http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/ Engadget Comments for Fade resistance test takes a look at photo printers / paper http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/Mar 31st 2007 8:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/Mar 31st 2007 9:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/Mar 31st 2007 9:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/The most important factors are ink and paper. A pity the difference in those weren't tested.]]>Apr 1st 2007 12:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/
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.
]]>Apr 1st 2007 11:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/
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.

]]>Apr 1st 2007 10:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/
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]]>Apr 2nd 2007 9:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/31/fade-resistance-test-takes-a-look-at-photo-printers-paper/
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.]]>Apr 2nd 2007 12:20PM