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

[Jerry Olson <jerryolson@rrv.net>]

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 <npthaskell@harborside.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! / dd-b@dd-b.net
> -
> 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.