When the product performance has to be idiot (sorry "Customer")
proof then the product will either become unsaleable (too highly
specified for the market place) or unsellable (to low a predicted
worst case performance).

I'm not involved in the printing / paper business (spent most of
my life in materials R&D) but I am a firm believer in showing
customers what the product can do if it is handled properly, with
suitable warnings about detrimental effects of incorrect usage and
storeage.

Anyway, we will never solve such issues here - thank the lord that
as you say, there are forums like this where we can share
experiences and get a better "real world" understanding of how
things work!

Brian

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

I understand your point that you have to standardize to a
reasonable set of variables and present a measurement. You cannot
account for all user mistakes. This is what wilhelm does and it is
valuable within certain limits.

I would still think though, that you can adjust your measurement
parameters to try to match reality more closely can't you? For
example, if they use Y light intensity, maybe they could show us
results also with 2xY light intensity. If they are using 50%
humidity, maybe they can aslo show us the results with 80%
humidity. If they are using W air pollutants, maybe they could show
us results with 2xW pollutants... This is all I'm saying:

They could show us more datapoints even if they don't want to
"guarantee" anything.

I agree it would not be reasonable to expect they would guarantee
anything with lawyers and all...

Going back to the hp tests, I suggest we meet in 115 years to see
if the Wilhelm test was on the mark Fair?

pacolucia

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

Brian,

The point is that these Wilhelm test, despite all the good science
behind them (I'm not being ironic here, really), are not being very
successful at predicting the life people have been experiencing in
real-world circumstances. What exactly is causing this I don't
know. But a lot of people in this forum, myself included, have
found the livick.com tests to have a better correlation to what we
are getting than the Wilhelm tests.

Maybe Wilhelm should keep their high-standards of testing but offer
another number/test method with different parameters that offer
people a better estimate of what the print life will be. In many
areas (I work in Engineering myself) you offer a "typical case"
number and a "worst case number" with different environmental
assumptions for each. Wilhelm would do a better service to people
if they confronted them with these two scenarios. Of course, I know
it is naive to expect they will do this because there are many
market pressures behind these numbers and printer manufacturers
want to look good.

Click to expand...

but I wonder, would you, as an engineer, want to give a worst case
lifetime prediction when someone else built and maintained the
equipment (with no controlling input from you) but you were
responsible for the outcome?

That, I think, is the problem with all this type of discussion. All
that good science / technology / engineering can do is to provide a
product with measurable and predictable properties at a price and
performance that the customers will accept. The testing process
confirms that the performance standards on which the product is
sold are met.

When the product performance has to be idiot (sorry "Customer")
proof then the product will either become unsaleable (too highly
specified for the market place) or unsellable (to low a predicted
worst case performance).

I'm not involved in the printing / paper business (spent most of
my life in materials R&D) but I am a firm believer in showing
customers what the product can do if it is handled properly, with
suitable warnings about detrimental effects of incorrect usage and
storeage.

Anyway, we will never solve such issues here - thank the lord that
as you say, there are forums like this where we can share
experiences and get a better "real world" understanding of how
things work!

Brian

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Again you are right - we used to develop lifetime envelopes (as
most engineers / designers need). These would provide predictive
curves taking account of temperature, humdiity, chemical
environment and stress environment, etc.

If we were lucky this would translate into a simple mathematical
formula with a set of error limits. Pretty accurate too if you
really knew the lifetime service environment - however:

I wouldn't think that the average "joe public" would appreciate
getting a 7 variable, 4 constant predictive equation with his / her
box of paper and ink though - do you?

:0)

Brian

Click to expand...

pacolucia2000 said:

To be fair, It doesn't need to be that complicated. What about
something like this:

Normal Conditions - Wilhelm would give you the ratings with the
parameters they have today

Harsh Conditions - Wilhelm would give you the ratings with slightly
more intense light, perhaps more humidity and higher temperature,
more air pollutants.

This would still satisfy your regualr Joe as it is not very
difficult to understand. It would also satisfy (or at least not
horrify) the marketeers in the printer business. By maintaining the
Normal Conditions ratings, it would not look like printers got all
worst all of a sudden. I bet you their press releases would only
quote the "Normal Conditions" ratings and a lot of people would
only look at that.

However, and this is the important thing, the more serious
photografer would have another useful datapoint perhaps more
adequate for his environmental conditions. What do you think?

Click to expand...

pacolucia2000 said:

Normal Conditions - Wilhelm would give you the ratings with the
parameters they have today

Harsh Conditions - Wilhelm would give you the ratings with slightly
more intense light, perhaps more humidity and higher temperature,
more air pollutants.

This would still satisfy your regualr Joe as it is not very
difficult to understand. It would also satisfy (or at least not
horrify) the marketeers in the printer business. By maintaining the
Normal Conditions ratings, it would not look like printers got all
worst all of a sudden. I bet you their press releases would only
quote the "Normal Conditions" ratings and a lot of people would
only look at that.

However, and this is the important thing, the more serious
photografer would have another useful datapoint perhaps more
adequate for his environmental conditions. What do you think?

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

I understand your point that you have to standardize to a
reasonable set of variables and present a measurement. You cannot
account for all user mistakes. This is what wilhelm does and it is
valuable within certain limits.

I would still think though, that you can adjust your measurement
parameters to try to match reality more closely can't you? For
example, if they use Y light intensity, maybe they could show us
results also with 2xY light intensity. If they are using 50%
humidity, maybe they can aslo show us the results with 80%
humidity. If they are using W air pollutants, maybe they could show
us results with 2xW pollutants... This is all I'm saying:

They could show us more datapoints even if they don't want to
"guarantee" anything.

I agree it would not be reasonable to expect they would guarantee
anything with lawyers and all...

Going back to the hp tests, I suggest we meet in 115 years to see
if the Wilhelm test was on the mark Fair?

pacolucia

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

Brian,

The point is that these Wilhelm test, despite all the good science
behind them (I'm not being ironic here, really), are not being very
successful at predicting the life people have been experiencing in
real-world circumstances. What exactly is causing this I don't
know. But a lot of people in this forum, myself included, have
found the livick.com tests to have a better correlation to what we
are getting than the Wilhelm tests.

Maybe Wilhelm should keep their high-standards of testing but offer
another number/test method with different parameters that offer
people a better estimate of what the print life will be. In many
areas (I work in Engineering myself) you offer a "typical case"
number and a "worst case number" with different environmental
assumptions for each. Wilhelm would do a better service to people
if they confronted them with these two scenarios. Of course, I know
it is naive to expect they will do this because there are many
market pressures behind these numbers and printer manufacturers
want to look good.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

Normal Conditions - Wilhelm would give you the ratings with the
parameters they have today

Harsh Conditions - Wilhelm would give you the ratings with slightly
more intense light, perhaps more humidity and higher temperature,
more air pollutants.

This would still satisfy your regualr Joe as it is not very
difficult to understand. It would also satisfy (or at least not
horrify) the marketeers in the printer business. By maintaining the
Normal Conditions ratings, it would not look like printers got all
worst all of a sudden. I bet you their press releases would only
quote the "Normal Conditions" ratings and a lot of people would
only look at that.

However, and this is the important thing, the more serious
photografer would have another useful datapoint perhaps more
adequate for his environmental conditions. What do you think?

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

I understand your point that you have to standardize to a
reasonable set of variables and present a measurement. You cannot
account for all user mistakes. This is what wilhelm does and it is
valuable within certain limits.

I would still think though, that you can adjust your measurement
parameters to try to match reality more closely can't you? For
example, if they use Y light intensity, maybe they could show us
results also with 2xY light intensity. If they are using 50%
humidity, maybe they can aslo show us the results with 80%
humidity. If they are using W air pollutants, maybe they could show
us results with 2xW pollutants... This is all I'm saying:

They could show us more datapoints even if they don't want to
"guarantee" anything.

I agree it would not be reasonable to expect they would guarantee
anything with lawyers and all...

Going back to the hp tests, I suggest we meet in 115 years to see
if the Wilhelm test was on the mark Fair?

pacolucia

Brian Wadie said:

pacolucia2000 said:

Brian,

The point is that these Wilhelm test, despite all the good science
behind them (I'm not being ironic here, really), are not being very
successful at predicting the life people have been experiencing in
real-world circumstances. What exactly is causing this I don't
know. But a lot of people in this forum, myself included, have
found the livick.com tests to have a better correlation to what we
are getting than the Wilhelm tests.

Maybe Wilhelm should keep their high-standards of testing but offer
another number/test method with different parameters that offer
people a better estimate of what the print life will be. In many
areas (I work in Engineering myself) you offer a "typical case"
number and a "worst case number" with different environmental
assumptions for each. Wilhelm would do a better service to people
if they confronted them with these two scenarios. Of course, I know
it is naive to expect they will do this because there are many
market pressures behind these numbers and printer manufacturers
want to look good.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think the only problem would be to decide what constituted a
worlwide "Harsh Standard". I believe a lot of the discussion
between us on whether we see problems with the test vs real life
aging effects reflects the significant differences in our local
environment. The temperature / humidity / pollution variations from
say Los Angeles to Sydney to Stockholm for example would be
significant. (Even in the UK, my location in Dorset has extremely
clean air, relatively high UV and low Ozone, whereas London, 70
odd miles away is comparatively more polluted).

Anyway, enough debate from the scientist's point of view, its what
the customers want that matters. Stop buying the papers and inks we
don't trust and the suppliers will come up with someting better
(won't they?)

Brian

Click to expand...