Debunking the myth of fade-free inkjet prints

We assume you're savvy enough not to buy all those claims about inkjet-printed photos being able to last hundreds of years. However, just in case you're expecting those prints to outlive your grandkids, PC World has a dose of cold reality with a feature that goes into the nitty gritty of how printer and paper companies use—and abuse—data to market their products. With no standards for testing fade-resistance, companies like Epson, Kodak, and HP have marketed paper as being able to hold images for over 100 years. However, independent labs like Wilhelm Imaging Research have disputed some of those claims: WIR found some images printed using HP Photosmart printers using Kodak paper would last just 11 years, rather than the 120 claimed by Kodak. Your best bet: keep those prints in albums or shoeboxes instead of framed on the wall, or just skip printing altogether and view the pics on your computer (and always make backups, of course).

[Digital Dave @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

The only reason you should print your digital pictures at home is if you're in a pinch for time or live 100+ miles away from the nearest Wal-Mart (17c), Walgreens (27c) or CVS (29c).

[sk @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

What backup media lasts more than 30 years?

[Scott Rubin @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Yeah, better store those pics in HD Rosetta.
http://www.norsam.com/hdrosetta.htm

[Dan Schwartz @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

The article does a good job of revealing the results you�ll get using paper not manufactured by the maker of your printer (the answer is poor � just like using InkDaddy inks and expecting to get decent results). However, there are a couple of issues it doesn�t address including which combinations will give you the best results. It should be made clear that Epson (and to a similar degree, HP) specifically design their papers to chemically match their ink systems. This is not bogus PR you see on their paper packaging. To get the best results from your Epson printer you need to by Epson paper � I am (and most photographers) biased towards Epson over HP. This combination should give you 80-130 years of non-fading prints. If you�re going to be displaying your prints they need to be behind UV blocking glass. Of course, as someone who actually sells their own prints (check out my online gallery) I approach this differently from the average consumer. Quality is of the utmost importance to me. When I sell a print it covers the significant cost of the paper and ink I buy from Epson. I can see how buying cheaper paper for non commercial use would be tempting, but you will be disappointed in the long run.

[Adam Daniel @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I agree strongly with comments 2 and 3. The advice to "skip printing altogether" virtually guarantees that your pictures will not be seen by anyone after you are gone. If you aren't sure you agree, take the following mind walk. Picture someone (even yourself) looking through an attic chest fifty years from now. Consider what time does do the physical integrity of electronic media, the availability of software, and the availability of computer hardware. For example, if you found today a 5.25 inch disk containing simple word processing documents you created less than twenty years ago, how likely would you be to read them? Contrast that experience to coming across a printout of the same documents.

[Karl @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

And here I've been thinking that Epson has had some poor technician sitting and drumming his fingers on the table for the past 200 years, waiting to see when his printout would start to fade.

[of_the_apes @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

personally, i think it's a complete waste of time to use a consumer inkjet for anything that's not for personal use. when i sell my work, if at all possible i print to film and have C-Prints run, usually on aluminum. at worst i get very high quality giclees run from a professional using professional equipment.

Think of it this way, you're selling art. art is expensive, it's not disposable(or shouldn't be) - handing someone a cheap giclee run on your prosumer epson printer is downright tacky. If someone shells out more than a few dollars on something of mine, the least i can do is give them the best possible reproduction of the work money can buy(if they aren't buying an original canvas, which i feel much better selling) I'm sorry, but there is NO consumer grade printer on the market that makes me feel like i'm NOT ripping someone off if I sell them output from it. Adding all the UV protective glass won't change the fact that it's a cheap giclee and looks it.

Add to that the massive amount of people who sell giclees or think giclees are the way to big money. "Now I'm an artist!" most of it is crap, presented on crap materials from crap printers - that gives anything output digitally a bad name. Screw anyone who plays it that way.

If i'm buying art, I don't care how good it looks, if it's not on quality materials, I'm NOT buying it, regardless of the price. If i buy something, I buy it to live with it until i die. Maybe I'm a bit more demanding about what I do with my money, because as an artist I don't have endless amounts of it, but I don't know anyone who'd buy something to hang on their wall knowing that it would be destroyed in even 50 years. I've inherited things that are 150 years old and look brand new...that's the way it should always work.

So Kodak and Epson undoubtably lie about the quality of their inks and base materials - who cares. If you don't want to take the time to backup your data on something better than the $0.05 CD-Rs you can buy at comp-usa, make higher quality prints or transfer digital works to film, you probably shouldn't be playing the game. Film Negatives will last a lot longer than anything on paper, provided they're taken care of. And always keep backups regardless of what you're doing.

[Samuel Lago @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

...Oh and don't save them as JPEG's because they degrade digitally all the time, everytime they are accessed. It's best to save them as a RAW image.

[popeye @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Yeah so what's new? As far as archival prints go the Quadtone setup from Inkjet mall is well worth using for those so inclined. They offer a color system as well

[jaaron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Anyone know how long dye sublimation prints will last?

[matt @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

this is why film should never die.

[John @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Film unless cared for very well also deteriorates. I ran into many negatives my father had when he died from the 60's Many were so damaged if it weren't for digital editing they'd be lost.

The number one thing to remember is to backup your data. One copy is not a good idea. Make more than one. And store a copy somewhere like work/bank etc.

[falling whale number 42 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Don't kid yourself #7, negatives and prints are disposable. The very chemicals used to make them are the chemicals that destroy them. Cotton (as well as some other natural fiber) papers and stable water based inks can (and have) last thousands of years. So, theoretically, ink-jet printers could be used to create work far more archival then just about anything else. Epson is getting close to rivaling the archival quality of film now and will likely far surpass it in the next decade. Though it will never compete with encaustic. If you were really interested in making your stuff last, that is what you would use.

Epson's high end printers are spectacular and can create fantastic results, in the right hands of course. I have known and sold work by artists that use the high end Epsons. It is a tool like any other, if used correctly the results will be good.

I do appreciate that add value to your work by trying to make it last for a reasonable length of time (long enough for the next generation to decide if it is any good or not).

[Andrew @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

If you're looking to sell something, I suggest MPix, otherwise I use Shutterfly.

I agree with a lot of what has been said. I go to fairs and see some pretty subpar quality photography. That does not mean that all inkjet artists must be bad.

[Khaytsus @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Poster #8,

I hope you're kidding. JPGs certainly do not degrade when read, only when re-saved, which includes lame XP rotation, or any operation in a photo editing program.

And you can't save as a 'raw' format if you mean camera raw formats. But you can save as tif or png, both are lossless.

[RRF @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I just came back from the future and it turns out that #4's prints did not last 80 years neither did the Epson stock he bought.