Longevity of Inkjet Photo Paper and Inkjet inks

FWIW….I only use my inkjet printers for proof copies…it is more cost effective to use an online photoprinter for archive
quality. Also, Costco nationally has updated their didge printer and you can just bring them a digital file.

"JP White" wrote in message

Now that I have printer that can actually print a photo fairly well, I’m sure I’ll use it a fair bit. Before expending time and money on home made prints I want to make sure my photos will last a decent amount of time. I can always reprint images displayed at home, but I’d hate to give someone a photo as a gift and have it fade within a year.
I’ve printed color photos at work on inkjet photographic paper using standard HP inks. I’ve noticed that photos under a fluorescent light fade to a heavy green cast within 6 months. Other photos printed on plain ‘ol low grade copier paper do not fade. So I don’t think the fault is with the inks. Other photos taken 8 years ago and printed from 35mm negatives at Wolf on standard photographic paper have held up very well under the exact same lighting conditions.

What brands/types of paper would you suggest I use to avoid rapid fading of images?

Do Canon inks hold up well?

FWIW I’ve got a Canon i475D.

JP

What brands/types of paper would you suggest I use to avoid rapid fading of images?

Do Canon inks hold up well?

FWIW I’ve got a Canon i475D.

JP

I don’t know about Canon, but it seems many swear by Epson papers and inks. One of the definitive sources on image longevity is:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

—-== Posted via Newsfeed.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups —= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers – Total Privacy via Encryption =—

VincentJames wrote:

I don’t know about Canon, but it seems many swear by Epson papers and inks. One of the definitive sources on image longevity is:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Thanks for the link, the articles are just what I needed. At least I can now make an informed choice. No more office depot paper.

Thanks

JP

"VincentJames" wrote in message

What brands/types of paper would you suggest I use to avoid rapid fading of images?

Do Canon inks hold up well?

FWIW I’ve got a Canon i475D.

JP

I don’t know about Canon, but it seems many swear by Epson papers and

inks.

One of the definitive sources on image longevity is:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Mr. Wilhelm must be a vampire living in a very dark room in a dark castle hidden in a dark forest if his prints made on a Epson 1280 last him 27 years.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2 002.pdf On my sunny Island of Oahu in Hawaii in my "plantation" house under the big mango tree I am lucky if they last me a few month. (on the Canon I had earlier fading was noticeable in a matter of days
I have my prints done on a Fuji Frontier, cheaper in the end and I don’t have to worry about clients calling me because their photos look terrible after a short while.

Stephan

stupid_idiot wrote:

FWIW….I only use my inkjet printers for proof copies…it is more cost effective to use an online photoprinter for archive
quality. Also, Costco nationally has updated their didge printer and you can just bring them a digital file.

"JP White" wrote in message

This seems like a good idea for those ‘special’ photos I want to look good and ensure last a while.

I have always wondered why they charge so much for digital reprints. In the good ol days one could easily understand why reprinting from a negative was labor intensive.

The cost of paper and printing can’t be that high if they can print 35mm 24 exposure rolls for $5.99 (or less) which includes the processing cost too.

It seems to me that they would sell a lot more digital prints if they dropped the prices. The process must be fairly automated (no fiddly negative strips to unpack, handle carefully and return).

Does anyone know the difference in technology that Costo or Wolf use for digital prints versus the ‘kiosk’ type devices in drug stores?

JP

Stephan wrote:

I have my prints done on a Fuji Frontier, cheaper in the end and I don’t have to worry about clients calling me because their photos look terrible after a short while.

Stephan

Following this line of thought I googled Fuji Frontier and found a really useful resource in Dry Creek Photo. They have icc profiles for a good number of labs in the US. Aparently they provide profiles to the labs as a service and allow you to download it so you can prepare your images for the exact printer at the store you’ll visit. Neat.

http://drycreekphoto.com/

JP

JP White wrote:

stupid_idiot wrote:

FWIW….I only use my inkjet printers for proof copies…it is more cost effective to use an online photoprinter for archive
quality. Also, Costco nationally has updated their didge printer and you can just bring them a digital file.

"JP White" wrote in message

This seems like a good idea for those ‘special’ photos I want to look good and ensure last a while.

I have always wondered why they charge so much for digital reprints. In the good ol days one could easily understand why reprinting from a negative was labor intensive.

The cost of paper and printing can’t be that high if they can print 35mm 24 exposure rolls for $5.99 (or less) which includes the processing cost too.

I don’t know how you can come up with higher price to make thing hard to chose. SAM’s Club charges 19 cents for 4×6" (24×19 = $4.56 you save $1.33 + a roll of film) and Wal-Mart charges around 26 cents a pop (26×24 = $6.24 it costs you a stick of gum, but save you few bucks on rool of film)

It seems to me that they would sell a lot more digital prints if they dropped the prices. The process must be fairly automated (no fiddly negative strips to unpack, handle carefully and return).

I sometime bring a CD with 200-300+ photos and let Wal-Mart do the printing for me, and usually have to wait for 3-4 hours for that amount (or 1 hr if under 100 photos or so). If I need to print more (for friends or relatives from other states) then I upload to theie web sites and let friends and relatives pick whatever they want to print (few times I upload 700-800 photos to their web pages).

Does anyone know the difference in technology that Costo or Wolf use for digital prints versus the ‘kiosk’ type devices in drug stores?
JP

I know Wal-Mart and SAM’s Club use different paper and the photos printed by SAM’s Club is darker than Wal-Mart. My son prints his at SAM’s because it saves him some bucks, I print mine at Wal-Mart because the one I take picture for paying for their own prints, and they don’t need to have membersip card to get in to pick their photos etc..

I can’t compare the quality besides the darker and lighter, cuz I son takes his photos using cheaper digital camera and shoot at lower resolution (so he can take more picture), when I use higher resolution with more powerful (external) flash etc.. But they all look better than 35mm film.

"JP White" wrote in message

Stephan wrote:

I have my prints done on a Fuji Frontier, cheaper in the end and I don’t have to worry about clients calling me because their photos look

terrible

after a short while.

Stephan

Following this line of thought I googled Fuji Frontier and found a really useful resource in Dry Creek Photo. They have icc profiles for a good number of labs in the US. Aparently they provide profiles to the labs as a service and allow you to download it so you can prepare your images for the exact printer at the store you’ll visit. Neat.
http://drycreekphoto.com/

Yes, I am waiting for my labs profile but they are kind of busy around this time I guess.

Stephan

http://northstarmultimedia.mye-pix.com/ezdirect/PricingPage. asp

This is my pricing from my printing franchise….I use this mostly for my clients and myself…but, the color reproduction WITHOUT
icc profiles amazes me still.

"Joe" wrote in message JP White wrote:

stupid_idiot wrote:

FWIW….I only use my inkjet printers for proof copies…it is more cost effective to use an online photoprinter for archive
quality. Also, Costco nationally has updated their didge printer and you can just bring them a digital file.

"JP White" wrote in message

This seems like a good idea for those ‘special’ photos I want to look good and ensure last a while.

I have always wondered why they charge so much for digital reprints. In the good ol days one could easily understand why reprinting from a negative was labor intensive.

The cost of paper and printing can’t be that high if they can print 35mm 24 exposure rolls for $5.99 (or less) which includes the processing cost too.

I don’t know how you can come up with higher price to make thing hard to chose. SAM’s Club charges 19 cents for 4×6" (24×19 = $4.56 you save $1.33 + a roll of film) and Wal-Mart charges around 26 cents a pop (26×24 = $6.24 it costs you a stick of gum, but save you few bucks on rool of film)

It seems to me that they would sell a lot more digital prints if they dropped the prices. The process must be fairly automated (no fiddly negative strips to unpack, handle carefully and return).

I sometime bring a CD with 200-300+ photos and let Wal-Mart do the printing for me, and usually have to wait for 3-4 hours for that amount (or 1 hr if under 100 photos or so). If I need to print more (for friends or relatives from other states) then I upload to theie web sites and let friends and relatives pick whatever they want to print (few times I upload 700-800 photos to their web pages).

Does anyone know the difference in technology that Costo or Wolf use for digital prints versus the ‘kiosk’ type devices in drug stores?
JP

I know Wal-Mart and SAM’s Club use different paper and the photos printed by SAM’s Club is darker than Wal-Mart. My son prints his at SAM’s because it saves him some bucks, I print mine at Wal-Mart because the one I take picture for paying for their own prints, and they don’t need to have membersip card to get in to pick their photos etc..

I can’t compare the quality besides the darker and lighter, cuz I son takes his photos using cheaper digital camera and shoot at lower resolution (so he can take more picture), when I use higher resolution with more powerful (external) flash etc.. But they all look better than 35mm film.

JP White wrote in
news:e2mHb.699$:

Stephan wrote:

I have my prints done on a Fuji Frontier, cheaper in the end and I don’t have to worry about clients calling me because their photos look terrible after a short while.

Stephan

Following this line of thought I googled Fuji Frontier and found a really useful resource in Dry Creek Photo. They have icc profiles for a good number of labs in the US. Aparently they provide profiles to the labs as a service and allow you to download it so you can prepare your images for the exact printer at the store you’ll visit. Neat.
http://drycreekphoto.com/

JP

Hey, and thanks to you too. I am following through on the Fuji Frontier piece also and will see what I come up with at drycreekphoto. This is what makes these newsgroups work.

—-== Posted via Newsfeed.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups —= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers – Total Privacy via Encryption =—

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:52:03 -0600, JP White
wrote:

Now that I have printer that can actually print a photo fairly well, I’m sure I’ll use it a fair bit. Before expending time and money on home made prints I want to make sure my photos will last a decent amount of time. I can always reprint images displayed at home, but I’d hate to give someone a photo as a gift and have it fade within a year.
I’ve printed color photos at work on inkjet photographic paper using standard HP inks. I’ve noticed that photos under a fluorescent light fade to a heavy green cast within 6 months. Other photos printed on plain ‘ol low grade copier paper do not fade. So I don’t think the fault is with the inks. Other photos taken 8 years ago and printed from 35mm negatives at Wolf on standard photographic paper have held up very well under the exact same lighting conditions.

What brands/types of paper would you suggest I use to avoid rapid fading of images?

Good quality ones like Ilford Gallerie.

Do Canon inks hold up well?

No. I’ve just been reading an article about print longevity and of the three major makes of printers, the two longest lasting inks were HP ()the longest) and Epson. You may be using an older HP that isn’t a photo printer. However, for longer life you really need to use the pigment inks yo8u can get from either MSI or Permajet. As long as you don’t hang the things in sunlight they should have good longevity.

FWIW I’ve got a Canon i475D.

Then you’re stuffed because the above ink makers only make inks for Epson printers. You’ll be far better off getting photographic prints made from your files on photographic paper.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

I know Wal-Mart and SAM’s Club use different paper

My Walmart and Sams in Flint, Michigan both use the Fuji Frontier to print images so I assume they use the same paper. Make sure you go to the One hour lab. The Kiosks (do it yourself) charge a lot more and I think those prints are more similar to inkjet prints. Also, Ritz Camera uses the Fuji Frontier. Lynn

Hecate wrote:

FWIW I’ve got a Canon i475D.

Then you’re stuffed because the above ink makers only make inks for Epson printers. You’ll be far better off getting photographic prints made from your files on photographic paper.

—

At least I’m not as stuffed as I would have been had I invested a lot of time and money in prints that wouldn’t hold up to candlelight. I’m glad I asked. Proof printer it is, it’s better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick.

JP

"stupid_idiot" wrote in message

http://northstarmultimedia.mye-pix.com/ezdirect/PricingPage. asp

Is it just my eyes? can anyone read the blue text on the red background?

Stephan

u right…it is painful….prefab from the lab.

"Stephan" wrote in message

"stupid_idiot" wrote in message

http://northstarmultimedia.mye-pix.com/ezdirect/PricingPage. asp

Is it just my eyes? can anyone read the blue text on the red background?
Stephan

JP White wrote:

Hecate wrote:

FWIW I’ve got a Canon i475D.

Then you’re stuffed because the above ink makers only make inks for Epson printers. You’ll be far better off getting photographic prints made from your files on photographic paper.

—

At least I’m not as stuffed as I would have been had I invested a lot of time and money in prints that wouldn’t hold up to candlelight. I’m glad I asked. Proof printer it is, it’s better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick.

Don’t be too upset. Conventional photographic prints are not terribly long lived either — but live longer than
many inkjet prints.

Fading is a long-established problem. You’ve seen outdoor posters with faded reds. Up until fairly recently red paints used on cars faded too.

Inkjet ink is subject to other problems as well. All I’ll add is that almost all of today’s inks are better than they were three years ago.

—- Paul J. Gans

stupid_idiot wrote:

u right…it is painful….prefab from the lab.

And the older you are, the worse it will be. The
human eye is not totally color corrected and red and
blue do not focus at the same depth. So the eye
keeps switching between focussing on the blue and
focussing on the red. Gives me a nice shimmering
headache after not too long…

—- Paul J. Gans

"Stephan" wrote in message

"stupid_idiot" wrote in message

http://northstarmultimedia.mye-pix.com/ezdirect/PricingPage. asp

Is it just my eyes? can anyone read the blue text on the red background?
Stephan

Regarding the non-color-corrected human eye and the eye’s inability to focus certain wavelengths near the edge of the
visible spectrum…

The next time you happen to be on an airliner at night, look out the window while the plane is moving along a taxiway
lined with those dark blue lights. Depending upon your eyes, your age and other parameters (including how many drinks
you’ve had during the trip,) you probably will have difficulty bringing those lights into sharp focus.

Interesting, huh?

DaveinFLL
==========================
It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity!
==========================
(Think the humidity’s bad?
You should watch us vote!)