|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
The very first prints I made in 1994 and stored in the dark, show much fading. But not ALL of them. This of course, was on epson's first photo paper, which I understand is probably the culprit here. Some aren't faded at all. They were in a box together, so can't explain the variations between prints. Jerry David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > Ben Haskell <email@example.com> writes on 26 January 2000 at 08:53:49 -0800 > > Michael Greer wrote: > > > > > > In dark storage where > > > prints experience no light, fading still occurs. Therefore, this fading has to > > > be caused by air exposure. > > > > Ah! Some postees on this list (such as Jon Cone) claim that dark fading > > with Epson OEM inks (and most, but not all, other inksets) is virtually > > non-existant, and I have been assuming that this is correct. Other > > postees in this thread may be operating under the same assumption. No > > wonder there is some miscommunication going on. > > > > Michael, do you have any personal evidence for dark fading??? > > One of the issues is that light fading is easier to accelerate than > dark fading. > > > As I wrote on another post, one way for testing dark fading is to > > compare a print exposed to dark ambient room temperature air versus one > > kept in a dark freezer. Another postee suggested vacuum, so storage > > inside a vacuum chamber inside a freezer would be even better. > > > > Another way would be to compare a dark print with a fresh print. Both > > the "fresh" and "frozen" controls suffer potential problems. The fresh > > approach suffers because paper and ink formulations may have changed > > over the course of the comparison, and the printer may be wearing out. > > The frozen approach suffers because freezing may slow dark chemical > > reactions perhaps a thousand-fold, but not entirely (and food vapors may > > cause fading, but that is why you need a ziploc bag or a vacuum > > chamber). The best approach is to compare your dark test print with BOTH > > frozen and fresh controls. > > These both slow down changes in the control, but don't accelerate the > test print, so it takes 5 years to know if there's significant fading > in 5 years -- which is a short period of time for those of us who > think in terms of 100-year life for prints. > > You don't actually have to slow down the fading of the control print. > One approach would be to make readings of the patches with a > calibrated colorimeter, and simply record those readings. You're > counting on the calibration and accuracy of the instrument, you'll > never have a "good" and "faded" print side by side for comparison. > > Another approach, which has its own problems, is to simply print a > fresh comparison print at the end of the test, and use that for your > "unfaded" print. This only works if the materials are still available > at the end of your test, of course. On the other hand, if they > *aren't* available, the results are of only academic interest anyway. > > How do you speed up the dark fading? We don't know the mechanism for > sure, but heat and more oxygen is an obvious place to start. If > carried too far, these can do direct actual damage, though. > -- > http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon > http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms > David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / firstname.lastname@example.org > - > 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