RE: Expected Life of Epson Ink + Archival Paper??

"Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net> · Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:23:57 -0600

Gary, I be a he not a she.
Laurie

Having clarified this, I note the statement "Although what she actually SAID
(5-7 years under best conditions, maybe 2-3 ordinarily) is not really
disputable (or provable either) at this point, even by your examples" raises
questions as to what constitutes proof - scientific or otherwise.  The
ranges mentioned are based on lab findings by Wilheim ( I believe - He has
been quoted on this list extensively before but I forget his name).
However, I treat lab findings with a grain of salt in that they are
typically carried out under ideal conditions not under practical everyday
conditions.  Hence, I am inclined to lean towards the low end of the ranges
suggested by the research.

Rafe from what I read is inclined to accept the upper end of the ranges.  I
have tried a number of glossy photo quality papers with Epson Ink but not in
any systematic fashion; I have found none to last long enough to be called
archival which at a minimum I take to be 12-15 years.  From what I read Rafe
and others have informally tired other Epson ink and non-Epson ink/glossy
photo and non-glossy non-photo paper combinations; they have found that some
combinations have longer durations with a few approaching what I consider
the minimal to called archival.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com
[mailto:owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com]On Behalf Of Gary L. Hunt
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 6:41 PM
To: epson-inkjet@leben.com
Subject: RE: Expected Life of Epson Ink + Archival Paper??

At 02:41 PM 1/23/2000 -0800, Michael Greer  wrote:
  >I beg to differ. I think the question of longevity of Epson OEM ink on
  >"archival" paper is very much up in the air. I have OEM ink prnints on
Epson
  >Photo Paper in my office that look great after almost 2 years. No signs
of
  >fading or the onset of fading at this time. They are exposed to no direct
  >sunlight. Just ambient office light. Also, if my theory about air
exposure
  >being the main mechanism to fading, then the question of laminated (hot,
cold,
  >liquid) prints with OEM ink on archival paper is very much a question. I
have a
  >bunch of prints like this on various papers. The only ones that have
  >unacceptably faded are those on Konica QP. This tells me that the paper
choice
  >is huge with OEM inks.

Where the facts are not yet known, it's not surprising that a range of
opinions
is going to happen, and different experiences are going to support them in
any case.  I think Laurie's answer is precisely the "commonly held" opinion
at this point, and it's what I would probably say if someone asked me--but
I'd much prefer your view to be the case.  Although what she actually SAID
(5-7 years
under best conditions, maybe 2-3 ordinarily) is not really disputable (or
provable
either) at this point, even by your examples.

  >This might be the case. But I see no evidence that this is absolutely
true. I'd
  >love to see what OEM ink does on Concorde Rag in normal display
situations. I
  >think we might be surprised.

Perhaps more to the point than what any of us "think" here, is anyone
actually
pursuing this with even informal testing?  I haven't tried any of the other
papers
because I'm happy with the Epson ones and no one seems to have shown (yet)
that the life of prints made on them with Epson inks is any better (or any
worse)
than the all-Epson ones.  Even a small improvement (another year, say) would
make them much more interesting as alternatives to me.

Gary Hunt <glh@srv.net>

-
Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.