Ink Fading Torture Tests. Some unlikely results!

[Paul Verizzo]

A few weeks ago I posted the results of CLI-8 vs CLI-42 fading test. The latter was far superior, 2X or more, in resisting both UV and behind opaque, but gas mobile mask.

Now, I've taken down a few other sheets that have been in the Florida sun for four or five weeks. All are on Canon paper, one is CLI-8, the others, CLI-42. You can see it all here: http://1drv.ms/1Mge7JM If you open an image, click on the little "i" in the lower right hand corner for the comments I put in.

If you want the long, windy version, open the Word document.

If there is one "take away," from this, it is that gas degradation is many times worse than UV. Canon indirectly agrees with this by claiming a 20 year gas degradation life with Chromalife Plus inks, and 30 years for the UV testing. But hidden in the WIR test lines, so to speak, is that WIR uses a 500 lux test environment which is virtually exactly double what indirect sunlight is indoors. Yes, maybe a fluorescent lit office environment will match the WIR, but not a naturally lit one. Even if one uses some fluorescent lights at home at night, the hours typically used are minimal, and probably not as bright as indirect daylight.

Where I'm going with that last observation is that instead of a 30 year UV fade test rating, it's Real World 60 years. (And that's with a 12-18% fade of any one ink. There's still a lot of image to be had.)

The most important thing you can do for your dye prints is display under glass (which is how WIR does their UV tests) and use some lacquer front and back.

 

[Harvey]

Thanks for sharing this!​

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Thanks, Harvey. It's the incorrigible amateur scientist in me.

I should have mentioned that the gas fading test from Canon is NOT behind glass, it seems. So, that's open and naked. Since it's "100X accelerated" with high levels of ozone, nitrous and sulfur gases, I presume in the dark, no UV.

 

[Harvey]

You are welcome Paul, it is good to all members here that you share your experiments results. Canon knowing that Chromalife 100+ is better than the Chromalife 100 in CLI-8 carts, reduced the size of the carts compensating the size with better ink quality, this is the CLI-221-226-251 series, now with CLI-42 you get the same price of the shrunken carts, while retaining the ink quality, and some more milliliters.​

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

H. Wilhelm/WIR repeats his statements about the detrimental effect of microporous papers onto ozone stability of dye inks rather frequently, but I have not seen a test of various protective measures like varnish, lamination or else to reduce the ozone fading. It may be interesting whether the Epson Gloss Optimizer would have any protective properties in combination with dye inks -e.g. using a dye refill in a R2000 printing with GO.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Yes, the introduction of the improved ink should be one of those Harvard Business School studies. A much better ink with almost exactly the same name. Doh? Use it in only non-professional printers. (I think.) Wait seven years to finally do that. And what about simply supplying the new inks into the 9000 and supplying new paper profiles? They coulda done that in a New York minute. It's not like they came out with the PRO-100 a few months later to force a printer upgrade.

The reduced capacity of that cartridge series was enough to keep my ip4XXX printers alive as long as I can. I got an almost new 4500 a year ago and have a backup 4300.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

H. Wilhelm/WIR repeats his statements about the detrimental effect of microporous papers onto ozone stability of dye inks rather frequently, but I have not seen a test of various protective measures like varnish, lamination or else to reduce the ozone fading. It may be interesting whether the Epson Gloss Optimizer would have any protective properties in combination with dye inks -e.g. using a dye refill in a R2000 printing with GO.

Gas fading was why swellable polymer papers were the right choice for dye inks. Oh, wait, not so many years ago, they were the ONLY photo papers available! The ink would penetrate the gel molecules, making it a more complex molecule for the ozone, etc. to work on. That's my understanding, anyway.

So, yes, it's important to prevent air from getting to your dye print on microporous papers, whether by lacquer, varnish, or behind glass. Lacquer is superior to varnish in gas permeability, and glass still allows air exchange with temperature changes. My theory, anyway.

No reason to putz with GO with unknown permeability characteristics. An $8 can of lacquer in gloss, semi-matte/satin, or matte does the trick, fast and cheap.