Interesting testimony from Mark McCormick

[palombian]

in this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4298123

>
No disagreement about the value of comparative testing. However, it should be understood that in a window fade test cycle, the temperatures at the print surface can soar above 60C at the print surface and severe desiccation occurs during the light cycles, i.e., moisture content in the prints go down to unrealistically low levels. Because the fading of the pigments is a photo-oxidation reaction where moisture and temperature levels should ideally be controlled during both light and dark cycles, an encouraging window test should actually be followed up by more controlled studies before a final conclusion can be confidently drawn. For example, Inks using polymer encapsulation techniques versus inks that don't have them can reverse course under the two differing sets of environmental conditions (i.e., different moisture/desiccation response at typical real world temperature cycling conditions versus high temperature cyclical conditions in a typical window fade test).


That said, I recently tested a third party pigmented ink set designed for Canon printers under a more controlled test for a private paying client. FWIW, I rarely do private testing because the test results cannot be added to the Aardenburg light fade test database, and besides, few parties wish to pay for them. This particular study didn't go to as high an exposure dose as I would have liked to accomplish because the client had only modest requirements for fade resistance, but I was pleasantly surprised to see this third party ink set hold its own against the OEM inks in all regards (initial image quality and light fade resistance) whereas most third party inks I have tested in the past would have already shown weakness compared to OEM at the total exposure dose completed in this test. I mention this result to underscore the fact that although many third party inks are nowhere near as good as OEM, in a few instances over the years I have tested some that are. However, the only way to know for sure is to conduct a properly instrumented and environmentally controlled test. Unfortunately, most ink and media combinations rarely get tested properly even for OEM let alone third party.


cheers,
Mark
<

We never will know wich ink, but it still must to be possible to make good 3th party inks.

 

[ccc]

in this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4298123

>
No disagreement about the value of comparative testing. However, it should be understood that in a window fade test cycle, the temperatures at the print surface can soar above 60C at the print surface and severe desiccation occurs during the light cycles, i.e., moisture content in the prints go down to unrealistically low levels. Because the fading of the pigments is a photo-oxidation reaction where moisture and temperature levels should ideally be controlled during both light and dark cycles, an encouraging window test should actually be followed up by more controlled studies before a final conclusion can be confidently drawn. For example, Inks using polymer encapsulation techniques versus inks that don't have them can reverse course under the two differing sets of environmental conditions (i.e., different moisture/desiccation response at typical real world temperature cycling conditions versus high temperature cyclical conditions in a typical window fade test).


That said, I recently tested a third party pigmented ink set designed for Canon printers under a more controlled test for a private paying client. FWIW, I rarely do private testing because the test results cannot be added to the Aardenburg light fade test database, and besides, few parties wish to pay for them. This particular study didn't go to as high an exposure dose as I would have liked to accomplish because the client had only modest requirements for fade resistance, but I was pleasantly surprised to see this third party ink set hold its own against the OEM inks in all regards (initial image quality and light fade resistance) whereas most third party inks I have tested in the past would have already shown weakness compared to OEM at the total exposure dose completed in this test. I mention this result to underscore the fact that although many third party inks are nowhere near as good as OEM, in a few instances over the years I have tested some that are. However, the only way to know for sure is to conduct a properly instrumented and environmentally controlled test. Unfortunately, most ink and media combinations rarely get tested properly even for OEM let alone third party.


cheers,
Mark
<

We never will know wich ink, but it still must to be possible to make good 3th party inks.

Using high end lab equipment- spectrphotometers etc, material data sheets, and sources (British Chemical Society etc) and best sources of pigments like BASF, it isn't hard to formulate a passable piggment ink At least one US based maker has mastered the encapsulation technique. There's daylight outside exposed rockwall pigment art around the world thats thousands of years old. Hardly surprrising if Chinese chemists can' get close to matching ink technology.

 

[The Hat]

Because the fading of the pigments is a photo-oxidation reaction where moisture and temperature levels should ideally be controlled during both light and dark cycles, an encouraging window test should actually be followed up by more controlled studies before a final conclusion can be confidently drawn

There’s nothing wrong with window testing, and it’s the best way of knowing just what type of ink you are using, no one leave their prints in a window environment but unknown to Mark (Brilliant as he is) the levels of exposure that everyday prints get is enormous.

You only have to look at the furnishing in your own house to see the fade levels not to mention the wall paint, so if your prints can withstand a week or two in the Feckin window without noticeable fading then there’re good to go..

There's daylight outside exposed rockwall pigment art around the world thats thousands of years old. Hardly surprrising if Chinese chemists can' get close to matching ink technology.

Bollocks, because you don’t have to purchase ink in China for it to be crap, it’s not a regional based thing.. Bad ink can be found world wide.. OEM ink is still King..
Question:- have you ever used quality Chinese inks ?

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I don't place my targets for fading tests against a glass window - I place them directly outside - with even more fluctuations of the parameters - temp, humidity, UV exposure etc and do it all on a comparative level - always together with patches with the same ink set on the same paper - and measurements directly show which ink reaches a particular level of change faster than another ink - all as relative numbers within a time window.

 

[ccc]

The actual environmental character of the display environment is not the relevant item for us. It's the comparison with an OEM product against a test product. The more fierce the environment, the better. The result we look for is merely how third party ink looks after a few weeks compared with how our test ink looks, both on the same substrate.
In our tests we saw that the Chinese ink easily outlasted the OEM ink.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Are you able to reveal which Chinese ink you tested against which OEM ink ?

 

[The Hat]

In our tests we saw that the Chinese ink easily outlasted the OEM ink.

No because in his last post he was criticising Chinese chemists for their poor inks, so which is it… Plus or Minus… Please tell..

Hardly surprrising if Chinese chemists can' get close to matching ink technology.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

We can go on and talk about Chinese inks or genuine inks etc but as long as the types of ink and the supplier are not specified and w/o reference to some test results it's all w/o much relevance, there is just not the one Chinese ink outperforming the Canon ink.
It's not so much that Chinese chemists wouldn't be able to design a great ink but it is much more about cost at the end. Canon and Epson use different types of dye inks in different printer product ranges - from inks performing as weak as 3rd party inks like the Epson 664 or the Canon GI-51 inks for the G1510 megatank printer up to very good inks like the Epson Claria or the Canon Chromalife 100+ inks. And you find the same game - the dye inks for the Epson larger format printers like the T3100x or the HP T120 and similar models are not designed for longevity - they are used for proof prints or posters for sales actions/short term use. And yes, it is possible that a Chinese ink can outperform these inks . I just remember a Chinese ink for the Epson Surelab D700 photostation printer wlhich was on par with the Epson dye inks.

 

[maximilian59]

The problem with Chinese inks is that you seldom know whether you get the same quality over a longer period. Especially when you by small quantities or cartridges. There are ink developers also in Europe which produce inks for the professional market, but are they interested in producing for home use? I know from at least one professional printmaker, that he uses aftermarket inks an a Epson roll printer. He made his own profiles and some own tests. He stated for a time less then about 30 years on the wall there is no difference. That is enough for the normal household hanging prints on the wall. I had prints from him hanging in a exhibition for one year glassed behind windows in a ice cream parlour (Eisdiele) with a lot of sun. There was no visible effect at the borders. The prints where behind a passepartout with 1cm overlapping. Thats a severe window test for pigmented inks on a good priced paper with pearl surface.
So like @The Hat already wrote, you have to look what is your purpose for the prints. Selling and giving a promise or guaranty it’s better to use tested combinations, selling cheaper without any guarantees take good aftermarket pigmented inks. Printing for the family album I would use OEM for dye inks on good OEM paper. Normally these albums are meant to stay longer than one generation. for the rest at home take what you will afford. Nowadays we can refill with very good bottled OEM inks what makes printing already much cheaper or buy a tank printer. Compared to the money most amateurs spend for the photography equipment including computer and screen, the print is the cheapest of all.

 

[palombian]

.... Compared to the money most amateurs spend for the photography equipment including computer and screen, the print is the cheapest of all.

Indeed but I (we) can't resist printing on the cheap .