Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

Arthur Entlich wrote:

Your logic, in regard to this matter, is flawed.

When the discussion is about Canon consumables, ink and paper, and
their fade characteristics, calling a non-Canon ink, non-Canon paper
print a "Canon print" is nothing but a red herring.

If you want to dot all of the i's then you can call is a 3rd party Canon
compatible print produced by a Canon printer. According to your logic,
the majority of the people on this NG are producing prints from Epson
printers that are not Epson prints, including yourself. That is
because, like yourself, they are using 3rd party inks and many different
brands of paper. To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon
compatible, then they are representative of the OEM and should share the
majority of the same characteristics.


It may be a print generated via a Canon printer, but I would hardly
call it a 'Canon print' in this context.

Further, everyone agrees that putting an image under glass
accomplishes two things: 1) it cuts the amount of UV exposure to the
print considerably, and 2) It reduces both contact of the ink surface
with gasses, and reduces the amount of air movement over the surface.

All those factors will, in general, improve fade resistance. Of
course, no piece of art, especially a photo, is supposed to be framed
with glass directly on the surface of the print.

So, to clarify, the images I saw which were faded considerably within
about 6 months of daily exposure to fluorescent lighting were, to the
best of my knowledge, produced on Canon printers with Canon inks and
papers, and were not under glass or otherwise adulterated.

Mine are 5 months and just laying around on a desk near a window. So
far I am lucky. I cannot predict the future. Even if they fade, that
might have been the case with Epson as well, save perhaps the pigment inks.



Art


Brian Potter wrote:

As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
still
a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.
There's a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick
with manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven
shortcomings. There
will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.

BPotter




Kennedy McEwen spouted in news:ISTo7tIiWkPCFwK9
@kennedym.demon.co.uk:


In article , Taliesyn
writes

Your "FACTS" or my "FACTS"?


Your facts!


In article , Taliesyn
writes

I have an 8x10 Canon print


then

In article , Taliesyn
writes

and I don't use Canon
papers nor inks.


By your own "facts" you are a proven liar. Nothing further need be
discussed.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:58:01 -0600, Brian Potter
wrote:

As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still
a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it. There's
a lesson to be learned here. You don't have to blindly stick with
manufacturer's suggested supplies if they have proven shortcomings. There
will always be doers and whiners. That's a fact too.

BPotter

In article , Taliesyn
writes
I have an 8x10 Canon print

then

In article , Taliesyn
writes
and I don't use Canon papers nor inks.

I guess then that if I make tea in a coffee maker, it is still
coffee.

Regardless whether I use vodka or water.

Geo
(Just having a coffee)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, we have images that are several generations
old, and I'm glad we do. Not everyone thinks that way.

As to the issue of whether the accelerated aging tests are valid, they
are only one part of the data. It isn't like mankind developed dye
and pigment knowledge 4 years ago. There rare literally thousands of
years of historical data to draw from. We have cloth and paintings
from back as far as cave paintings, including manuscripts,
illuminations, oil and water color images, and so on to provide much
of the information.

Certainly, the atmosphere has had some changes to it, heck, we may
have a nuclear radiation or new molecules floating around in the
environment that will change how all these things respond, but baring
any major disruption, and using the accelerated aging tests as a back
up, we can make some pretty reasonable interpolations about the
relative aging processes of different dyes and pigments. It isn't
perfect, but it also isn't a complete guess.

What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the electronic storage
data we use currently will not last and the software and reading
devices will become obsolete and difficult, if not impossible, to
procure. That is where the print really shines, because it only
requires light to view.
Not only will DVDs and CD be history long before a good print will
fade away, but the media used for recording will fail. It already
does in a matter of years.


Did you ever hear of backups. I still have 5.25 floppy data that is
readable without a floppy device. How you ask? When the 3.5 720 came
out I transfered the data to that and then to the 1.44 floppy and then
to CD and then to DVD. As long as there is electricity there will
always be a device to transfer the data to. It will never fade and you
can archive it forever.


How much of anyone's historical documents are significant is hard to
say. They say a person can never truly understand his/her impact in
their own lifetime. Maybe your offspring will burn down your estate,
or shred all your images because they don't want to be bothered with
them.

However, I'd prefer people have a choice, not limited by the
materials, but more by historic precedence and value.

In the end, the cost of a bit extra ink needs to be weighed for each
of us in determining what types of documents we believe ourselves to
be generating.

Art


measekite wrote:



Arthur Entlich wrote:

For someone concerned with saving the cost of ink and or paper, not
to mention the time and wear involved to the printer, doesn't it
just make more sense to buy a printer with ink that doesn't fade for
100 years or so, and be done with it, even if it uses more ink in
cleaning cycles to do so?




No. I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.

Yes, the cost per print may be higher, but not if you have to
consider having to reprint each print 2 or more times during its
useful life.




That issue is debatable. Let me ask you if you have actually seen
any prints made by an Epson Photo inkjet printer using Epson Paper
and Epson ink that is 100 years old. How about 90 years. OK how
about 50 years. I even doubt if you have see result that are even 20
years old? Tests are simulations.

Also, many people have come to expect their photos to last for
numerous generations. I have B&W prints that are over 100 years old
from my great-great grandparents, from the "old country".



And I have prints made by professional photographers that are 30
years old and they have faded.

If they had been printed on many of the dye ink systems, they would
have been gone long before now.

We shouldn't have to accept going backwards in terms of permanence
of image to go forward with inkjet technology technology.

I'll admit that pigment colorant inks aren't without some
maintenance issues still being worked out, but considering that for
literally under $100 a person can own a printer that produces full
color photo quality prints that are waterproof and last over 90 years,



Will not be really proven beyond a reasonable doubt for another 80
years. I hope that you can find a way to let me know at that time.

we've come a long way.

The Epson Picturemate, as a 4x6" printer has resolved many of the
problems already. It uses Ultrachrome inks, (about 100 years fade
resistance) with the gloss optimizer fro high gloss prints, the
waste ink from cleaning goes back in the old cartridge, and costs
are frozen at $.39 or less, ink and paper, still too expensive in my
book, but a good start as a design.

I expect the next 5 years will offer rapidly printed and amazing
archival results from home printers at very reasonable prices and
few maintenance issues. We've come a long way already. The answer
may be inkjet or laser or something else, who knows.

Art


measekite wrote:

I am hoping that it is so subtle that I never see it. And in that
case, who cares. Besides, this issue is temporary. I think that
Canon will develop a new formulation of dye ink that will have a
tendency for longevity. At least long enough so it won't matter
and the print results will be the overriding factor.

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:43:29 -0800, ThomasH
wrote:



ThomasH wrote:
[...]


Other than that, my god, its a great printer. I got zero paper
jams,
zero head clogs, very reliable software. Quiet, fast operation,
fantastic
results. But, yet again here comes the "but": We have collected
over a 100
images already from our friends and relatives, which lost their
magenta





oops, I meant lost their cyan dye and look magenta! Sorry about
the mistake.





Yes, and the point you and Kennedy made is apposite. People who are
claiming no fading are under the impression, often, that it is just a
lightening of the print whereas it's often a colour shift, which can
be quite subtle at first.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Taliesyn wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote:

I have agree with Kennedy here.

You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it
was made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.


So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
and tires.

Thats right! And the same Honda model purchased 6 months apart can have
different non Honda parts but they are compatible and interchangable.
That said, I am not advocating that all 3rd party inks are truly
compatible. If I knew they were I would purchase them.

It's still a Honda

Good choice. Honda is the best value; especially the Accord.

drive I get. Likewise, if I get better
performance using non-OEM papers and inks, it's still a Canon print

Hopefully. That depends on how compatible the ink is. Some of the
really cheap inks and the really cheap papers are probably not true
representations of Canon.

I
receive. Call it semantics, call it what you like. I call printing
reality. I don't have any complaint against Canon. No one is forced to
use Canon's own after products. And my prints don't fade in dark drawers
in six months, which is the point of my whole argument. Personally,
keeping photos in one's drawers is a bit uncomfortable. .

especially when you have to go to the bathroom

.

If I printed a photo that happened to be photographed with a Canon
camera
with an Epson printer, using MIS inks and Fuji paper, could I call it
a "Canon print"? Just wondering.


You needn't wonder any longer.

Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
or even be Canon made.

-Taliesyn
__________________________________________________ ________
The Taliesyn Website: http://www.colba.net/~andresk

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:54:36 -0600, Brian Potter
wrote:

Water is NOT compatible with Vodka.

?????

Geo

In article , measekite
writes

According to your logic, the majority of the people on this NG are
producing prints from Epson printers that are not Epson prints,
including yourself. That is because, like yourself, they are using 3rd
party inks and many different brands of paper.

That is true, when that is what they are doing. And they cannot claim
Canon or Epson ageing characteristics if they are using non OEM
materials.

To me, if the inks and papers are truly Epson or Canon compatible,
then they are representative of the OEM and should share the majority
of the same characteristics.

On what basis do you reach that conclusion? I suggest you have a quick
review of the warranty on your printer, because Canon certainly reach a
different conclusion.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Brian Potter
writes
As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's still
a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.

I disagree - a "Canon print" is just that: printed by a Canon printer on
Canon paper using Canon ink. Anything else isn't a Canon print - and I
suspect that Canon would strongly object to their registered trade name
being used to describe it as such!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Taliesyn
writes
Arthur Entlich wrote:

I have agree with Kennedy here.
You called your test print a "Canon print" but then you indicate it
was made with neither Canon OEM inks or paper.


So what. I drive a Honda with a myriad of non-Honda recommended parts
and tires. It's still a Honda drive I get.

But not a Honda warranty. Those parts which you *can* change and retain
the Honda warranty have openly published specifications. Providing the
replacement part meets the Honda specification, Honda will honour the
warranty. They won't if you use a part which doesn't meet their
specification or if you change a part which does not have an open spec.
Canon ink does not have a published specification, nor does Canon paper.

Call it what you like, it's your print. Currently I call mine "Canon
prints taken with a Lumix Camera", or Canon prints for short. And I
don't need Kennedy's approval whether the camera should get any credit
or even be Canon made.

And I haven't suggested that you need *anyone's* approval. You are
perfectly at liberty to call your products whatever you like, but when
you are trying to converse with anyone else you will make more progress
if you use the same terminology instead of silly word games to imply you
have a brand name product when you actually have something that the
owner of the brand name would strongly object to having their name
associated with.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Tell me you are not an asshole.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

In article ,
measekite writes


I won't and all of my relatives won't be here in 100 years.

How fortunate for the future of the human race that you intend to end
you genetic line at this generation! ;-)

OK, lets say that they are Canon COMPATIBLE Prints printed on a CANON
printer.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

In article , Brian Potter
writes

As long as he didn't use a Lex mark, an HP or an Epson printer, it's
still
a 'Canon print' regardless of what expendables he used to make it.


I disagree - a "Canon print" is just that: printed by a Canon printer
on Canon paper using Canon ink. Anything else isn't a Canon print -
and I suspect that Canon would strongly object to their registered
trade name being used to describe it as such!