Do pigment inks fade slower than dye inks ?

[Ink stained Fingers]

I'm reading quite frequently a statement that pigment inks perform better in regards to fading than dye inks. I consider such statement quite meaningless since no details at all are available - which inks are compared - 3rd party dye vs. OEM pigment ? - or any other combination of inks - which printer(s) have been used - which paper has been used in such test ? Is it based on personal observation - under which conditions ? the subject overall is more complex than the simple statement implies - part of the problem is non-availability of good evidence, and test reports - if they are available - do not make their way to those making that statement.

There are two sources of detailed test reports - the Wilhelm Research operation and the Aardenburg imaging organisation

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ - WIR

https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/

I'll stick to the WIR reports since they offer already comparative data, the Aardenburg tests are done for a specific ink/printer/paper combination, and you need to pull several reports together for a comparison.

Let me start with an OEM dye ink - Epson Claria - used on a wide range of desktop printers since more than 15 years. The Claria dye inkset is used on various printers like the Photo 1400, R280 and RX595 and more

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_EpRX595_2008_06_16.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_EpR280_2008_01_16.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_Artisan800_2008_09_06.pdf

I'm only looking the the data on the first (few) pages, and here to the left column 'Displayed prints framed under glass', it lists the useful time for a print under particular conditions which are kept identical for various tests. The numbers vary just slightly for different papers around 100 years for this 'Display Permanence Rating'.

Several recent tests by @maxilian59 last year and myself show that the Canon Chromalife 100 inkset performs quite the same as the Claria inks, I just cannot find a corresponding WIR test. Both these OEM inks are very similar with their fading performance/longevity. And how do these dye inks compare to an OEM pigment ink - in this case the Lucia ink set for a Canon Pro9500 which is still in use by various forum members. There is a WIR test report

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Can9500_2007_12_28.pdf

with a permanence rating of 104 - 95 years - almost exactly the same as the Claria ink - or the dye Chromalife inks

This already shows that the opening statement about the better longevity of pigment inks needs some more backup of data - could it be that a poor 3rd party dye ink - one of those fast fade inks - get substituted by an OEM pigment ink with much better performance - nobody knows which makes this statement meaningless.

Let me go into a comparison of of longevity data for various OEM pigment inks in a next posting, lots of recent tests have shown that OEM dye inks are far superior to 3rd party dye inks, there is no need to repeat all that data and the competition for the fastest fading ink............And I won't address the fading of 3D prints at all - I leave that testing to WIR

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/WIR...of_3D_Printed_Objects_RA_HW_JL_2018-09-26.pdf

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

A simple question may come up if and how much OEM pigment inks differ with this permanence rating, WIR published an extensive report about this question here

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Can..._and_Photo_Papers_Final_Report_2020-06-01.pdf

These inks are tested - older Canon inks as the original Lucia inks - the updated newer Lucia Pro inks - the older Epson K3 inks - the latest Epson HDX inks - and HP Vivera inks, all these inks are tested on the same set of 9 different papers by Canson, this test shows again how much the permanence rating/longevity varies with the paper type - up to a ratio of 2

73 - 128____wtih the orig. Lucia inks, the value of the above Pro9500 test of about 100 fits into this range
37 - 78 ____ with the updated Lucia Pro inks , the rating drops to about half of the orig. Lucia inks and below the performance of the Chromalife inks.

45 - 88____ with the older Epson K3 inks
96 - 138___ with the newest Epson HDX inks , almost doubling the rating of the K3 inks

156 - 246__ the HP Vivera inks excel by far all other Canon or Epson inks

So the choice is yours if highest longevity is your concern.

How much is left from the assumption that pigment inks fade slower than dye inks ? There is still one big black hole of information - I'm not aware of any relevant information about the performance of 3rd party pigment inks - all those Inktec - precisioncolors - Conecolors etc inks - so a user of Inktec inks still may make the observation that those Inktec pigment inks will last much longer than prints with Inktec dye inks, and he will propagate that statement.

 

[The Hat]

A simple question may come up if and how much OEM pigment inks differ with this permanence rating

I reckon inkjet printer users need to get a grip on themselves, because free lunches are as rare as the Dodo bird, it’s an expensive business to print with OEM ink but if you don’t use high quality papers, then you might as well stick with 3rd party inks, longevity costs real money..

I started a switch to pigment inks, back in 2009, not because I wanted longevity for anything like 100 years but because I wanted something that would still look good in 20 years.

But when I made the changeover I had been using 3rd party dye inks which we all know are rubbish at lasting more than 12 months, and yet at that time I still didn’t see the need to use OEM pigment inks in my new printers.

Once I got the printer it was never used with OEM pigment ink again, 3rd party pigment ink were good enough to satisfy my needs and still are to this day, I mix and blend some inks for better looking colours, and most of my stock is over ten years old..

Because I don’t use my Maxify printer that often I made a conscious decision to use OEM ink on that for operation reasons and not for longevity reasons, OEM ink worked better and created far less clogs..

That’s my two cent worth..

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I made a conscious decision to use OEM ink on that for operation reasons and not for longevity reasons,

I think that's the core point - making a conscious decision balancing various arguments - and not just relying on hearsay without further proof.

 

[Artur5]

I don't know if this matter is detailed on the Wilhem and Aardenburg repports, (haven't read any of these, I'm afraid ). How they rate the fading performance of inks ?. i.e. : they test only endurance to UV light ?. They test the resistance to ozone ?. Both combined ?.
I read somewhere time ago (yes. hearsay again.. ) that pigment ink stands better than dye the exposure to oxidant gases (ozone mainly ) but they aren't better than dye for UV light resistance

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

How they rate the fading performance of inks ?. i.e. : they test only endurance to UV light ?. They test the resistance to ozone ?. Both combined ?.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Can..._and_Photo_Papers_Final_Report_2020-06-01.pdf


Both is tested - but primarily for UV stability - there is a column 'Unprotected Resistance to Ozone (7) in the test pages

Read the remarks (5) and (7) in the latter part of the document

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

The second column from left gives you access to various publications about fading, testing etc and if you want to know more you can download a book

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

Chapters 2 and 3 will give you more details. here a link to chapter 2

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_02_of_20_HiRes_v1c.pdf

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

pigment ink stands better than dye the exposure to oxidant gases (ozone mainly ) but they aren't better than dye for UV light resistance

It's all a matter of the exposure dose at the end; you would find details of such tests in scientific magazines and publications - mostly behind paywalls.

 

[The Hat]

It's all a matter of the exposure dose and the end

I’m a bit of an odd bod, because I reckon these tests are just futile, their tests are done under lab. Conditions, to be credible, but you can’t beat simply putting your own test sheets out in the fresh air and every day conditions, or simply leave them laying around indoors exposed to the normal home environment..

P.S. ultimately that's where most of your prints end up residing, in the house..

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

There is a WIR article discussing some issues with fading tests - humidity - the re-calculation of high intensity test results into a low intensity environment - the living room - reciprocity - temperature influence ; it's from 2001 but the principle thoughts still apply.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_ISTpaper_2001_10_HW_MMG.pdf

I'm not recalculating my test results into any reasonable usage mega-hours or years or similar, I'm comparing the performance of an assumed good sample - the Epson 106 ink on a glossy 240/300 paper - with the other targets under test - other inks and/or other papers, and this gives me some ranking. So I'm testing the 106 ink everytime again against other test targets.

 

[The Hat]

I'm comparing the performance of an assumed good sample - the Epson 106 ink on a glossy 240/300 paper - with the other targets under test -

All your tests are very relevant and well received and are as fair and as honest as you can make them, so in my book they are 100% creditable..