Mikko Kankainen Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 (edited) Thinking to buy this printer, but it does not use pigment ink and I have always though that pigment ink is the way to go if you want longevity. It is same with Epson surelab printers. Usually dye based inks last only few years if they are exposed to uv light... So is there any information how will these prints last? I have a Canon Pro 2000, and they say that those prints will last even 100 years but it uses pigment ink. I also have DNP ds-620 and they claim that those will last over 50 years. And yes I know, all depends how the conditions. Edited July 5 by Mikko Kankainen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minilab service Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 The most modern dry printers use dye ink. DE100 is one of them. Ink is sprayed on paper surface. It is not UV proof. Also water, or high humidity can effect prints. How long you have photos depends on used ink. I know few cases when pictures on photos printed using some unknown Chinese ink almost vanished during two years. DE100 original ink is a little better, if compare with with other inks, but can't expect miracle. Pigment ink is better. Ink has different constitution, so on paper it will hold better. These pictures have longer, but not 100 years. Noritsu made pigment ink printers, but it was long time ago. The same printers re-branded and sold Fuji ( painted green-white and used other software ) . Now both companies do not offer printers with pigment ink. All dry printers make photo, where picture is above the paper surface. How long will last depends on ink. On minilabs ( wet printers ) picture is inside paper. Then pictures have very long time. No one dry printer can be compared with them. I saw official compare table from Noritsu. There compared dye ink prints, pigment ink prints and photos printed on wet labs. Now I can't find this document on my computer, but remember, that time difference between dry labs and wet labs was very big. Mikko Kankainen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hivanov Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 This is a very complicated matter with two much variables. it involved not only resistance to light but also gases, scratch resistance, humidity absorption , material deterioration and more. Just FYI ~75% of all printed images will be lost forever in the first 50 Years of there existence ... up to 100 years percents goes to 98! Main reason is not light but physical damages of the material! On your question DE100 has worse performance of all dry lab printers in term of UV resistance. Epson D series inks are far better. Pigment is not a solution - even that is much less prone to fade under light and ozone it has other problems. Wet lab (silver halide/ photosensitive paper) is not that great either. Take lo look for your self - simulated 35 Years exposed unprotected indoor use - Top left - Epson D700 - epson ink and paper Bottom left - Fujifilm Crystal Archive II paper, CP49 chemistry, Fujifilm LP7100 Bottom right - DE100 - fujifilm ink and paper Top right - Lasster - archival technology that we develop with life span 1000+ years - just for reference top image before test Bottom - after test Mikko Kankainen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko Kankainen Posted July 7 Author Report Share Posted July 7 Thank you very interesting! And very strange that I could not grt aswer from dealers or Fuji, maybe because of this. Will skip DE100 and look Epson instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hivanov Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Do not get me wrong. The fact that De100 has the least longevity in term of light resistance does not make it a bad choice. It is good enough in this regard. But it is far better device in term of trouble free operation and overall performance compared to epson`s. I would choose DE100 over of D1000/D700/800 any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minilab service Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Ask Fuji to compare Fuji DE100 and Fuji DX100. Maybe then can say something. DE100 is printer made using Fuji, Ricoh and Xerox technologies. DX-100 is printer made by Epson ( green painted SL-D700 ) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko Kankainen Posted July 7 Author Report Share Posted July 7 (edited) Yes I understand that. But newest Epson D1000, is what I’m thinking. But you say it also has troubles. Maybe I’ll just stick what I have I just think that professional prints must last more than 10-30 years. Edited July 7 by Mikko Kankainen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko Kankainen Posted July 7 Author Report Share Posted July 7 2 minutes ago, Minilab service said: Ask Fuji to compare Fuji DE100 and Fuji DX100. Maybe then can say something. DE100 is printer made using Fuji, Ricoh and Xerox technologies. DX-100 is printer made by Epson ( green painted SL-D700 ) . I asked already. No reply at least yet. And I suppose I never get any reply but we’ll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hivanov Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 You won't get such information from any of them. Manufacturers are very careful of their print longevity claims because they can be sued. Back in the 70s, 80s Kodak claims their prints will last a "lifetime" .. well they did not and they get lawsuit. The sad thing is that in a 100- 150 Years from now on, there will be no visual evidence of our personal existence despite thousand of tons images that we produce in our lifetime. Prints are vulnerable. Digital? Unless you spend ton of money now and make sure the generation after you will continue spend it.. it is a lost cause. Cloud? It is just someone else computer. Where will be Google, Apple, Facebook etc after 100 Years? No one knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko Kankainen Posted July 9 Author Report Share Posted July 9 DNP’s distributor said that they give quarantee that prints last at least 100 years. But yes there is a lot of things in future that we dont know, about cloud services etc. But dye based inks that many uses now and the fact that people think that fading pictures are thing that only happened in 60’s and 70’s is what I am after. Is it ok that we just accept it? Is paper only temporary media that lasts 10 years and then customers just make another one fron digital backup/negative? I think that customers should know that their prints wont last even as long as did the ones that are made in 70’s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave S Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 (edited) Prints can last a very long time if they are stored in a cool dark dry place, which I think you find will be stated in small print of any 100 year claim from any manufacturer. Any print that is on display and subjected to UV light is going to fade. My parents have a collage on the wall and funnily enough the old photos that were printed using the old EP2 process have lasted much longer than the newer RA-4 printed photos. I suspect it is due to the better washing of the prints with EP2, as RA-4 used stabliser instead of water. I do wonder what will be left of today's digitally stored media in 100 years time, stuck on cloud storage somewhere where the passwords have been forgotten, on an old hard drive that has since died. Photos/ negatives in a biscuit tin still seem like the best option! Edited July 9 by Dave S Mikko Kankainen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hivanov Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 Quote DNP’s distributor said that they give quarantee that prints last at least 100 years. But yes there is a lot of things in future that we dont know, about cloud services etc. But dye based inks that many uses now and the fact that people think that fading pictures are thing that only happened in 60’s and 70’s is what I am after. Is it ok that we just accept it? Is paper only temporary media that lasts 10 years and then customers just make another one fron digital backup/negative? I think that customers should know that their prints wont last even as long as did the ones that are made in 70’s. Day based ink are not that bad as you think. Some dyes can last longer than some pigments. Anyway there are using dye based inks for small format printers for a reason. Small format prints are meant for album storage mostly and highly likely to be touched and passed hand to hand many times. all of that not so good for pigment. Not to mention that there is now way to have decent glossy finish with the pigment. Not sure under what conditions DNP 100 give 100 years of guarantee but most likely is for album storage and it is "up to" 100 years. But it is what it is. Any technology has its pros and cons. Quote Prints can last a very long time if they are stored in a cool dark dry place, which I think you find will be stated in small print of any 100 year claim from any manufacturer. Any print that is on display and subjected to UV light is going to fade. My parents have a collage on the wall and funnily enough the old photos that were printed using the old EP2 process have lasted much longer than the newer RA-4 printed photos. I suspect it is due to the better washing of the prints with EP2, as RA-4 used stabliser instead of water. I do wonder what will be left of today's digitally stored media in 100 years time, stuck on cloud storage somewhere where the passwords have been forgotten, on an old hard drive that has since died. Photos/ negatives in a biscuit tin still seem like the best option! Yea, high temperatures and high humidity are worst for any prints. Global warming does not help in that regard either. Yes, new processes are bad for longevity. As faster is the process as worse. According to our tests there is significant difference even in between CP48 and CP49... not in favour of fastest one. Also if you can't keep washing tanks clean and treat the solutions properly with something like FSC100 you can forget of long album storage life. Back in the days we even use deioniser and filters for the water needs for preparing chemistry! Is anyone still doing that? And yes, photos in a box is most reliable and inexpensive method for consumer photo archives by far. Just don't use biscuit box but wooden one. Mikko Kankainen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.