ConeColor Inks

the EV6 inks by precisoncolors appear pricewise low enough for me to try them for a test, we'll see , I have them on order

The Hat said:

Ink testing is only relevant to the individual that does that testing, so if you torture your inks into submission under all sorts of different lighting, then you’ll get the answer you were expecting in the first place.

If you have an ink you specifically like then find a suitable paper that allows that ink to survive with as little as possible fading in your normal everyday environment then that would be a far more genuine and realistic test..

Click to expand...

As usual The Hat's "street smarts" are persuasive. Especially the first sentence "Ink testing is only relevant to the individual that does that testing".

Of course it is NOT supposed to be like that. Credible testing should be carried out under controlled conditions with the results being tabulated, quantified and published. Reproducibility of the results being key.

For the most part this is not what happens and the current environment is more about opinion and unsubstantiated claims. Hence my tendency to agree with the rest of his comments that imply just do what works best for you and damn the torpedoes.

I am sure if I have misconstrued his content we will shortly see a message filled with fire and brimstone.

RS

Just carry on Roy, hell ain’t half full, but just in case I decided to reserved a good spot..

The Hat said:

Ink testing is only relevant to the individual that does that testing,

Click to expand...

- the good thing with this forum is that we communicate our findings, share them, get responses and comments, may find a common opinion or opposition about a particular issue but I'm not filling out spreadsheets etc and once I find a result which is clear enough for me I just stop the test, dump the inks, or mix them, or use them up somehow whatever

About testing, generally, I found that certain dye inks fade dramatically, and much faster than others on all media I tested (including CDs) and under different conditions. It did not require sophisticated or prolonged testing to discover that. I don't know how to scale the results to my living room, but I have in fact experienced complete real-life fading. I don't use those inks any more.

My results agree with some previous results and disagree with others. They might be specific to the formulation and to that particular cartridge set, or it might have to do with the testing method. The important thing for the individual is not to do exquisitely controlled tests, but to compare two or more inks under exactly the same conditions. It's not all that difficult to do an accelerated test.

I tested mostly for light-fastness (I think), and not gas. I'll never know if I tested for exactly the right effect, but then I don't know that with the Aardenburg tests either.

@ThrillaMozilla, exactly you got it perfect, use your own everyday in-house exposure as your test laboratory and when you weren’t happy with the results you change the inks, which is as scientific as you can get, well done..

I just tack the various inks, papers, and images made off them onto the fence in the yard. Not that scientific, but some really do fade in as little as 2-3 days. Mostly, the 3rd party inks. I often wonder how these 100-200 years claims are being made as none have lived that long so far. The entire testing methodology could be off by decades or maybe even a century. Some could be their marketing dept. making these century-longevity claims too. Fade is likely not linear.

As I drive around town, some pros window advertisement prints really do exhibit bad sun fade with their studio prints hanging in their storefront windows. I know a couple who send their stuff out to pro labs and do not do their own printing, but I wonder what the pro lab they are using and what that lab is using for their ink or paper at times since they fade badly in as little as two weeks. Archival they ain't.

WIll.

those 3rd party fast fade inks don't claim any longevity performance numbers at all, it's the OEM manufacturers, and Aardenburg and Wilhem Imaging Research WIR describe their test methods , and Canon, HP , Epson refer to them quite frequently - 200 years on archival acid free paper, in the dark storage - but not on posters in the sun. You are right that you can see changes in such printouts within days, that's quite useless for posters etc, and the aqueous pigment inks will fade after time as well, within months not within 200 years. You can go further to inks with other solvents which can carry more pigments, but I think large format printing is out of the scope of this forum. Professional printing studios should know about that, and if they try to save with inferior materials, or materials not suited for the purpose, don't consult their customers etc it's bad business with those 'pro labs'. They may claim - it's for a few weeks only anway - , and then the next posters are replacing the older ones......I make similar observations as you do. Just think how long prints on truck canvas can last - in the summer , in the winter, for years, so about everything is possible with printing , and everything in between from days to years, for about every environment

W. Fisher said:

I just tack the various inks, papers, and images made off them onto the fence in the yard. Not that scientific, but some really do fade in as little as 2-3 days. Mostly, the 3rd party inks. I often wonder how these 100-200 years claims are being made as none have lived that long so far. The entire testing methodology could be off by decades or maybe even a century. Some could be their marketing dept. making these century-longevity claims too. Fade is likely not linear.

As I drive around town, some pros window advertisement prints really do exhibit bad sun fade with their studio prints hanging in their storefront windows. I know a couple who send their stuff out to pro labs and do not do their own printing, but I wonder what the pro lab they are using and what that lab is using for their ink or paper at times since they fade badly in as little as two weeks. Archival they ain't.

WIll.

Click to expand...

Excellent post IMHO. Coincides with my own observations.

Add into the mix that Wilhelm and Aardenburg are private organisations, and by their own admission depend on donor funding to meet most of their expenses. Any guesses who the three, or at least the two largest door's could be?

As any investigative journalist knows, "If you want to get to the bottom of the story follow the money trail". Or alternatively, to quote President Bill Clinton when he was being aggressively questioned by journalists about his sexual peccadillo's, "Which version of the truth do you want?"

One area where the OEM's have a distinct advantage is the scale of their manufacturing which can enforce more consistent standards and quality control. Although I can remember some epic fails over the years.

One of my concerns with the third party ink scene is the lack of ISO standards by the manufacturers and suppliers. I have looked, but have been unable to find even one who admits to ISO standards.

I know ISO certification adds another layer of expense,and complications to the small business burden, but any of us who have worked in the manufacturing world are aware of the need for consistency and quality assurance. Both when buying our raw materials, and then selling the finished product.

Objectively, maybe we are lucky to have-what-we-have given the minute size of this specialized market.


rs

Aardenburg or WIR funding - yes, HP, Epson, Canon, who else - no secret, they came together to define test procedures for this particular subject, and if I pay x thousend $ I could get my ink tested as well but not many companies showed interest for that. Sure that those 3rd party ink companies need some economic weight, market share, technological knowledge etc but at the end it's a business decision which products they bring to market. Just look at Inktec, a pretty major ink company in Korea - their dye inks for me belong into the category of the fast fade inks, the business is dollar driven, and not by particularly good characteristics. And I think the chance for standardization is long gone, it's not like the sRGB which was discussed in a separate thread, the Epsons etc cook to their proprietary recipe and will continue so, and the risk of using 3rd party inks is at the sole risk of the user