Kodak-- No further longterm investment in film

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Gordon Moat, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. Gordon Moat

    Rafe B. Guest

    Bottom line is that nowadays neither one is all that difficult.

    When I began scanning film five years ago, I was using a
    pretty crappy scanner and it was long before ICE came
    around to help with the spotting and scratch removal.

    I spent a lot of time and effort working around the
    deficiencies of the scanner(s).

    Where dynamic range isn't an issue, slides and digicam
    captures should require less color twiddling than scanned
    print film. At least that's been my experience.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Oct 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gordon Moat

    Tom Monego Guest

    There are dye inks out there that surpass traditional (not fuji crystal
    archive though) prints. We did a south window test with a photo and a print I
    did with Pinnacle Gold Inks. The Photo print lasted about 2 months while the
    digital print lasted about 6 months. Remember under the same conditions that
    give ink jet print 80 and 200 year life spans Kodak paper is only rated for 14
    years. If Jeramy has only seen inkjet prints that fade in his hands he ought
    to get out more. I too have print in many offices and the only complaint I
    have ever had was with and bad mounting job done by another vendor.

    Tom Monego, Oct 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. I cannot imagine this is any where near true as I have Kodak mini
    lab prints well over 20 years old,....not to mention
    the thousands of color prints I have made myself.

    I also have an Epson print B&W I did less than 2 years ago
    getting a little ambient sun (not direct) that is to my eye starting
    to turn orange,...Its an Ilford photo paper print.
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 5, 2003
  4. Gordon Moat

    Tom Monego Guest

    Tom Monego, Oct 5, 2003
  5. Gordon Moat

    Rafe B. Guest

    I'm not sure whose figures to believe (vis-a-vis print longevity)
    and I'm not sure I really care all that much.

    I'm no Ansel Adams or Cartier Bresson or Edward Weston.

    My prints don't hang on museum walls, and it would be
    presumptous in the extreme to suppose that a print just
    isn't worth printing if if won't last 100 years.

    My Epson/Canon printer may not even last two years --
    but what I do know is that if/when the print fades, I can
    make a new one. I have the files on multiple CDs and
    DVDs and failing that, I can re-scan the negative.

    If it absolutely has to last a long time, I can have it
    printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper on a Lightjet.
    75 year Wilhelm rating, IIRC.

    I wonder if Pinnacle Gold inks might work on my Canon
    S9000? I tried them on an Epson 1160 ages ago and
    they didn't work out. Tried a few other "archival dye
    inks" and they didn't work out either -- just didn't
    print properly on the Epson.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Oct 5, 2003
  6. For light-fade testing yes, but temperature and humidity (dark-fade)
    testing predicts 100 years in room temperature -- "the predicted 100
    years is plus or minus 40 years. The actual performance may be as high
    as 140 years or as low as 60" according to Kodak. Dye-based inkjet
    media's weakness is light and chemical fading (e.g. ozone); silver-
    based media's weakness is dark fading. You can't compare the strong
    side of one medium to the weak side of another, you need to compare
    the two's weakest performance. Pigment-based inkjet media add extreme
    light-fade resistance, leaving the current weak spot being chemical
    stability; e.g. whether the ink and binder may form trace amounts of
    acid in humid conditions, which then cause the paper to oxidize and
    turn yellow. Using the same 120 lux accelerated test methodology,
    WR, Kodak, and Fuji all come up with about the same predictions for
    _current_ inks, emulsions, papers, and processes, give or take 10

    People who show benefits with silver-based processes generally key
    in on light-fade by using much higher illumination levels, perhaps
    more representative of commercial applications than home or museum
    display. By the same token, you could compare storage life in a
    dark chemically controlled environment, and find pigment inkjets
    are vastly better fine art investments than RA-4 prints. Of the
    two, the latter is probably more meaningful actually, in a relative
    sense. (Commercial displays tend to change prints frequently
    enough thatlight-fade at even 500-1000 lux is a non-issue.)
    Jan Brittenson, Oct 6, 2003
  7. Good input, I will add that truely I do not consider Color prints
    of any kind to be archival in the rather vague connotation that
    archival has,.....hey I like silver prints best anyway :)
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 6, 2003
  8. Gordon Moat

    Ron Baird Guest

    Greetings Loren,

    Let me refer you to some information that is on the Kodak website. It may
    help. Also, the most important feature in storing or keeping a print for a
    long time is where and how. Where are you going to display or store the
    print, and in what conditions. Gases in the environment, temperature, and
    RH all play a role in how an image might fare over time. This has been the
    Kodak position for a long time.

    If your image/print or film was properly processed, it should last you a
    very long time, if you stored it correctly.

    Kodak invented and used some high quality inks in the printers that it
    offered a while back; when it introduced and offered its line of Kodak
    Inkjet printers. Under general conditions, prints from the Kodak PPM200
    printer, for example, should have lasted quite a while. Review the
    following link for details and thorough review.


    For general information about sensitized materials, try this site.


    Talk to you soon.

    Ron Baird

    Ron Baird, Oct 6, 2003
  9. Gordon Moat

    Ron Baird Guest

    Greetings Greg,

    You are right Greg, let me post some general information about Kodak
    traditional papers. I think you will see that the numbers presented here
    before do not coincide with other research. In a previous posting I alluded
    to prints really being subject to how they are processed, stored, and where
    they are stored or displayed, is most important.

    "Kodak recognizes the importance and value of color prints to consumers, and
    the need for their prints to have a useful lifetime that extends over
    generations. Accordingly, we routinely evaluate our color papers for
    longevity and integrate new technologies that contribute to the exceptional
    image permanence of our products.

    Today's KODAK photographic color papers are all vastly superior to Kodak
    papers made in the 60's, 70's, or even the early 80's. In fact, our papers
    today are significantly improved over those made just 7 or 8 years ago.
    Technological advancements over the last 40 years have helped us to produce
    papers that provide better image quality, ease of use, and image permanence.

    The image stability of today's color negative (RA-4) paper is dependent upon
    many factors, although mainly temperature, relative humidity and light. To
    help ensure that images printed today continue to last well into the future,
    be sure that the prints are processed correctly and stored or displayed
    using proper, acid-free storage materials. Residual chemicals or poor
    post-process handling may cause premature aging of a print. If you plan on
    mounting, sleeving, or storing the print in a protective media, be sure
    those materials are not going to react with the paper emulsion (ie: products
    containing PVC). Avoid extremes in temperature and humidity; avoid extended
    exposure to high intensity illumination such as direct sunlight. Additional
    information on proper handling of Kodak photographic papers may be found in
    and After Processing. This document is on our website at:

    (You may need to copy and paste these links into your web browser in order
    to access these pages.)

    There are generally two typical storage conditions routinely encountered by
    consumer color prints: prints displayed in the home, and prints stored in an
    album ("home display" and "album keeping", respectively). In the case of
    "album" storage, where "album" might refer to a traditional photo album or
    simple placement in a box, the image dyes forming the image are subject to
    decay by relative humidity and thermal reactions that occur at very slow
    rates. In addition to the thermal and relative humidity reactions, prints
    that are on display in the home are also subject to the effects of light
    degradation. Because prints undergo both conditions of storage, Kodak
    evaluates the permanence of our color prints under both circumstances and
    determines image permanence as a function of light, relative humidity and
    temperature experienced in real-world conditions.

    Color prints made on KODAK EKTACOLOR Edge 8 Paper, KODAK EKTACOLOR ROYAL
    SUPRA ENDURA Paper exhibit exceptional image permanence under both types of
    storage described above. Because the permanence of prints produced on these
    papers is so long, it is necessary to use accelerated aging test procedures
    to estimate the image permanence of these prints in a meaningful timeframe.
    The procedures used by Kodak are based on industry standardized testing
    methods and conditions as stipulated in the ANSI Standard IT9.9-1996 (the
    international version of this standard is ISO 18909). There are additional
    references contained in the ANSI Standard justifying the incorporated
    procedures for performing accelerated testing of image permanence.

    The ANSI Standard indicates the need to specify ambient temperature,
    relative humidity, and light intensity for the testing chosen to be
    representative of the intended application of the product. Each of these
    factors has been carefully considered and the conditions used for our
    testing are representative of typical use of color prints by consumers.
    Specifically, the following conditions were defined:

    Average Temperature: 20-25 degrees Celsius
    Average Humidity: 50% relative humidity
    Average Illumination: 120 lux for 12 hours daily
    Starting Density: 1.0 ANSI status A neutral density
    End-Point Density: 30% loss

    The choice of 120 lux as the ambient display illumination intensity is based
    on information contained in the Journal of Imaging Technology, Volume 17,
    Number 3, June/July 1991 describing ambient display conditions for prints.
    Although stored/displayed prints will experience conditions that deviate
    both positively and negatively from the average conditions listed above,
    over the long periods of time required to cause significant degradation of
    image quality of prints made on these papers to the above conditions
    represent meaningful averages.

    Based on these conditions, the image permanence for color prints made on
    determined to be:

    Home Display: over 100 years
    Album Keeping: over 200 years

    You should find that this exceeds any other manufacturer in the market on
    image stability.

    For additional information on image permanence, please refer to the article
    written by Dr. Robert E. McComb, "Separating Facts From Fiction: Examining
    Photo Prints, Judging Image Stability On 'Real-World' Factors-Only." Dr.
    McComb, a retired physical scientist, was employed at the Preservation
    Research & Testing Office of the Library of Congress and as a member of
    American National Standards Institute's (ANSI) standards committees, is a
    subject matter expert on image permanence. This article discusses various
    aspects of color-negative paper image stability. Dr. McComb's article can
    be found on the Kodak Website at:


    If you have any further questions on this issue, please feel free to call us
    at the number below."

    Let me know if there are questions.

    Ron Baird
    Ron Baird, Oct 6, 2003
  10. Ron;

    One of the things I have always appreciated is Kodak's
    willingness to provide support, and the vast amount
    of information Kodak has at their finger tips.

    Thank you for your response, I am going to repost this
    in the rec.darkroom newsgroup.
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 7, 2003
  11. Gordon Moat

    Loren Coe Guest

    i just read the first post, and wondered to myself, "Who
    is that Masked Man?" <grin> --Loren
    Loren Coe, Oct 7, 2003
  12. Gordon Moat

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Ron Baird"
    This is true, Kodak's testing methods are much less stringent than those used
    by Wilhelm, which makes Kodak's estimated print life estimates seem much better
    than they would had they been tested to the same standards.
    Wilhelm tests at a slightly higher ambient than this, which is more stringent.
    But not a big deal.
    Wilhelm assumes 60% relative humidity, which results in shorter projected print
    life, but not by a wide margin.
    Wilhelm assumes 450 lux, and this is a big deal for longevity tests. Kodak
    says that if you assume 450 lux their 100 year estimate for Endura drops to 35
    years. 450 lux is apparently the "office" standard, 120 lux the "museum"
    This is another big difference, 30% loss is described by Kodak as "Very
    noticeable fade ... but not objectionable". "Not objectionable" to whom?
    Wilhelm uses a much more stringent test, where the difference is first
    noticeable when the test print is checked side by side with an unfaded control
    print, what Kodak calls 6-12% fade, "Slight -- noticeable in a paired
    I agree, "based on these conditions", which are not very rigorous.
    I disagree, as this is total nonsense. Almost everyone (Fuji, Epson, Canon)
    tested by Wilhelm beats these numbers if you normalize the tests. If you used
    Wilhelm's test conditions Endura would have a projected print life of 15-18
    years while the pigment Epson inks and papers have a projected print life 4x -
    6x as long.

    If the Epson materials were tested to the Kodak standards then their print life
    would be extended by at least a factor of 6, so the 2200 papers would have
    projected print life of 300 - 540 years instead of 50-90 years.

    Bill Hilton, Oct 7, 2003
  13. Although I agree with your observation that the Wilhelm tests are more
    representative for non-museum or album work, comparing dye based images
    against pigment based ones is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

    Both have their merits, and with pigmented images it's usually their
    resistance to fading. But we'll have to leave metamerism and gamut for a
    different thread.

    A more meaningful comparison would be between similar, say dye based,
    technologies. Info about resistance to fading, but also gamut and spectral
    dye densities would be needed for a more balanced quality judgement in that

    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 7, 2003
  14. Gordon Moat

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Bart van der Wolf"
    No it's not, the print is the print and you can compare them side by side. I
    do it all the time.
    Metamerism and limited gamut were problems with Epson's 2000p but these issues
    were largely solved with the Ultrachrome pigment inks used in the Epson 2200
    and the two pro models, 9600 and 7600. So I think your conclusions are a
    couple years out of date.

    When the 2000p came out I ordered a test print and compared to the 1280 print
    of the same file. The colors were too muted (smaller gamut) and the metamerism
    was noticeable, so I stuck with LightJet prints for ones I was selling.

    When the 2200 came out I ordered three test prints on different papers and
    compared to the same file printed on the 1280 and the LightJet. Wow, the 2200
    prints looked great and I bought one right away.

    Literally hundreds of well know professionals who sell prints have switched to
    the Epson 7600 and 9600 here in the US, switching from LightJet prints. You
    can order free sample prints from West Coast Imaging of 9600 and LJ prints or
    you can print your own files cheaply and compare yourself. The gamut of the
    Ultrachrome photo black inks are on par with the LJ profiles and the print
    longevity is very similar.
    If you want to limit the comparison to this then compare the life of the Fuji
    Crystal Archive paper to Kodak Endura. Crystal Archive can be used in a wet
    process or with the LightJet laser printer and once you normalize the Kodak
    test conditions it has about 4x longer estimated print life than Endura,
    according to Kodak's own numbers.

    The point of most of these posts is that Kodak uses much more forgiving
    parameters for light intensity and acceptable amount of fade, which gives them
    about a 6x artificial advantage in print life when compared to papers tested by
    Wilhelm. So divide the Kodak light-fast number by 6 to get a comparable print
    life estimate.

    Bill Hilton, Oct 8, 2003
  15. Gordon Moat

    Jeremy Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    The gamut of the
    What do these printers cost?

    How much does an ink cartridge cost? How about paper? Can you offer an
    estimate of the cost of printing, say, an 8x10? Is the price comparable to
    having a traditional print made?

    Would this be cost-effective for casual users, or is there some degree of
    volume needed before the cost-per-print becomes reasonable?

    I'd like to have a look at one of those prints. If they are as good as you
    describe, and if the printers and inks come into widespread use, it doesn't
    bode well for all of those places like camera shops, that offer in-store
    printing from digital files.
    Jeremy, Oct 8, 2003
  16. Gordon Moat

    ThomasH Guest


    you have web as well, just browse for prices and make your own math or
    read to test/user reports, such as Steves http://www.steves-digicams.com/,
    or http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ or http://normankoren.com/, among
    many others. You cannot expect from others doing your shopping homework!
    Epson as well Canon or HP all offer now printers with extended longevity
    of ink+paper combinations, dependent on your quality standards and goals
    the one or the other make and mode might be the best choice.

    I am sure that many shops might use Epsons or Canons (for far more
    speed) to print images for sale.

    ThomasH, Oct 8, 2003
  17. Gordon Moat

    Rafe B. Guest

    Most current desktop models from Epson, Canon or HP
    will make excellent photo-quality prints. They start at
    under $100. Or for a high-end Epson pro model (say,
    the 9600) around $5000 -- if you need prints 44" wide.
    With most OEM inks, figure $1 for the ink for an
    8x10" photo print.

    If it's a pro model Epson, figure 1/2 or 1/3 that amount,
    since they use bulk ink cartridges.

    If it's any desktop model fitted with a CIS or CFS, the
    figure goes down to $0.10 or less.

    Photo paper ranges from, say, $0.25 to $1.00 for a
    letter-sized sheet. Depends greatly on where you
    buy it, how much you buy, and what you buy.
    Define "casual user." Like most things, it takes a bit of
    practice to achieve consistent photo quality. But it's not
    rocket science, either.

    Here's one option for you: order up a print from my website.
    $25 for a matted 8x10. $15 for a matted 5x8.

    News flash: some of the one hour labs (eg. Noritsu) are
    already using Epson print engines with pigment inks.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Oct 9, 2003
  18. Gordon Moat

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Epson 2200 is about $650 and prints 13" wide (usually 13x19" sheets but comes
    with a roll paper adapater). Epson 7600 and 9600 are professional models with
    24" and 44" wide carriages, selling for $3,000 and $5,000.
    About $11-12 for each cart for the 2200 (you need 7 or 8 for a full set). Ink
    for the big printers is cheaper per unit since it's available in 110 and 220 ml
    I think I'm paying 30 cents/sheet for matte, around 70-80 cents for Luster,
    semigloss and PGPP (I'm on the road right now so don't have exact figures), up
    to $1.60 for Somerset Velvet Fine Art.
    Maybe $1.50 for ink, 30 -80 cents for most papers.
    A lot cheaper than my local custom lab :)
    You need to print a lot of prints to justify $650 for the 2200. I think there
    are much cheaper models using Ultrachrome inks that stop at 8.5 x 11", not
    You can order one for about $10 from this site, then download the test file and
    have the same image printed on a different printer (or at WalMart or whatever)
    and compare the results.


    For more 2200 info try these sites ...

    I think this is a different market, the people who are used to shooting
    disposable or point-and-shoot cameras and having prints done at the One Hour
    Photo shop will still be getting their 4x6 digital prints done at Wal-Mart for
    29 cents. This is a huge market. The people who used to own wet darkrooms or
    have custom prints or even Ilfochromes done (a much smaller market share) are
    the ones who are willing to invest time learning Photoshop and learning how to
    print their own, I feel.

    I know in my area the switch to digital printing (first with the LightJet and
    more recently with the affordable 7600 and 9600 Epsons) is killing off the
    Ilfochrome printing business, at least at the custom lab I use.

    Bill Hilton, Oct 9, 2003
  19. The latest Epson A4 printer in Japan (PX-G900*) uses a new pigment ink
    system. It claims to (a) work on glossy paper, (b) have a wider gamut than
    sRGB (!!!). It uses red and blue inks (so it's not CMYK, and it's the reds
    and blues where it exceeds sRGB), holds both photo black and matte black at
    the same time (so it's an "8-color" printer even though any given print is
    only 7 colors), and has a 1.5 pl droplet (as opposed to the 4 pl of the

    So I'd guess that there'll be a new super-A3 printer coming out shortly.

    And, loser that I am, I just bought the PM-980C (an improved version of the
    950 and 960), which is a lovely dye-ink A4 printer, but I'd much rather have
    this new printer. Sigh. (Interestingly, the 970 and 980 were 2880 x 2880 but
    the PX-G900 is 2880 x 1440.)

    *: http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/pxg900/pxg9001.htm

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 9, 2003
  20. Gordon Moat

    Loren Coe Guest

    an 8x10 color print on Fuji paper is 1.99 at Costco, doubtful anyone
    can beat that with a printer, especially since you don't pay for bad
    prints. --Loren
    Loren Coe, Oct 9, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.