anyone heard about WIR fading tests?

[Smile]

I found this site http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

To me is seems like another snob website that will write whatever you pay them to write.
Especially when they take 15000$ to run 1 paper - ink - printer combination test.
If you use HP OEM ink now you know where your money goes

For example: Traditional color photography lasts up to 60 years on fujicolor crystal archive paper.
Canon photo paper pro with OEM inks 38 years
canon glossy photo paper with OEM ink 5 years etc.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/russia/Home_Computer_Russia2003_04.pdf

Canon Z3100 wide format printer ~250 years

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_Z3100_2007_12_28.pdf

 

[Grandad35]

A few comments on longevity and longevity testing:
1. Wilhelm is probably the most trusted source on longevity and longevity testing. I have never read of even a single instance where their results were found to be "fudged".
2. Wilhelm charges for their testing services, and OEMs have the sales volume to justify the expense of testing. Since they also have the best inks, it is obviously in their interest to submit samples to Wilhelm for testing.
3. The sales volume of even the largest 3rd party ink/cart supplier is far below the OEM's sales volume, and it could be hard for them to justify the expense of testing. In addition, it is generally accepted that 3rd party inks give inferior longevity results to the OEM inks, so reporting these results would actually be counterproductive for the 3rd party suppliers.
4. For the above reasons, it is easy to see why Wilhelm is APPARENTLY biased in favor of OEM inks.
5. Since this testing is a paid service, it is entirely possible that the results are treated as proprietary when they are delivered to the customer. If the results on a set of inks are "bad", the customer could elect to just bury them; if the results are "good", the customer could elect to have them published.
6. I have been told by several 3rd party bulk ink suppliers that very few of their customers care about longevity. I have become convinced that they are correct, and that very few of us refillers care about this subject. There have been several independent longevity tests reported over the past few years, but the interest was generally low.
7. Longevity IS a concern for those who sell their prints, but those users can easily recover the costs of using OEM ink, so few of them would be interested in refilling.

 

[Smile]

Well I think that major problem is that OEM ink is only one brand I mean the costly brand. If ink don't need longevity for 30 or more years then it could be manufactured mo cheaply and it could still be better than refill and at competitive prices.

"1. Wilhelm is probably the most trusted source on longevity and longevity testing. I have never read of even a single instance where their results were found to be "fudged"."

That’s perhaps because Gates hired them but as I said if they list on their website that traditional color photography lasts for 60 years - I don't trust them and I have every proof on my side.

"2. Wilhelm charges for their testing services and OEMs have the sales volume to justify the expense of testing. Since they also have the best inks, it is obviously in their interest to submit samples to Wilhelm for testing."

He can charge as much as he want what tried to say is as long as it does not impact ink prices - That is a real doubt to me.

3. The sales volume of even the largest 3rd party ink/cart supplier is far below the OEM's sales volume, and it could be hard for them to justify the expense of testing. In addition, it is generally accepted that 3rd party inks give inferior longevity results to the OEM inks, so reporting these results would actually be counterproductive for the 3rd party suppliers.

If canon OEM ink and everyday glossy paper is listed to last for 5 years I don't know how thoughtful testing would be bad for major refill makes InkTec, MIS, OCP.

Who would buy OEM Canon ink and glossy paper is it would be written "Lasts up to 5 years"? My prints with InkTec last already for 8 years and I don't see any fading. Then again as you said "Wilhelm is probably the most trusted source on longevity and longevity testing" so that leaves no place for doubt for this particular paper ink combo for Canon.

5. Since this testing is a paid service, it is entirely possible that the results are treated as proprietary when they are delivered to the customer. If the results on a set of inks are "bad", the customer could elect to just bury them; if the results are "good", the customer could elect to have them published.

I agree with you some companies like I said could test few ink sets with popular OEM paper, I doubt that listing that "our paper will last up to 5 years" on refill ink would damage any refill company image. They could always point the finger towards Canon OEM ink that lasts the same amount of time.

Longevity is a concern if a photo is on display but if it is then it should be re-printed as required. When did peopple go idea that a photo needs to last for decades? It's so easy to make duplicate from digital medium that its common practice to re-create photos on display form time to time.

However a user who pays full OEM ink price that can be more expensive than buy new printer could have a heart attack when photos lasts for 5 years as stated in the tests. Considering the price.

 

[Froggy]

I think we can take as read that OEM inks, in general, are more fade resistant than third party inks.

With profiling / changing print settings, users can make third party inks produce equivalent visual results to OEM.

Accellerated ageing tests are simulations and need to have good controls (standards) to compare against. Real life ageing will depend on many factors, not least where the photo is kept and how near the equator you live.

Personally, as an average end user I don't need a printout from a digital photo to last 50 years. I need a way of storing the digital data that will last or not become obsolete. If a print-out fades (not happened so far) I just print another one out, assuming I can find it in my archive.

The danger in these articles is that the average user is persuaded that they really need an inket print to last 5 years or more. The picture of baby at 2 months on the wall will be replaced by baby at 3 months, then 4 months... the old pictures being kept in an envelope in a cupboard somewhere. And they will all be on CD.

I agree, if the Canon print only lasted 5 years IN REAL LIFE on a shaded internal wall, I would consider that poor value for money.

If I desperately wanted a print to last as long as possible, I would go to my local photographic shop and get it developed by one of their machines on proper paper.

I am more concerned about my old traditional photographs. I am sure when stored correctly, when printed with top quality chemicals on top quality paper, you could get 60 years.

But some of my old prints at 30 years in an album have faded in the blue, looking yellow, some have lost the red. That's what you get for cheapo photo developing in the 70's / 80's when money was tight.

 

[Smile]

I agree, if the Canon print only lasted 5 years IN REAL LIFE on a shaded internal wall, I would consider that poor value for money.

If I desperately wanted a print to last as long as possible, I would go to my local photographic shop and get it developed by one of their machines on proper paper.

Well if they use dye sub then it lasts shorter than inkjet, if they pigmented inks like HP Z3100 (by WIR fading tests) then it last up to 250 years under glass.

So I like to say: When you print yourself you know that you use refill or original OEM inks so you can estimate how long your prints will last, when you trust someone it's the same think. But often people think that photolab is better because its a photolab.

I am more concerned about my old traditional photographs. I am sure when stored correctly, when printed with top quality chemicals on top quality paper, you could get 60 years.

BW prints and negatives where you have silver can last very long as far as paper is good quality, even it it is not it will turn yellow an can be restored by scanning and color correcting.

Color photographs use orrganic materials and I know none that would last 60 years.

But some of my old prints at 30 years in an album have faded in the blue, looking yellow, some have lost the red. That's what you get for cheapo photo developing in the 70's / 80's when money was tight.

That's what I mean.

 

[Tin Ho]

Traditional color photography lasts up to 60 years on fujicolor crystal archive paper.

This is only true if Fuji and Kodak brands of photo paper is used and is processed with RA-4 chemicals of either brand. if you print on for example Agfa brand paper and processed the paper in off brand RA-4 chemicals the photo may not last more than 10 years. Tetenal, Arista and Unicolor are a few such off brand names. Kodak and Fuji have cross licensed with each other and share secrets of their photographic processes. They hold the standards of E-6(transparency or chrome films), C-41 (negative films) and RA-4 (photo paper) processes. These processes control how dye couplers on film and paper react to processing chemicals to form dyes that will last up to 60 years.

Similarly, you need to print on Canon brand inkjet photo paper with Canon OEM ink to achieve long lasting photos. I got the impression that Canon OEM ink would be as crappy as all 3rd party ink if the paper used is, for example an aftermarket paper available from retail stores. There are something coated in Canon's photo paper that will react to some additives in Canon OEM ink to produce something that will protect the dyes on the paper from exposing to UV. But the resulted longevity is probably not 60 years, not 30 years either. It's more like less than 10 years in real life situation.

In my opinion it is not realistic to expect inkjet prints to be long lasting even printed with OEM ink on OEM brand photo papers. If you can overcome this unrealistic expectation from OEM ink/paper you will be very happy with many quality 3rd party ink and paper. It is true that not all 3rd party ink and paper are created equally, however. Finding a good combination takes some time and expense. You can still produce prints that will last up to 10 years with a right combination of ink and paper. The only problem is you have to wait for 10 years to know if you have the right combination.

 

[alchemist]

Wilhelm Research does a good job of providing accelerated image permanence results for the OEM products. When they provide results for after market product, most often it is the poorer preforming stuff, that most members of this board would not use.

That said let me say that those results, for the OEM product, are against a standard test that does not represent real world user conditions.

I have surveyed 200 non-museum locations; business lobbies, private homes, galleries, fast food and regular restaurants, and schools, where inkjet prints and conventional photographic prints are displayed. About 40% of the inkjet prints are not covered by glass, plastic, lamination, or sprayed coatings. The lighting in newer buildings has a much higher percentage of natural daylight, either via window, skylight, or light tubes.
The lighting over a 10 hour day, during the April to September time period, averages almost 755 lux for the mix with a healthy quantity of UV AB.
Some of the UV glass we measured was not stopping any more than 70% of the UV and others did a 95% job. One building owner pointed out to us that the skylights were covered by UV plastic. Our meter said it was not and when we examined a spare panel, it was actually UV transmissive plastic designed for green houses. Numerous gases, humidity, and mold are also present.

I learned back in 1965, when first starting to conduct accelerated light fastness testing, you must run non-accelerated samples, typically 18 months minimum, to validate / determine the reciprocity factor. If you choose to ignore that validation process, more often than not your results are not worth the paper they are written on. I believe, and will be proven wrong, that Kodak is the only OEM these days that publishes the fact that they do actual non-accelerated testing.

That said the best that one can do with the Wilhelm Research results is to use them as a guide and not an absolute. It would be better if they published that the OEM sample X was 10 and that after market vendor samples provided 10, 40 and 85% of the OEM. That would be a valid result of the accelerated testing.

Alchemist