|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
At 08:14 AM 2/13/02 -0800, byard wrote: >In part, I agree with rafe's "holy grail" assessment...this stuff hasn't >been around long enough to have actual results of real time aging, so all >the testing is simulations. > >I've done some "worst case" and "normal case" testing over the past couple >of years, which leads me to believe that at least some inks deserve an >archival rating...depending on how we define that term. Two comments. First, in my experience, the problem with some of the so-called archival dye inks is that the chemistry just doesn't agree with the printheads on the newer "desktop" Epsons. They seem to work OK on the "pro" models, and in particular the ancient Epson 3000. I've seen this with at least two flavors of the Ilford inks, and with the Amjet "Pinnacle Gold" inks. I've also heard of problems with some of the Lyson archival dye inks. Second, you must always consider the paper in conjunction with the ink. The folks at Lincoln Inks gave me a list of papers to use, and another list of papers to avoid, with their inks. The general rule that Takichi gave me was: "Follow the gelatin." As a matter of fact, I'm guessing that if you use gelatin papers even with ordinary non-"archival" dye inks, you will see a significant improvement in fade resistance and print longevity. rafe b. - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.