Old Pigment Epsons Fading to Green?

[Frank Petronio]

Maybe it was just the way I was printing back then, but going through a bunch of old color Epson pigment prints from 2007-08 I was struck by how green they were, consistently. Back then I was using an Epson 2200 with the Ilford Pearl RC type paper, I don't remember forgetting the Magenta!

Has anyone else had prints leaching Magenta from older color ink jets? I think my B&Ws were also contrastier, like they lost something too. Might just be my eyes or brain fooling me too though, I may have been in a very green state of mind... I know I am a better printer and the new papers and printer do better color. They aren't as bad as the Epson 1100 prints from the 90s! (Yet my 1992 Iris prints are still going strong!)

[Vaughn]

Sometimes I think that with today's "Dump the new and get the newer", the term "archival" means that it will last until you get tired of looking at it.

But, yeah...the old magenta goes bye-bye pretty quickly. Funny...I have old inkjet prints on regular computer paper that have maintained color better than the same image printed at the same time with the same printer/inks on inkjet "photo paper". I think it is because the ink got into the paper and was less accessable to UV than with the photo paper where the ink sits more on the surface of the paper (and perhaps the one uses less ink with inkjet photo paper).

[Brian C. Miller]

How were they stored/mounted/displayed? I have a big one, stored in the dark, only displayed under UV blocking glass, which has lasted since 2004, no problems.

[Frank Petronio]

Mostly in sleeves in the dark, so maybe those archival polypro or polyester sleeves had something to do with it?

[Brian Ellis]

I printed with the 2200 for several years. Coincidentally I happened to have occasion just yesterday to go through all my color prints including those printed with my old 2200. There was no obvious fading, discoloration, or any other problem in any of them that I noticed in a quick run-through. FWIW my prints are stored in boxes sold by Light Impressions and Adorama. I didn't start any serious digital color printing until about 2004 so the color prints don't go back very far.

[Drew Wiley]

Hopefully I won't be accused of being anti-digital for stating this, but once
again there's the possibility that the optimism of accelerated aging tests don't always replicate real world conditions. All one has to do is peruse some of the inkjet patents to see that not all the dyes used to color certain
pigments are first rate in terms of permanence. Other characteristics have
to take priority. This was certainly the case with certain magenta components. Of course, I can't speak for every tweak out there, or for every combination of ink and paper, any more than anyone else can. But
this kind of experience should make one wary of all the marketing hype.
After all, how does one know something has two hundred years of archival permanence when it's only been on the market a few years, or
not yet at all?

[Peter De Smidt]

It could be the ink/paper combo.

[vinny]

did you label it "archival inkjet", if not, that's your problem. That's what everyone is doing these days and it seems to be working.

[Vaughn]

did you label it "archival inkjet", if not, that's your problem. That's what everyone is doing these days and it seems to be working.

So true...:D

[Frank Petronio]

Probably the paper, the Ilford Pearl was the "low cost" paper I used for give-aways and sleeved portfolio prints, I used better stuff for exhibits and sales. The Quadtone RIP prints look good.

[ROL]

did you label it "archival inkjet", if not, that's your problem. That's what everyone is doing these days and it seems to be working.

HA!

FYI: By way of update, I learned only last week that these days the official terminology for sellable inkjet technology prints is "Pigment Print" (no joke). Hmm... the emperor has no clothes.

[Drew Wiley]

Well it is a tad misleading to call an inkjet a pigment print. The inks are technically composed of pigments, but these are very complex blends of true pigments, lakes, and simply dyed inert particles which behave more like dyes per se. Then you have no true
emulsion involved with its own potentially preservative value, but only a substrate. The
pigments per se obviously have to be very small and work well in a programmable gamut.
A lot more complicated than choosing a CMYK system based upon specific process colors.
No doubt companies like Epson have spent a lot of effort trying to factor in optimal permanence too, but that fact should always be weighed against the inevitable tendency
for marketeers and galleries to utilize the largest BS coefficient available.

[Brian Ellis]

ROL said in part "FYI: By way of update, I learned only last week that these days the officialterminology for sellable inkjet technology prints is "Pigment Print" (no joke). Hmm... the emperor has no clothes." (emphasis in the original)

Where did you learn that? I didn't know there was an official terminology. Who established it and what makes it official?

[sanking]

I think it is fine if one wants to call prints made with inkjet prints that use pigment inksets "Pigment Prints." The term has been used, generally for prints that used pigment in conjunction with some type of colloid (gum arabic, fish glue, gelatin, etc.) but no one with reasonable knowledge of the look of different process prints would ever confuse a print made with an inkjet printer with one of these historical prints.

Photographers who sell their work will label it as they like, or not label it at all if they don't care to. I personally write on the back of any print that I might exhibit my name, title of the print, date, and process type. Process type for inkjet pigment prints might also include the name of the inkset, say "Epson K3" or "K7 Piezography" or "Vivera."

Sandy

[sanking]

Hopefully I won't be accused of being anti-digital for stating this, but once
again there's the possibility that the optimism of accelerated aging tests don't always replicate real world conditions. All one has to do is peruse some of the inkjet patents to see that not all the dyes used to color certain pigments are first rate in terms of permanence.

I would not want to be accused of being anti-analog either, but let us not forget that aside from color carbon prints all of the past analog color print processes used dyes that were very likely to fade in a short period of time with minimal exposure to UV light. All of the C and R prints I made in the 1980s look like sh&t today. On the whole my belief is that color prints made with inkjet pigment printers on good quality papers will fare much better in the long run than most analog processes of the past.

Sandy

[Frank Petronio]

I think it had to be the sheet protector sleeves, I found some equally vintage prints that were OK.

I've kind of figured anything that went into a print portfolio book, commercial style, wasn't get reused, it would get tossed after a period. I found the length of the period ;-p and that these archival sleeves aren't.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes indeed Sandy. But there was a also BS coefficient in operation back when C and R prints were norm. Cibachrome was a significant improvement, and now C prints have improved quite a bit too; but I wouldn't want to display any kind of color photograph, inkjet included, in direct sunlight or under bright halogens. Maybe certain carbon pigments
would hold up decently, but UV might damage something else in the print. Heck, even the
Sphinx in Egypt isn't looking too good lately.

[Vaughn]

...Heck, even the
Sphinx in Egypt isn't looking too good lately.

They should have used buffered stone.

Whoops, they did...

[ROL]

Where did you learn that? I didn't know there was an official terminology. Who established it and what makes it official?

Don't get your panties in a twist. I've noticed the use of the term in published gallery books and at print venues (including museums) in LA more and more over the last few years. I inquired at a "Fine Art printing for Museum" workshop, held at Icon LA (http://www.iconla.com/main/), why they were insisting on its use for any inkjet process. Their master printer informed me that it was now the custom to label all inkjet processes, pigment. Chromogenic is their term for laser print process. Anyhow, the mystery was solved for me. The powers that be, which (shhh!) I suspect may actually be the Grand Omniscient Counsel of D, from the metameristic ephemeral green planet Remulac, have proclaimed it. And, at the risk of being disintegrated, that's good enough for me. :rolleyes:

I don't much care what digistas call anything anymore, as long as they don't include my GSP's. Though in the never ending quest for legitimacy (which practically, they've already achieved), I'm certain that they will, eventually. :(

[ROL]

I would not want to be accused of being anti-analog either, but let us not forget that aside from color carbon prints all of the past analog color print processes used dyes that were very likely to fade in a short period of time with minimal exposure to UV light. All of the C and R prints I made in the 1980s look like sh&t today. On the whole my belief is that color prints made with inkjet pigment printers on good quality papers will fare much better in the long run than most analog processes of the past.

Sandy

Precisely, which is why I came to the personal artistic conclusion many years ago that I could express anything photographically I desired with classical monochrome processes. F%#k color!

[Drew Wiley]

Figures. "Icon LA" is a commercial digital service. So what do they call it if a printer is used containing dyes rather than inks, or when a laser device is used to expose a chromolytic medium rather than chromogenic (which
has certainly been done, though not for much longer)? A while you're at it,
explain Giclee, which as far as I can recongize, represent a tablecloth ready for the laundry. My guess is that most folks walking into a gallery just look at subject matter.

[sanking]

A while you're at it,
explain Giclee, which as far as I can recongize, represent a tablecloth ready for the laundry. My guess is that most folks walking into a gallery just look at subject matter.

Giclee is just as good as inkjet IMHO.

And yes, most people who walk into galleries, and gallery owners as well, are primarily interested in subject matter, and the location of the wine and cheese reception. All the more reason for the artist to resolve the issue of permanence to his/her satisfaction.

Sandy

[rdenney]

It occurs to me that many of my commercially-made R and C prints from days of yore are turning magenta. Maybe turning green is some sort of cosmic balancing mechanism.

I wouldn't want to use the word "dye"--that sounds too much like dye transfer, which really is an archival process (to the extent anything is, I guess), or dye sublimation, which is just the opposite. I have no problem with "pigment print on paper". But I think "giclee" just sounds contrived and pretentious.

Rick "whose Cibachromes hanging out in the open look like they did when they were made" Denney

[sanking]

I wouldn't want to use the word "dye"--that sounds too much like dye transfer, which really is an archival process (to the extent anything is, I guess), or dye sublimation, which is just the opposite. I have no problem with "pigment print on paper". But I think "giclee" just sounds contrived and pretentious.



Well, C and R prints were dye based, simple fact. And dye transfer prints, while they offered a lot of color control, were not archival if exposed to light. Today's pigment inkjet color prints are probably more archival than dye transfer prints.

Giclee is indeed a contrived term. Piezography and Eboni are also contrived terms.

"The word "giclée" was created by Jack Duganne, a print maker working at Nash Editions. He wanted a name for the new type of prints they were producing on the IRIS printer, a large format high resolution industrial prepress proofing ink-jet printer they had adapted for fine art printing. He was specifically looking for a word that would not have the negative connotations of "ink-jet" or "computer generated". To make the word descriptive of ink-jet technologies he based it on the French language word "le gicleur" meaning "nozzle", or more specifically "gicler" meaning "to squirt, spurt, or spray"."

Interestingly, the term Inkjet today appears to have fewer negative connotations for most people than Giclée.

Sandy

[Brian Ellis]

I agree with Sandy that "giclee" sounds contrived (and pretentious) though it made more sense to use such a term back when it was created than it does today. But it doesn't strike me as any more pretentious than calling a print made on plain old photo paper a gelatin silver print.

[David Luttmann]

Well, first off, the Ilford Paper wasn't really an archival paper. As well, the RC was designed more for dye based inks as it encapsulates the inks. The pigment inks from the Epson could have been impacted by that. I've got Epson prints that have been in brightly lit rooms for nearly a decade with no perceptible loss of density nor color shifts.

[David Luttmann]

How about 'original pixelograph'?

Ranks right up there with "Grainography Print"

[Frank Petronio]

When I was around that stuff back in the Nash days the word was that "Giclée" was slang for certain physical response, as in, "I Gicléed on her face".

I prefer "inkjet" myself.

[rdenney]

I agree with Sandy that "giclee" sounds contrived (and pretentious) though it made more sense to use such a term back when it was created than it does today. But it doesn't strike me as any more pretentious than calling a print made on plain old photo paper a gelatin silver print.

Oh, yeah. In both cases, the terms are trying to confuse the unknowing into thinking the print is something it isn't. Probably those original Iris prints could have been called "Iris print on paper" and nobody would have known or cared what an Iris was. But there would be no obfuscation. Trying to to make it sound better than it is is what makes it pretentious. That said, at least "silver geletin print" is at least plainly factually descriptive in ways not easy to achieve otherwise.

That doesn't mean we must call it "inkjet print", which is certainly too general a term for what we do--like "laser print".

Of course, some would want us to name them "spawn of Satan print". But if I'm no fan of describing them pretentiously, then I'm certainly no fan of describing them in a way that carries out some opposite hidden agenda.

My wife has at times collected graphic arts. They are just as bad.

Typical descriptions for paintings that I've seen in museums and galleries are: Oil on canvas. Oil on masonite. Acrylic on canvas. Acrylic and ground-up kitchen utensils on rice paper. Assorted car parts on annealed bronze. In that pantheon, "Pigment print on paper" or "ink print on paper" doesn't seem too diversionary.

Rick "who rebels against people defining away their adversaries" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

A lot of such labels are simply a way of dumbing down otherwise complex permanence issues for the sake of marketing. Dye transfer prints for example depend not only on the specific dyes involved, but
very much on the storage or display conditions. The thinking seems to
be, that since these are so expensive to make, one would take good
care of them and periodically lift them to the portfolio box to view them, though in the heyday of the process they were used for commercial dispaly too and didn't fare so well. Cibachrome is quite
permanent in the dark and holds up well in indirect light, but doesn't do
so well in direct sunlight or other harsh UV sources. Iris prints were for
proofing, orginally used vegetable dyes, and weren't intended for permanence. Once they got artsy the term giclee started getting tossed around. Now a lot of engineering has gone into both inkjet and
C-prints to significantly improve permanence, though I don't think any
of these approaches could equal certain carbon printing options, but
that too would be dependent on the specifics. Plenty of pigments sold
at the art store are relatively fugitive or contain preservatives that
affect the long-term integrity of the sandwich. Sandy would know more
about this than I do, but it just once again illustrates that permanence
is a lot more involved than just pigeonholing the character of a print
with a marketing label.

[Noah A]

I have analog c-prints that I made in the late 90's (at my university lab) as well as even more recent ones made at commercial labs that have noticeable color shifts. In some cases the paper itself has yellowed to the point that they look like crap. Now I know that this could be due to many factors including bad or dirty chemistry, etc., but it just goes to show that there are many variables with all print processes. These prints were maybe exhibited for a month or two then dark stored. And as I said, they weren't all from a university darkroom. Some were from a fairly well-respected pro lab.

I feel more confident in the stability of my inkjet prints. I have a few that have been displayed in my home for a few years in horrible conditions (sunlight part of the day, non-uv glass, etc.) and they still look great.

I call mine pigment inkjet prints. It's honest, I have no shame in saying they came from an inkjet printer. And the 'pigment' part differentiates them from earlier ink sets. I guess 'inkjet print made with inks that are somewhat pigment-based with other additives' doesn't have the same ring to it. And it wouldn't fit on the label.

[Drew Wiley]

If C prints that recent have shifted significantly it probably indicates improper processing,
failure to stabilize or wash properly, or marginal chemisty. One hour labs were infamous for that kind of result. Doesn't automatically make sense to blame the paper, though some papers were better than others. Over the long haul the base will start to yellow due to residual couplers. The problem with inkets in general is that there are so many potential combinations of ink and substrate which have no real track record that it's pretentious to make any kind of claims about them unless a very specific combination has been realistically tested and observed over time. At least with Cibachrome that kind of variable was narrowed down, and we have a real world track record. I deliberately displayed them in all kinds of conditions.

[Vaughn]

I agree with Sandy that "giclee" sounds contrived (and pretentious) though it made more sense to use such a term back when it was created than it does today. But it doesn't strike me as any more pretentious than calling a print made on plain old photo paper a gelatin silver print.

When inkjet printing came into being, the word "photograph" for a B&W print was no longer sufficient to describe a "plain old photo paper" print. "Silver print" would probably be sufficient, but there are silver processes (non-gelatin) besides "plain old photo paper" prints. So I do not feel there is any pretentiousness in the terms "silver gelatin" or "gelatine silver" prints.

[Drew Wiley]

Vaughn - a number of years ago I had a bit quarrel with an SF downtown swank gallery owner. He called me for advice. Had a big collection of pre-emulsion silver prints (Talbotypes etc) worth a lot of money, but was too much of a skinflint to put wire racks
in his storage area. So against my advice he put in particle board shelving (full of formaldehyde glue). When he realized this mistake he decides to seal them and took the
advice of a marble conservator in Britain (against my advice again) and used a stone sealant containing lots of sulfur. With no emulsion the paper quickly absorbed this and that, and within six months all the portfolios he sold were brownish pieces of paper with
no image on it! Lawsuits followed. So yeah, silver gelatin, and silver something else can
make a difference.

[sanking]

Proper identification of prints is interesting for historical reasons, and may be important for conservation reasons. Following is a list of different kind of prints that have used silver.

1. Salted paper --Silver salt sensitizer applied directly to paper, 1840-65
2. Albumen -- Silver sensitizer mixed with albumen, 1855-1920
3. Collodion (POP and DOP)-- Silver sensitizer with collodion base, 1885-1920
4. Gelatin (POP and DOP) -- Silver sensitizer with gelatin, 1885-

And then there are the silver-iron processes like Vandyke, Kallitype, Argyrotype, etc. which, like pt/pd, have the sensitizer applied directly to paper, i.e. no binder.

Sandy