Surprising fade test results

[bsanotrun]

You all print on paper, right? Here's my test on HP multipurpose paper. I diluted the ink 10x with distilled water (5x for yellow) and spread 0.1 mL on paper with a glass slide. The coverage is not quite

I would have thought a print on photo paper using a CMYK test print would have given a better real world indication of fading.

 

[Tin Ho]

Printer manufacturers all test with an accelerated test method to create a result to their favor such as 100 years of fade resistance. It's absolutely a valid test method that we dilute the ink to accelerate our fading test to our favor too. The purpose is to distinguish between different brands of ink.It already revealed that the expensive Image Specialists ink actually fades faster than much cheaper Korean ink. That's why the subject of this thread says surprising fade test results.

 

[slocumeddie]

WHAT ?

Ink, printer, printer firmware, printing software, and paper are all part of a system that we use to produce the final printed image. Any tests conducted outside of that system have no relevance(in producing accurate and repeatable results) within the system.

Ink smears of inherently variable consistency, on a paper with unknown characteristics, placed in my car window for eight days produces NO data worth considering relative to my choice of inks.

The resulting data is only (potentially) valid if I am smearing ink of inherently variable consistency on a paper with unknown characteristics and placing that paper in my car window(for eight days).

The conclusion? Don't "fingerpaint" on plain paper and expect valid data as a result.

 

[The Hat]

Printer manufactures test their best inks on their best paper to get the best results.
If they deviate from that say using 3rd party paper then their results take a nose dive also..

 

[jopereira]

Printer manufactures test their best inks on their best paper to get the best results.

That sounds quite expensive!! ene

I think nobody expects to have 100y prints. By then, I just don't remember original scene, I just just cannot see so well or, most likely, I won't see at all.
Nevertheless, if we use good paper or good inks or both, perhaps we'll have nice prints 5 years from now.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Gentlemen,
Like others before me, I needed quick information on relative ink stabilities, and I used methods similar to those that have been used before. These aren't exquisitely done tests. Use the information accordingly.

I'm not the first person to test stability on plain paper. (Hey, what I print on paper needs to last too!)
I'm not the first person to test stability by applying ink directly rather than using a printer.
I'm probably not the first person to test by diluting the ink.

For previous examples, look here: http://www.nifty-stuff.com/inkjet-fading.php and here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1003&thread=9976889&page=4 . Some of you even cite these tests from time to time. Interestingly, I'm not the first to observe fading after 8 days. (How does 96 hours on photo paper strike you?)

I can think of some reasons why fading might vary with print density, but I have not seen any strong evidence.

Of course you might get different results if you use a printer and print on photo paper, but I'm interested in plain paper. I might be able to get more accurate results for photo paper if I make some high-quality prints, send a check to Wilhelm or Aardenburg, and wait a year or two. You all are welcome to send me some empty cartridges or a big check if you want, or post your own comparisons (and please be sure to test inks for my printer).

Meanwhile, I'll be sure to post more results as I get them.

 

[Tin Ho]

]Any[/b] tests conducted outside of that system have no relevance(in producing accurate and repeatable results) within the system.

What about the manufacturer's accelerated fade resistance test of exposing test prints to concentrated high power UV lamps for a few minutes or hours.? That's a test condition irrelevant to real life conditions exist within the system either.

Com'on. That's why it is called accelerated test. You sure can do your own way of test that takes 3 , 5 or 10, 20 years to see a result. Or you can do it in 8 days and get some meaningful ideas. Do you actually think you can reliably repeat a test that takes 20 years to do?

It is natural for us consumers to put the most expensive ink in the market under magnifier to examine if it is worth every hard earned penny that we paid. Everyone will want t o known if the expensive ink is actually over hyped.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

So how do these results translate into years of print longevity under moderate home room light? Or longevity for that CD? I have no idea. I'm not going to even try to interpret the results for you. I do note, however, that the results are not as shocking or as novel as I thought. Many of your favorite inks have already been shown to fade in a very short time under intense light, so you knew that already unless you overlooked it. http://www.nifty-stuff.com/inkjet-fading.php .

Some of those may (or may not) also have been shown to do reasonably well in Aardenburg's tests. (If you have not done so, perhaps you should join and donate so we can get more data. For the record, I have no connection to that organization except for recent membership.)

This is all I wish to say on the matter until I have more results to post.

 

[martin0reg]

@tin ho
I can not see why diluted ink should accelerate the fading test ... the water evaporates as fast as with non diluted ink.

@thrillamozilla
Three weeks ago I have exposed 5 foto prints on plain paper, 5 on cheap thin coated "ink jet paper" (120g), 5 on glossy photo paper (aldi/sihl 280g). Bright sunlight here in germany for the last weeks. After one week the prints on plain paper faded strongly, the prints on coated ink jet paper not that strong but also visibly, the prints on glossy photo paper are fine after three weeks...all IS ink
No valid test and I will not post them, but I will repeat it with test patterns

I think a print of a test pattern is not only more relevant but also easier to do.

 

[slocumeddie]

Fade "testing" aside, Inktec ink in small quantaties costs: >$5.00/ounce.........

I.S. ink in small quantities costs: <$2.00/ounce.........

The cost per liter is about the same.........:/ :/ :/

My pricing source for InkTec: http://www.inktec-usa.com

My pricing source for I.S. ink: http://stores.ebay.ca/PrecisionColors
http://www.inkjetcarts.us/
http://printonadime.com/