So you compare one particular set of dye inks with one particular set of pigment inks. You can't draw conclusions from this about dye vs. pigment inks per se.
Having said that, it was known LONG before photo ink jets that pigments are much more durable than dyes. This is due to basic chemistry and there's no way around it.
Pigment prints are much more stable, and I would not print anything I wanted to last on a dye photo ink jet.
While I have no doubts about the relative instability of dye prints overall - I do have color
Canon dye prints (actually Apple Stylewriter 2400, which gives an idea of their age) 6-7
years old, framed under glass, that still look "good" (a sensitometer might show fading).
Daylight in the room is about 64 foot-candles.
Glass filters out UV light (main cause of light fading) and also protects from chemical,
atmospheric breakdown of the dyes (remember Epson 'orange fade'?)
As a slight side-note - in several cases the dye prints under glass have outlived the
original picture files stored on CD-Rs (also dye technology), which are now corrupted
(color bar codes, not photos) or not readable at all.
At the time I got my Epson 1280, the pigment option was the 2000P - I'm happy with the
choice I made then. My next printer will be pigment, for sure.
...it was known LONG before photo ink jets that pigments are much more durable than dyes. This is due to basic chemistry and there's no way around it.
Better tell that to the Chinese. They've got some interesting art on silk. Dye inks. 1400+ years old, much of that time in display conditions of the times. Mostly that was hanging on walls without glass.
Maybe they had a different chemistry teacher? ;-)
Jokes aside, I for one have great doubts about the so called dye vs. pigment debate. What do you think that pigments are made of if not dyes? It's mostly a question of packaging - pigments are essentially balls of dyes.
2006 is going to be an interesting year for inkjet printing. Don't hold on to your preconceived notions too tightly!
I agree that this isn't necessarily a valid comparison, and there's more to the equation than just the inks and environment. The paper printed on is just as important as the inks.
For my prints, I use only Canon-brand papers and inks, which are engineered to work together. I have several three-year-old prints mounted under glass in my office, and they all look just as brilliant as when produced. The blues and greens (the most susceptible hues to fading) are still deep and true. And these aren't even Canon's newer, "longer life" (ChromaLife 100?) inks.
I'm in the market for a printer upgrade this year, and right now I'm planning to move up from my S9000 to an i9900 when those get discounted for clearance when the new Pixma Pro 9000 (dye-based) and 9500 (pigment-based) are released. Before I buy, I'll read the reviews on the Pro 9000, to see if it's worth the additional $$ over the i9900 for me. (I expect the Pro 9000 to premier at $500, and that I'll be able to get an i9900 for $300-350.)
But the reports of clogged heads on Epson pigment printers gives me pause (I certainly don't print daily), and if the Pro 9500 debuts at $2,000 as reported, well, I could reprint my collection of displayed images many times (*if* they faded), and still be ahead of the Pro 9500 game financially.
Just a response to Bruce's question about the difference between dyes vs. pigments. Dyes are based on organic (i.e. carbon based) molecules, the bonds of which can be broken by UV. Pigments are inorganic or mineral based, such a zinc oxide, that cannot be harmed by UV. Dyes are cheaper to make, provide a wider color gammet and the molecules are much smaller than pigments, which is why they're so popular.
You can't draw conclusions from this about dye vs. pigment inks per se.
Well, it certainly supports what's already widely known. Through personal experience (I have
a canon S9000 and Epson 4800), as well as aging tests performed by Wilhelm.
Well, I think Pauls results speak for themselves. What I would be very curious to see though, is a 3rd print in the side by side comparison, of the same shot printed today, whether with pigment or dye. While the side by side example above clearly shows more fading in the dye print vs the pigment print, I'm curious how much the pigment print may have faded since it was first printed.
