Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:

> Mark mentions that the 7960 was retrofitted by HP with Vivera magenta to 
> improve the print fade resistance. Does not happen often that a 
> manufacturer goes that route.


Yes, if you filter the AaI&A database on [printer][contains]"7960" you will see two sets of Hp ink on a few different papers.  One set is marked 57, 58, and 59, while the other is 57+, 58, and 59. The 57+ ink cartridge is the new improved magenta ink. I believe that with this "new improved" cartridge installed in the old 7960 printer, it did indeed form the basis for the Vivera dye set, if not exactly the actual set itself.  And you pay a premium for that cartridge as the older 57 cartridge is also still available. The improved 57+ magenta fixed a catalytic fade problem that occurred mainly when the magenta ink mixed with cyan ink to form blue and purple colors.  HP knew this preferential fading problem existed ( I did, too, at the time because of my early work on the I* metric testing).  It was admirable for HP to retrofit this older printer series with an improved ink at a time when the industry-sponsored lightfastness tests only evaluated "pure" cyan, magenta, yellow, and grays at low and medium density aimpoints (as is still the case today). The legacy test methods do not spot more complex problems occurring in color blends. I've been very pleased that the AaI&A 30 patch standard color set (comprised mostly of the Macbeth ColorChecker colors)  does screen for these more subtle issues exceptionally well, but even I could make a case that greater patch counts in test could perhaps be considered.  It's not a limitation of the I* analysis.  In fact, the I* metric thrives on larger patterns of data, but color patch count has practical limitations for test unit real estate and overall costs of testing. 

Another issue to consider is that the longevity claims for HP Vivera dyes have largely been derived for swellable polymer type inkjet papers.  For example, other than the "HP Advanced" paper which is an "instant dry" paper, the various papers in test at AaI&A in conjunction with HP dyes are all with swellable type papers because this was and still is the best performing lightfastness combination for Vivera dyes.  It is easy to see that that the HP dyes are significantly more lightfast on the swellable papers, and it is the light fastness figures on these swellable papers that HP has typically quoted for its Vivera Dyes.  My guess is that all of this discussion applies to the tabletop Designjet series of printers as well, but as Ernst has alread said, it is indeed a pity we don't have some Designjet 30 color samples in test in order to know for sure. 

Recall that light fade and gas fade resistance was the reason manufacturers introduced swellable inkjet papers, but it was a deal with the devil because water resistance and humidity fastness goes down and drying time plus perpetual "tackiness" at moderate and high humidity levels (causing "ferrotyping" when in contact with other materials) goes way up. The consumer marketplace has ultimately spoken, and it has rejected swellable papers.  HP is quietly phasing its swellable papers while at least in some cases still retaining the product name.  For example,  HP Premium Plus photo paper Glossy is now a microporous paper when it started out as a swellable paper.  The typical consumer may not even notice, but photo historians, conservators, and curators are likely to be very frustrated with all this naming convention befuddlement which is so prevalent with the inkjet media today.  I understand that Ilford has also discontinued the Gallerie Classic line which was swellable polymer.  I know of no other sources now for swellable type inkjet papers.  I hope to have a small news post on the Aardenburg Imaging website about this very soon.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com