Don Phillipson wrote:
I'm printing my color catalogs on Epson Photo Quality paper, using my
Epson Stylus Photo 2400 printer.

I'm printing some of my color, archival art prints on Epson Velvet Fine
Art paper, again using my Epson Stylus Photo 2400 printer. Those art
prints are supposed to last for over six decades without fading when
framed and displayed under glass, and I consider that to be archival.

Robert

tomm42 wrote:
Thanks, Tom, etcetera.

Robert

PhotoSci@att.net wrote:
in this ng say this type of thing. They are the ones that need to be
watched and exposed.

JonK wrote:
and HP for printing phtotos.

Robert Montgomery wrote:
All our verbal gobbledygook boils down to a single point: Given your
requirements, we don't know of any way for you to save on ink costs,
other than finding somewhere to buy genuine Epson ink that's cheaper
than where you shop now. Most of our requirements aren't as demanding as
yours, so for us aftermarket ink is acceptable. I have a few prints that
were printed using aftermarket ink that have been displayed inside,
under glass, and I haven't noticed any fading yet. However, it hasn't
been one decade yet, let alone the six you require. Wilhelm's
accelerated tests have merit, but they extrapolate longevity from tests
under extreme conditions. That's all they CAN do. They can't give a true
picture of longevity under lower exposures, which could be different.
Nobody really knows, because nobody has had a chance to expose inkjet
prints to 100 years of real-world conditions. Wilhelm can make a good
educated estimate, but they don't KNOW. The same is true for the rest of
us.

We just don't know.

TJ

Sure this is well known about Wilhelm, but still his firm is the only
outside firm that has publishable results. He receives money from
clients that of course include HP and Epson, he has to be paid to stay
in business. Canon it is said feels he charges too much for something
they do. But Wilhelm made is reputation by showing Kodak used low
humidity and lowish level lighting to increase their longevity
results. There is a new group Annenburg (sp) Testing that is just
getting going, want to use a subscription model, test 3rd party as
well as commercial ink. Their current results are very scientific and
as a photographer not a scientist I find them a little dense. This is
how Wilhelm started his early test included 3rd party products. It is
encouraging that someone else is starting to do this, it is a
thankless job. I don't think Wilhelm is a shill at all but some who
needs funding to keep his work going.

Tom

On May 7, 9:55 pm, Photo...@att.net wrote:

On May 8, 10:11*am, tomm42 <tmon...@wildblue.net> wrote:
Kodak's test conditions are based on over a quarter century of data
gathered in homes around the world and published in peer-reviewed
technical journals. Those real-world measurements include seasonality
effects, full spectrophotometric analysis and real-time recording of
light, humidity, temperature and ozone. Consult the "Journal of
Imaging Science" for details. If others choose to use different
conditions, I believe they should point to refereed and journal-
published data to support their positions.

TJ wrote:
do. And with an HP printer with an integrated printedhead the only
thing you need to worry about is a cart leaking. It does happen and
that if it happened would ruin your printer. But getting used printers
for $20 you really have nothing to loose if you want to spend the time
fooling around with refilling.

measekite wrote:

-------------------------------

Nothing of any intellectual value...as usual!
Frank

measekite wrote:
Good to know I have your approval. I can sleep tonight, secure in that
knowledge.

I have refilled HP carts many times and have yet to see one leak if the
job is done properly. And unless it's a top-of-the-line model, if you're
spending $20 on a used printer you're spending at least twice what you
should. Printers depreciate in value even faster than cars and
computers, especially the newer ones with chipped cartridges. But I
guess a guy whose only measure of value is the price of something
wouldn't know that.

TJ

Kodak and several other inkjet testers decided to use a different
standard when testing their inkjet output results for longevity. They
weren't very up front about it, and it wasn't necessarily the best
testing procedure considering what most people use for display conditions.

I am speaking specifically for inkjet products not their silver halide
materials. Kodak has also been sited before for not being more
forthright with the fading qualities of their film products. Early E-6
processed film was awful in terms of longevity under dark keeping, and
C-41 films (and the earlier c-21 process) were also quite poor. Many
lawsuits came from that when original commercial films were disappearing.

Anyway, although I question Wilhelm's testing due to his close
association with some inkjet companies, I think his older film work was
valuable.

Art



PhotoSci@att.net wrote:

PhotoSci@att.net wrote:
How would you know which tests are quickest to do? Are you an expert on
scientific lightfastness testing?


Robert

On May 10, 10:39*am, Robert Montgomery <info-bl...@northern-data-
tech.net> wrote:
Yes, as a matter of fact I am. But you don't have to be to make that
assertion. Just read the literature, starting with the Journal of
Imaging Science.