Tim, thanks for doing this important test, now that Epson and Canon's dye inks have greatly increased longevity - and dye inks can produce more vibrant looking prints! Please keep us updated.
Hello, right now I'm struggling to find a printer that is good enough to print stickers at home and sell without them fading away.What is your best recommendation? Thank you!!
Would be great to hear in future your opinion on protective sprays: Does it improve longevity? Does it change the character of matte/lustre/glossy papers? Does it help with gloss differential?
So, for doing calendars for selling (table and wall models), is better go for pigment ink printer, right? Although in your test six months has past and the dye print keep good as new, the pigment ink is guarent that the result will last longer? Thank you so much, this series of video is helping a lot on my decision about which printer (and type of printer) bought.
Good to hear because I changed from a pigment to a dye printer recently. Canon Pro 10s to Pro 200. I. really like the 200, much nicer to use and beautiful prints too.
@@FotospeedUK I agree. I like dye printers and see no real difference in quality when examining prints. Pigment printers are nice, of course. I'm just not sure if they're worth the expense for the average home printer. Most papers are made to absorb and work to incorporate dye inks into them chemically so as to preserve them. The process is far more complicated than I can describe, let alone understand.
I believe a control print or reprint fresh should be done. I would also like it compared to a standard lab print and archival lab print. For a lot of of us it is a choice to own a printer or not. Last time I owned a photo printer was about 15 years ago and am deciding if I should go down the path again.
Thank you sincerely for the wonderful comparison video! I was actually kind of surprised to see that (by at least from the camera) the dye-based print looks significantly better than the pigment-based print. It really does look way nicer than the "archival" pigment-base. Is that just the camera? I say "kind of surprised," because I've been printing and selling prints off of my Canon Pixma Pro-100 (dye-based) for a few years, still have many of those original prints around (because I use them as print samples), and they still look fantastic. I print them using off-brand inks (I know, shame shame) on Canon Pro Luster photo paper (my redeeming quality) at a full-bleed 13x19", and they look gorgeous. Printed directly from Photoshop on Saturate, bright, colorful, clean and sharp. These posters come with me to trade shows and are hung up on photo stands for 3-5 days straight, in indoor fluorescent-light vendor halls, low-light hotels and outdoor tents, many times per year. The reason why I'm watching this video and studying the differences, is because suddenly my Pro-100 decided to stop printing black and cyan inks. :/ I can't explain it, and no matter what I do or try, I cannot get it to print normal again. So I'm desperately looking for a solution and wondering if the famed, "professional standard" transition from dye to pigment is really worth it or necessary. From my own experience in art, production and printing with solely dye, it looks like the differences honestly may appear to be more negligible than people expect. Which makes me wonder, how much of this statement really is just marketing? Just being realistic, I don't expect my customers to keep one of my prints for more than a few years, let alone pass them down to their grandchildren. Do we really need prints that will live longer than we do? With the way trends fluctuate over decades, I hardly think half my work may even be relevant in 20 years, let alone 150. I know some very sweet, long-term supporters who still have my work from nearly a decade ago, bless their hearts, so I hope I'm not sounding too pessimistic, haha. (T¬T) But I honestly think it's kind of silly to be looking that far into the future. More or less, I'm starting to think that maybe the "Archival Pigment lasts longer than dyes, therefore is better" statement is getting a bit blown up. ;(>
I have a question/comment. I thought most modern window glass was UV-blocking. I wonder if putting the photo up against a window actually protects it from UV light? I am sure that modern dye inks do last a long time. Just wonder if they may be a better test?
@@FotospeedUK From what I can find, window glass in general blocks UVB rays only, the vitamin D producing rays, while it lets a large percentage of UVA rays through. When glass is laminated with plastic, such as with front car windows, this blocks most of the UVA rays too. Tests show that drivers are getting skin cancer from their side windows (on the left side in the US). And since vitamin D fights skin cancer, and people indoors are often behind glass that blocks UVB, the vitamin D producing rays, but are still getting harmful UVA rays, skin cancers are largely happening in people who live behind glass, not in those who get sun while being outdoors, where they can get vitamin D from the sun, if it's at an angle of 45° or higher, which may not happen in the UK in winter.
You should have printed 2 of each and kept 1 as a control in a dark box so you could have compared them. Also with the epson 8550, you can change to pigment from the get go and have the best of both worlds.
If you want to see a noticeable difference on the synthetic dye ink (Claria Premium, Chromalife 100+, Innobella), it would take around 4 years. Edit: If you protect the photos (like framing) it would take longer to see degradation.
@@petergrant9848 That makes sense and I really should have worked that out for myself, having ran a Pixma 8750, that very model, for six years until only eight weeks ago, to be replaced by an Epson Eco-tank 8500.
The 8550 is a great printer better colour gamut than my epson pigment printer in fact on some shades of colours better gamut than my profiled apple 5k monitor,also on glossy paper not a trace of bronzing and other finish defects pigment printers suffer from.
