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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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. ;(>
@@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.
![Kodak Black - Versatile 4 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcP_1Ua__vY/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi would it not be a idea to make a new print every 6 month. Then you will able to compare inks to them self.
Great video, any update on this? Hows the print using the dye ink? Thank you
People say pigment inks are the future for printing. I think it's more likely that they improve the durability of dye inks even more.
I'd love to see an update.
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.
They are still worthless.
Is there an update would love to know I’m just trying to chose an art printer atm ☺️☺️
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?
Protective sprays our a great my to extend the life of prints I use the Hahnemehule Spray myself. Tim
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.
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.
The Pro-200 is a great printer. I need to do another video on as we don't talk about it enough. Tim
@@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.
Dye is worthless.
is there any update on the prints?
Please hold on to these prints and visit back with them every six months or so. Might be interesting viewing.
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.
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!!
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.
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?
Thank you i'll have to check our windows in the office. Its a good point though. Tim
@@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.
there is only 1 black pigment int which is probably only used for texts. all others are dye inks.
@@anulearntech I think the OP meant 3rd party pigment inks. Which do exist but void the manufacturer warranty
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. ;(>
Does not matter. Ink is worthless.
your videos are amazing. i just suggest to turn off autofocus on the overhead camera. Focus hunting is a bit annoying..
A fellow photographer and myself hosted an exhibition, he insisted on printing with his dye based printer, within weeks all the prints had faded!
That is interesting do you know what printer he is using? Tim
Also, it's important what papers and inks he used as well as the conditions of how his pictures were displayed.
so its not the TS8750 ?
Are the photos printed in a photo paper?
Sound 100%better
Thank you
Do you mean the Epson 8550? Wasn’t the 8750 a dot-matrix printer, monochrome using a printer ribbon?
I’m pretty sure Tim is talking about the Canon iP8750
@@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.
Yes it was the iP8750 and the Pro1000 in this test. Tim
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.