Inkjet Prints

[Bill Dunston]

Several posts have mentioned fading inkjet prints. Has anyone found a successful treatment for these prints that will retard fading and protect the prints?

I've used a spray-on product called Inkjet Fix that is supposed to protect against fading, smudging, etc. However, I didn't like the texture the spray left on the print.

I've also used Sureguard Photo Lacquer, which is another spray-on, that is made for photos. It leaves a much nicer finish, but I'm not sure how effective it will be against fading.

[toners]

The printer manufacturers, eager to remove any of our hesitancy to invest in more paper and more ink, have been working hard on the fading issue. One of the leaders now is Epson, especially with their pigment inks such as are used in the 2200, for which they claim 30 years or more under display conditions. That's as good as any traditional color print process, I believe. Anyhow, I'm printing away with my 2200 and getting fine prints that I am confident will hang around plenty long enough. But I would stay far away from the sprays. Seems like they could break down or interact in bad ways with the paper and inks long before fading would become an issue.

[Swampy]

And what happens if you spill a beer on that 2200 printout? Just curious.

[sandman]

Guess you'll just have to get a refill, Bryan

[toners]

Data:
Image - Sierra Buttes from Sierra City, California.
Media - Epson Heavyweight Matte.
Printer - Epson 2200
Inks - Epson Matte Black and the lebentyseven others.
Beer: El Toro Negro Oatmeal Stout, El Toro Brewing Co., Morgan Hill, CA

Procedure:
1. Photograph photographed in bathtub (A.).
2. Approximately 2 to 4 ounces of beer applied to photograph (B.). Approximately 8 to 10 ounces applied to investigator (no illustration).
3. Beer allowed to infiltrate photograph for one minute.
4. Photograph dried with wife's hair drier and re-photographed (C.).

Results:
Application of beer to photograph results in infusion of liquid through the paper, resulting in obvious staining of the white border, the back of the photograph, and a minor sepia effect in the image area. No bleeding of the image inkwas observed.

Conclusion:
Application of a dark beer to a photograph results in staining.

Recommendations:
Unless a sepia effect is desired, application of dark beer to a photograph is not recommended. There may be more beneficial uses of beer. Grant funding is currently being sought to extend this important research.

[sandman]

What a waste .... next time call me and i'll take it , if it's going spare:D :D

you're as mad as me tony

[Swampy]

Ink didn't run though?

[Tom V]

Toners,

I am intrigued by your testing and methods, and will do a peer review of your test, to duplicate your test to compare my results with yours. I may have to do it 24 times, to build a good case, and average the results.

I am also looking for funding for research into the area of focus and beer. I have noticed that prints can look "More In" or "More Out" of focus depending on the proximity of beer. It seems that the brand and model of beer may have an impact on focus as well. Interestingly, I have noted, and will investigate sharpening post-processing and post-printing. Past experience has shown that some prints become sharper a few hours after the halting of beer infusion.

I am also looking for funding for research into the area of toning differences between light and dark beers on print surfaces. I will be comparing how little (More Off) or how much (More On) of various brews effect the print's color, aroma, and aftertaste.

More research is also called for in the area of sensor cleaning using EverClear. Seems that some spots are cleared off the sensor, but reappear on your tie, in your vision, or your liver.

[sandman]

Got a correction on my previous post


Your ALL mad:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[toners]

Swampy101 FYI -

The inks in the print didn't run, either during the beer test or when the beer was rinsed off in the sink holding the print under a tap of lukewarm water for about a minute. The paper held together ok thru the soaking - once dry the matte texture was unchanged, but the paper was a bit wrinkly. A fussy framer wouldn't be happy with the slight buckles under a matt. You could dry mount it, tho.

Hmmm - wonder what my giant old Seal dry mount press would do to an ink jet print? Probably ought to design a new study.

[Swampy]

OK, verified what was told to me (sorry for kinda doubting you - you know who you are... :P).

I'm happy with my 3x4, 4x6, 5x7 dye sub, but am looking for something to print larger prints. "Ink Jet" was not an option because of running ink. Also, my inkjets always dry up. I end up buying new cartridges, print 10 prints that I've saved up one by one to print in one big group, then the printer sits. 2 weeks later I have 1 more print maybe, if I tried to print it, it comes out all nasty. I may just grab one of these little guys. :)

[toners]

I had played with a $100 Epson 780 for a year before springing for the big 2200. Also read the forums, so I had an idea what to expect. The main complaint you read re: the 2200 is the difficulty of printing on glossy media. Some report good results with certain luster-surfaced papers. But I am happy with Epson's enhanced heavyweight matte, so I haven't experimented with other papers. You might be disappointed in that look, though, in comparison to a dye sub printer's output. The neat thing is that the inkjet printers are really inexpensive and are continually improving with regard to image stability and quality, so it is hard to loose by experimenting with an 8-1/2 by 11 model.

PS - I've not had any clogging probs with the 2200, and it does sit around at times for up to several weeks, as I have an HP for everyday printing.