As a rule, dyes that have good UV fade resistance have inversely bad ozone fade resistance

[pharmacist]

The use of that stuff I reckon would being the average printer to a full Dead stop,but your colours would still look great in 100 years..

Well, I think my body will stay fresh and without any wrinkles when compared side by side with the printout after 100 years.

 

[martin0reg]

Who said: "It`s better to burn out than to fade away" ?

Regarding the "rule" in the title - it might apply on canon dye, but epson clariah seems to be more resistant against UV AND ozone.
A geman magazine "colorfoto" is testing the loss of color from UV and from ozone in his printer reviews. Here are my collected results of the last years reading these reviews (all OEM material):

Loss of color in dLab (less is better) / Points (max 7,5 Points):
after 200hrs under 20kLux .... after 1200ppm ozone

PIGMENT (epson K3 - canon lucia - HP vivera)
Epson Stylus Pro 3800-2880
1,0 dLab / 7,0 Punkte ..... 5,6 Lab / 6,5 Punkte

HP Photosmart Pro B8850
1,0 dLab / 7,0 Punkte ..... 4,4 Lab / 7,0 Punkte

Canon Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II
2,0 dLab / 6,5 Punkte ..... 2,6 Lab / 7,0 Punkte

Canon Pixma IX7000
2,0 dLab / 6,5 Punkte ...... 6,5 Lab / 6,5 Punkte


DYE (epson claria)
Epson Stylus Photo 1400
2,0 dLab / 6,5 Punkte ...... 18 Lab / 4,5 Punkte

Epson Stylus Photo P50
2,0 dLab / 6,5 Punkte ...... 17 Lab / 4,5 Punkte


DYE (canon chromalife100/2005 100+ 2008 incl papier)
Canon Pixma Pro9000 Mk II
5,5 dLab / 5,0 Punkte ....... 33,0 Lab / 2,0 Punkte

Pixma IX 5000
5,5 dLab / 5,0 Punkte ...... 36,0 Lab / 1,5 Punkte

Pixma iP4500
5,5 dLab / 5,0 Punkte ...... 36,5 Lab / 1,5 Punkte
Pixma ip4600-4700 (new ink?)
2,5 dLab / 6,5 Punkte ...... 20 dLab / 4 Punkte


PS: The reviews are hard to find on their homepage, here is the epson P50:
http://www.colorfoto.de/produkte/epson-stylus-photo-p50-355101.html

 

[jtoolman]

Funny you should mention that. I remember the first old KODAK Ektacolor Prints I ever made were treaded after the last wash to a bath of so called "Stabilizer" which was actually 2% solution or 37% formaldehyde before drying.

 

[Lucas28]

It's also said that pigment ink prints are less resistant to air pollution in general (not only O3).

But in a frame the prints won't fade easily. The front is protected against pollution by the glass, and the back is protected by a tight coating.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

With dye ink, don't forget the porosity of the paper from the rear. Ten years ago, we had a multitude of papers that would have been ideal...swellable that would have done more than what pharmacist is proposing ( I think) as it would actually dissolve into the gelatinous layer and totally surround the dye molecules. Even without super lightfast inks, swellable papers do an excellent job at extending the life of prints made with normal dye ink. No extra coatings would have been necessary. Unfortunately these type of papers were misunderstood and coupled with the rise of pigment inks, hardly any remain in the market, if any. Just to cite an example I picked up many many years ago a large stash of these in the 13x19 sizes , HP Premium Plus, at the flea market going for a pittance. I think the last holdouts were Ilford Galerie CLASSIC line and the HP type from a few years back. Occasionally, you'll see these papers appear on Ebay possibly sourced from a clearout surplus situation.

The weakest point with these papers is that they are NOT waterproof at all.

Ozone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

One thing that comes up with the two part mix is that dye ink will dive beneath the RC layer and the polymerisation layer will stay on top thus missing the dye below....and the porosity issue as well. Also with the gloss optimizer, its performance will vary by paper; larger pored coated papers will have different looks as compared to tighter pored coats because the penetration of the optimizer varies. Unless you incorporate a driver that allows variation of the optimize density on the fly.

Some of the better papers have an obvious PE backing, like Ilford Galerie.

If you love a paper w/o the backing, just spray shellac the back. Totally waterproof.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Funny you should mention that. I remember the first old KODAK Ektacolor Prints I ever made were treaded after the last wash to a bath of so called "Stabilizer" which was actually 2% solution or 37% formaldehyde before drying.

VERY interesting because, as you say, formaldehyde was the principle ingredient in the stabilizer in color film and paper processing in its early days and still found in some formulations.

My thinking is that the stabilizer was to help prevent self-destruction, oxidation, and similar issues. Surely wouldn't have to do with UV, since everyone knew you just don't put your prints in the sunlight.

According to some seemingly knowledgeable folks, the stabilizer does other things:


http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00ZY4o

 

[pharmacist]

Revive dye prints with formaldehyde fumes.....and me fainting and gasping for air after having inhaled the toxic fumes .

 

[3dogs]

One could use formaldehyde to revive the colours in a faded dye ink print. Not ideal, as it is quite toxic .

One could use formaldehyde to revive the colours in a faded dye ink print. Not ideal, as it is quite toxic .

What about pre coat back with GO, slows ingress from behind. We do lots to protect the image side, but very little to insulate the back.
Whichever, the air is becoming a more complex element due to pollution.