Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
October 28, 2020, 08:22:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Feb 2013: Qimage Ultimate Challenges... have fun and explore features!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Professional ICC Profiling Software for Windows
Create custom ICC profiles with
Profile Prism for accurate color!
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: October 2009: Pigment vs Dye Today  (Read 66066 times)
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 396


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2009, 01:41:02 PM »

I think though that the more important question ultimately is at what point one of the two technologies manages to outdo traditional print techniques. Admittedly I haven't been keeping up much with modern printing technology, but printing it yourself was never particularly cost effective. In general it always seemed like a waste of money when even the best printers that people would likely buy were barely keeping up with standard prints and for quite a bit of money.

Prints when stored in a reasonable fashion last a really long time and with some of the new papers have stunning results. I've more or less fallen in love with some of the newer semi-translucent papers that I've had used for my prints.

The best dye and pigment ink prints are already beyond the analogue color paper fade resistance results, Fuji's Crystal and Ilfo/Cibachrome included. The pigment inks way beyond them. If you have them printed ask at least for Crystal paper otherwise you have no guarantee on the fade resistance, archivability, etc. Big Yellow isn't known to have print longevity high on its agenda, it was like that in the seventies and hasn't changed much since. Wilhelm's reputation is founded on his battle with Kodak.
Genuine analogue B&W prints processed carefully will survive a very long time but the monochrome pigment (carbon) inkjet inks on suitable papers are getting closer to similar numbers in years. Few shops will print a true analogue B&W these days and chromogenic processing is probably the worst method to get long lasting B&W prints, not to mention their look.

There's another thing you have to think about. More and more minilab manufacturers have an inkjet model in the range. The advantage is that less chemicals have to be used which makes it easier for shops in relation to local  environmental legislation. Epson, Fuji, Noritsu (all Epson technology), HP and more companies. Long lasting dye + compatible papers. On the Photokina of 2008 it was quite a trend. The Fuji  prints were very good in image quality.

http://www.google.nl/search?q=Inkjet+minilab&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls

Whether you like it or not, inkjet technology will play an important role if you like to have your images printed.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/


Logged
hedwards
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2009, 12:09:24 AM »

The best dye and pigment ink prints are already beyond the analogue color paper fade resistance results, Fuji's Crystal and Ilfo/Cibachrome included. The pigment inks way beyond them. If you have them printed ask at least for Crystal paper otherwise you have no guarantee on the fade resistance, archivability, etc. Big Yellow isn't known to have print longevity high on its agenda, it was like that in the seventies and hasn't changed much since. Wilhelm's reputation is founded on his battle with Kodak.
Genuine analogue B&W prints processed carefully will survive a very long time but the monochrome pigment (carbon) inkjet inks on suitable papers are getting closer to similar numbers in years. Few shops will print a true analogue B&W these days and chromogenic processing is probably the worst method to get long lasting B&W prints, not to mention their look.
Nice to know we've made it that far, Fuji has pretty much always been my choice as far as paper goes since I started to pay attention to the difference. The metallic paper they make was always exquisite, and even the cheaper slide film was quite nice. Glad to see they've managed to bring it to home printing.
Logged
Seth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 322



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2009, 01:21:33 AM »

The current "quality" pigment inks and papers (not the Staples, etc. knock-offs) exceed a silver gelatin/type-C print expectance already.  On the B&W side they are up to 100-300 years, depending on whether they are on display or in archival storage.  Again, it depends on whose system you believe.

Kodak is off on their on tangent but I expect they will come around to realistic values since nobody accepts their methods much any more.
Logged

Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
Keith
Newbie
*
Posts: 17



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2009, 08:32:19 PM »

Hi Guys,

Mike's article seems right on. Just to let you know, I've been using the HPZ3200 for a few months now. The pigment based ink in this printer which includes a new special red has been a very nice experience. No regrets here at all. There is a gloss enhancer cartridge that can be used to help with the gloss differential as required.

Regards,

Keith
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3153



View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2009, 03:08:01 PM »


I would recommend Aardenburg as the better test institute. The method is better, the business model more suited for an independent test institute. More tests with third party papers and even third party inks.

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/documents.html

I agree.  I felt the move away from use of RIT testing to Wilhelm brought a very commercial aspect to the whole procedure. 

Currently, they only have results for 6 printers.  Not a very good sample population if you are trying to determine how reliable their results are.

Mike
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3153



View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2009, 03:37:46 PM »

Ahhhh.  You answered your own problem.  Neato and CD label.  I don't think one would ever get "true" colors.  Who knows the coating and how would you profile it?

I've tried to reproduce bright red on a number of matte surface papers including Epson's own matte papers.  The reality is that the R1800 simply does not produce a good saturated red on matte papers.  Part of the reason has to do with the way pigment versus dye inks interact with the paper.

Quote
Surely you are not putting paper labels on CDs in this day and age.  Roll Eyes  That can be deadly.  The R1800 prints direct to CDs.  Although I do not print labels on CDs, I use injet-printable media because of the extra coating.  It's safer when writing on them.

You won't find me printing directly to CD's!  It's a huge waste of money and time.  The CD's are a lot more expensive than non-printable CD's even when you include the cost of the label and printing directly on the CD's is far more tedious when you have more than just a couple to make. 

And I hope you're not implying that the labels are "dangerous" due to how fast the discs spin!  While disc shattering does occur on rare occasions, it is mostly caused by damaged/cracked discs and seems to not be statistically related to the use of labels.  In addition, 40x, 48x, and 52x drives never really reach those rotational speeds.  So CD shattering is not something to worry about: covered thoroughly on MythBusters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6avp29GqXo

Mike

Mike
Logged
MHMG
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2009, 09:27:35 PM »


Currently, they only have results for 6 printers.  Not a very good sample population if you are trying to determine how reliable their results are.

Mike

Hmm.. I'm counting approximately 25 different printer models and over 100 tests already in progress in the AaI&A lightfade database. Another 25 unique printer/ink/paper combinations will be added next week.  But I agree with your basic premise, AaI&A still has much to prove in order to claim any mantle of authority. That said, one can also apply this specific criticism to all of the other published data as well. Many of the test scores available today are repurposed data from just one tested printer model, and we are not told how many trials were conducted nor even what specific image appearance criteria were used to rate the "end of life" of the product.

Moreover, the 100, 200, 300+ year claims of longevity now being cited with authority in various forum discussions and marketing literature are also misleading but, perhaps ironically, not because they are wildly optimistic. On the contrary, any competent curator or conservator can pretty much ensure that images printed with very fugitive inks on the most lignin-filled, acid-choked newspaper pulp will last 100+ years by making only modest efforts to preserve them. The devil is in the details.  Hence, although it sounds intuitively logical, the time scale is actually a rather poor differentiator for print durability and resistance to change. Also, systems don't always fade or change linearly, so a single predicted endpoint to reach "noticeable fade" does not always tell the whole story. Printmakers dedicated to art of the fine print where even small changes in print appearance will be of concern to the curator or collector, are especially not being served by today's photo consumer-oriented testing methods and longevity rating criteria.

I started the AaI&A digital print research program about two years ago after years of intensive research on better print testing methodologies. My goal is to empower my fellow photographers and printmakers with our own research program where participants can freely contribute materials for test and where we can publish more comprehensive and therefore hopefully more meaningful results. Mike, I take your criticism constructively to heart.  I also encourage serious printmakers get involved.

kind regards,
Mark McCormick-Goodhart
Director, Aardenburg Imaging & Archives
Logged
Seth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 322



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2009, 12:21:18 AM »

Quote
author=Mike Chaney link=topic=401.msg2899#msg2899 date=1256139466

You won't find me printing directly to CD's!  It's a huge waste of money and time.  The CD's are a lot more expensive than non-printable CD's even when you include the cost of the label and printing directly on the CD's is far more tedious when you have more than just a couple to make. 

And I hope you're not implying that the labels are "dangerous" due to how fast the discs spin!  While disc shattering does occur on rare occasions, it is mostly caused by damaged/cracked discs and seems to not be statistically related to the use of labels.  In addition, 40x, 48x, and 52x drives never really reach those rotational speeds.  So CD shattering is not something to worry about:
Mike

Hi Mike-

I did not say anything about disc shattering; nor did I mean to imply that.

The issue with rotational speed and paper labels is balance--or lack thereof, especially with DVDs.  It will just tear up the drive.   It gets worse as the adhesive decays.  From an archival standpoint it is not a good thing for long term survival.  It is a preservation fact that any pre-stuck adhesive will deteriorate.  But at $29 a new drive is not that big of a deal.

As I have said before, I use the printable DVDs to write on.    It is just yet another layer of protection from the ink permeating the top layer.  DVDs being two laminated sheets, unlike CDs, are more susceptible.Failure of the media is as much (if not more) prone to scratches/deterioration of the top layer.  Scratches on the writeable bottom are not as nearly deadly as failure of the reflective surface (top).  IMHO it is more important how long they last than how pretty they are. 
Logged

Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
Seth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 322



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2009, 12:24:44 AM »

Quote
Currently, they only have results for 6 printers.  Not a very good sample population if you are trying to determine how reliable their results are.

Mike

Hmmm, you have to be a member to see all results and to submit tests.  I am a member so I have seen many more.
Logged

Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
rharms
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2009, 07:24:17 PM »

I noticed a r1800 owner stating the problem he has with red printing using pigment ink. He needs to realize you CAN buy dye based ink for the r1800.. either a cis system or refillable ink tanks. Once done you definitely will need to make your own ICC's cuz the epson set is all based on Epsons own pigment ink and they are way off when using dye inks... or just print using no profiles at all...   Wink
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 07:26:48 PM by rharms » Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!