Fade resistance test takes a look at photo printers / paper

Although we've already seen that truly fade-free inkjet prints just aren't really attainable with modern technology, a thorough (albeit unscientific) review of some six photo printers and seven types of photo paper literally showcased how close we can come. The test consisted of hanging the prints on a window facing the sun for 11 solid months, whilst the control photographs stayed under wraps to use for comparison. In what was easily the worst performer of the bunch, Samsung's SSP-2040 (pictured above) was nothing short of dreadful, while Kodak's EasyShare PP-500 and Canon's Selphy DS810 delivered only marginally better results. Epson's Picture Mate 100 did a fair job of wowing the critics after looking at the previous attempts, but the real winners came when HP's PhotoSmart 385 and PhotoSmart Express kiosk stepped up to the plate. Of course, results were judged with mere eyes, but the folks at PixInfo couldn't tell a difference between the original and the sun-blasted copy on either of these machines, and while it does sound a bit too good to be true, make sure you click on through for the stunning proof. Still, it's doubtful that any of these devices can produce shots that last for decades on end without any hint of fading or discoloration, but if you're looking for the best money can buy this day in age, be sure and hit the read link for the full skinny.

[Rick (the original Rick) @ Mar 31st 2007 8:34PM]

that one girl kinda looks better in the faded pics.

[scottstrash @ Mar 31st 2007 9:05PM]

intresting, but i have an old canon i560 that i got for 50 bucks about 3 years ago, and when i got it, i bought a 100 pack of ilford glossy 8.5x11 - and while in college i covered an entire wall in my room with just full page prints - and they were exposed to a lot of sunlight during certain times of day/season - yet, 3 years later - i have some of the pictures hanging in smaller mural-style on my current wall and none of them have showed signs of fading. (and after the first set of inks ran out, i ordered generic replacements for 1.95 a peice - and they've barely faded) so i'd say in my experience, most of the anti-fading is within the paper.

[dan @ Mar 31st 2007 9:27PM]

Has no one here heard about pigment ink in inkjet printers (like the Epson R800, 2200, 2400, etc.)? Wilhelm confirms that these can last over 100 years given the right paper. So, the whole "just not atainable" thing is not really accurate anymore.

[Daikon @ Apr 1st 2007 12:41AM]

It's foolish to believe the printer plays a major role in how much a print fades over time.
The most important factors are ink and paper. A pity the difference in those weren't tested.

[Photosci @ Apr 1st 2007 11:44AM]

The problem with a window test is that it tests for only one of the four major factors influencing image fade--and that factor is both way out of balance relative to the others and atypical of home or gallery display (unless you live in an all-glass house).

As at least one company discovered, airborne pollutants can have a greater effect on some images than even direct sunlight. Plus greater than 95% of consumer prints are stored in the dark where thermal, humidity, and pollutant effects dominate. Nor do these effects go away for a print hung on a wall.

Further, while studies have shown that window-filtered daylight is a good approximation for the home environment (though not the gallery or office), that’s not the same as the light an image sees hung in a window. Reflection and absorption in the room change the spectral characteristics of the light in regions highly important for image fade.

The right way to measure image permanence requires a holistic approach--testing for all four factors in the proper balance that one sees in a real customer environment (which, to repeat, may well be different for consumer, gallery/museum or commercial).

This is not an academic argument. Having the four factors out of balance (as they undoubtedly are in a window test) can not only change the predicted lifetime of a product, but also the relative ranking amongst different products.

Sufficient real-world data exist in the technical literature (particularly in the “Journal of Imaging Science”) on the proper balance of the major degradation factors so that tests can be done properly.

By the way, when looking at ratings provided by on-line testing sites, be suspicious when one or more factors are still listed "test in progress" for more than a few months. Ozone tests, for example, are much quicker to perform than other tests and shouldn't legitimately be "in progress" for months or even years.

[Luke @ Apr 1st 2007 10:20PM]

This is bunk. The only way a Photosmart 385 gets a decent fade resistence rating is on special paper called "Premium Plus" for HP, or "Color Life" for Epson. Unfortunently these types of papers look like crap, and are completely destroyed by any moisture. Epson does not even make a 4X6 Color Life paper, becaues they have improved the better options.

The Epson Picture Mate's use the other style of paper (Epson calls theirs Premium Glossy, HP calls theirs "Advanced") that are more commonly used and completely water proof, not to mention they look much better. Comparing an Epson Premium Glossy with an HP Premium Plus is retarded. And as Wilhelm-Research has shown, an HP 385 using "Advanced" paper is about as fade resistent as a leaf.

[Tibor Antaloczy @ Apr 2nd 2007 9:14AM]

scottstrash: It is often difficult to judge if an image has faded or not if you don't have a controll image to compare it with. Our test was a stress test. Since your photos were hanging inside the room, they were exposed to much less direct sunlight than our images. It is just the matter of time and they will show signs of fading. It will happen. The goal of our test was to show the differences between the different systems. We can't predict when will the images will fade, but we can tell which one will fade first.

dan: Epson PiuctureMate 100 is using pigment ink technology, this is probably one of the reasony it was scoring so well.

Daikon: What do you mean by that? I would accept your claims if we were using only on brand of printers with different sizes, all using the same printing technology. But we were using many different technologies, therefore our test is really showing the differences between the technologies, not the printers.

Photosci: We would love to link your extensive fading test results from our pages. Please let me know where they can be found.

Luke: I just realized that we forgot to mention what paper we used for Epson. This is our fault. We were using Premium Glossy photo paper for the test.

Tibor Antalóczy
editor
Pixinfo.com

[Jarrett Kaufman @ Apr 2nd 2007 12:20PM]

I have to agree with Luke's comments. Not only do HP's prints look awful anyway (that printer's a 3-color printer with no black ink), but they only get that level of longevity on their most expensive paper that nobody likes. The Epson results are on all of their more common papers.

On the one hand, the argument in Epson's favor has always been who cares how long the print takes to make, or if it's a 5x7 (some HP portables do 5x7 in addition to 4x6) if it's faded in ten years. In this case, though, it's who cares if the photo lasts a few years longer (out of 100) if it looked like crap to begin with?

Besides, the odds of your photo having come in contact with moisture in that 100 year timespan is pretty good, and the Epson prints will have survived that while the HPs won't.