QTR-Quadtone RIP

Myron,

I certainly have no idea why Epson's pigments are more archival. Or maybe
what's more pertinent is why MIS's are less so. Epson's pigments are claimed
to be "encapsulated" as are other inks, although I remain pretty skeptical
that that fits the "visual" (little people wrapping each pigment particle in
Saran Wrap) since what we're talking about are chemical properties. There
are many color pigments in artwork over the ages that have proven to be
extremely archival, but getting them into a solution and through an inkjet
printer is the rub. 

One thing is for certain: Epson/HP/Canon's ink formulations are as closely
held secrets as nuclear codes. The same is of course true of Kodak's/Fuji's
films and chemical papers. Hmm... If there are any disgruntled Epson
employees lurking here, maybe you could contact Julian Assange for us...

But again, I wouldn't worry, especially if it's for cheap thrills. I make
some color prints for personal use, experimentation and to adorn my friends'
walls - and some have been made with the MIS K3 "equivalent" color inks. My
guess is that they're going to outlast any color photograph made up until
maybe 10 years ago - including dye transfer and Ilfochrome.

Best,

Tom
www.ovimaging.com




Yikes!    I think I have been relying solely on my recollections of results
with MIS's black inks for Epson printers. (That is my major interest.  Color
is just for "cheap thrills".  Nonetheless, there's no point in starting with
absurdly expensive cameras and then being cheap about the material that goes
on the wall.)

I have a subscription to Aardenberg's site, but I haven't checked it for a
while.

Any idea why Epson's color pigments are significantly more archival than
MIS's?  I can't recall the company from whom MIS gets their pigments, but
it's a pretty substantial company, as I recall.  I would have expected them,
whoever they are, to stay within striking distance of the state of the art. 

Myron