|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Gary L. Hunt Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 6:41 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org 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 <email@example.com> - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users