Fading report by Fadeaway, Grandad35 and JV

[Grandad35]

Dare I ask...
What did happen to Livick?

Martin,

No one seems to know any details, and Livick obviously doesn't want any contact. Other than his post on his web site, we are left to our imaginations.

It does not surprise me that Pigment ink is more fade resistant

KnightCrawler,

You're correct that the pigment ink results were no surprise, and that's why most pros who sell their work use them. Among the findings that did surprise me were:
1. How well Canon inks compared to HP inks, given what is usually written about HP's edge over Canon on longevity.
2. How much Canon inks improved when they were printed on swellable paper (similar to that used by HP for their archival prints).
3. The almost complete elimination of ozone fading by using swellable papers or a sealant coating, and how quickly nanoporous papers fade under ozone by contrast.
4. That even though 3rd party inks aren't as good as Canon inks, they are still far better than some of the horror stories that I have read about how they fade in a few months.

 

[panos]

Although, as I have stated in a previous posting, I am not really concerned with the longevity of my prints, the fading test has removed any doubts to Wilhelm and the PC Week article that were cast by Neil Slade.

Some companies seem to have invested lot of research in longevity and this isn't "dog poop".

 

[websnail]

Hmm... having read the Livick site without the aid of the time machine I have to say it was educational and a shame but I don't want to go off on a tangent here..

The fade testing has left me with a few interesting pondering points now and a wealth of information when it comes to my grandfathers intended archiving and resurrection of family photos both from photo scans and negatives. Even with the reduced information on the current Livick site the information about coatings along is a really useful nugget to remember.

Bottom line, thanks for co-ordinating, participating and sharing the information... all very useful stuff.

 

[t9mike]

First, great work. I did an analysis of Netflix a while back (http://dvd-rent-test.dreamhost.com/) and I know this sort of thing can be very time consuming.

I'm a Canon i9900 user. In the Everything Else forum I posted how much I've spent on Canon OEM carts over the last 16 months or so. http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=801 Ouch!

I just finished reviewing the UV tests. I focused on these strips:

#3 PPPro/Formulabs printed test chart
#35 PPPro/MIS printed test chart
#36 PPPro/Canon OEM printed test chart

Although I use Red River 66lb Polar Satin C1S exclusively at the moment -- I want to experiment with canvas-type papers though -- I thought this would give me a good basic setpoint to compare???

It seemed like MIS was the clear winner from above except for Canon. Also, I I'm curious why test #35 was stopped so early at 144 hours. The strip seemed to have much life in it still compared to where #3 was stopped.

I looked at these swabs:

#11 PPPro/Canon swabbed ink test
#13 PPPro/Formulabs swabbed ink test
#14 PPPro/G&G swabbed ink test
#15 PPPro/WeInk BCI-7 swabbed ink test

But since MIS was not included it did not seem to make sense to compare the print vs swabs. Apples to oranges right?

Am I interpreting all this correctly?

Thanks!
-Mike

 

[Grandad35]

Mike,

The differences in samples 3 and 35 are typical of why so much stress was placed on the importance of looking at the initial ink density when comparing the relative fading of various samples. Compare samples 26 and 27 - printed with the same ink on the same paper but at different "Intensity" settings. Samples with darker initial ink coverage appear to fade less than samples with lighter initial ink coverage.

The following shows the "Difference" images for your 3 samples (all at 96 hours - this raw data is available as described in the report). Note that the initial MIS samples are significantly darker than the initial Formulabs samples, and that they would therefore be expected to show less apparent fading with everything else being equal. Look at the right hand column for each sample, where the change in color is shown. Which sample has the smallest change in the colors that are critical to you?

It is VERY difficult to get a consistent ink density by swabbing, so all swabbed samples need to be generated by one person using the same technique to get a reasonable comparison. I did not generate a swabbed MIS sample because I did not have the ink - the printed MIS samples were supplied by Fotofreek.

The UV fading test is fast and easy to run. Why not generate your own test specimens and do some tests on the specific paper/ink combinations that you are considering?

 

[t9mike]

Grandad35, thanks so much for the help. Although I noted the intensity issue, everything just did not sink in until I read your reply and re-read the section from the report. I was guilty of scanning the report far too quickly. Sorry :-(.

I looked and could not find a PDF equivalent to Animation_U_Comp.pdf but of all differences for all samples. Is this correct?

I wonder if the intensity issue does not allow for a true comparison of even differences, because more ink would provide more of a protective coating for the microscopic ink layers. So less ink laid down will accelerate aging compared to more ink laid down??? I'd almost have to give the edge to Formulabs in this case.

I wish I had Formulabs and Imaging Specialists samples. It would be interesting to do a test where the test charts are color managed to the paper, just to see how funky things get. I have not been able to find non-bulk sources for Imaging Specialists inks. I think I will create a new thread about getting pre-filled Imaging Specialists and Formulabs carts for simple tests.

Regards,
-Mike

 

[Grandad35]

Mike,

We did not generate an animation of all of the "difference" images because there would be too much data for one display. If you have Photoshop, it is easy to generate these animations once you have the individual composite images that you wish to animate.

You are correct that it is VERY difficult to interpret fading data if the initial samples do not have almost the same color density - I would have a very hard time saying whether Formulabs or MIS inks have better fading resistance based on our tests. In fact, I have wondered whether Wilhelm addresses this problem with their test procedures.

If you are looking to run your own tests on your specific paper, perhaps you should print the test chart with one specific ink, then send samples of this chart and several sheets of blank paper to people who refill using other inks. They could then adjust their printer settings to get approximately the same ink coverage as your initial sample. This would be a lot less expensive than buying complete sets of prefilled carts, and you would be assured that you are getting the correct inks. I have very little faith in getting accurate information on what ink is in prefilled carts, since even the supplier has almost no real control over what ink is actually used to fill these carts, given the supply chain.

 

[Grandad35]

Wilhelm has posted some results of their tests on 3rd party inks (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=18605877). Note especially:
1. They did not test inks from a "known" ink supplier (IS/Formulabs), only unknown inks.
2. The large advantage given by "HP Premium Plus Photo Paper" (which I assume to be swellable) over many other generic photo papers (which I assume to be nanoporous). Only "Office Max Professional Photo Paper" beat the HP paper.
3. The Canon CLI-8 inks tested as better than BCI-6 by about a factor of two on "Canon Photo Paper Pro".
4. The Canon PPPro paper did not test as well as many of the generic photo papers with 3rd party BCI-6 inks (unlike the HP paper). This is probably because the Canon PPPro paper is nanoporous and because their inks and papers are specially formulated to work together.
5. On average, generic paper and ink in BCI-6 carts gave better results than generic paper and ink in HP 57/58 carts.

It would be very interesting to see their BCI-6 results with a "known" ink (including Canon) and a good swellable paper. Our results indicated that this combination compares much more favorably with OEM ink/paper. As one of the people commented in the referenced thread, The OEM's are paying for these tests, and it is to their advantage to show poor results with 3rd party inks.