How long will inkjet prints last? [Ecotank 8550/8500] Photo and art print lifetimes. Finding answers

[@fintux]

I just bough the 8550, based a lot on your videos, Keith. I thought it is enough for my current needs, and I thought I can print cheaply and have maybe my favorites done in a print shop to have them last a bit longer time. But looks like framing under a glass will be meeting and exceeding what I thought I would like to have. Thank you for this information (and obviously the vast amount of other information you've shared in your other videos and web pages)!

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - glad it's of use

[@vacanechaser]

Thanks for doing this video. New to printing so to speak, but in photography for 20 years. I just bought the epson 8550 to print 13x19 mat those and sell them. Im only charging $50 for a print and the matting. Im 54 years old. I think I'll be dead and gone before the print fades. Everyone Ive sold them to so far has them under glass. This makes me happier to see now. Great printer and a cheaper route on the inks!!

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - glad it was of help

[@waynelabs8457]

Very helpful! I was wondering about the 8550/8500 inks--would they last as long as prints made on my old Canon PIXMA Pro 9000 with eight ChromaLife 100 inks (which are supposed to last for 100 years). In either case, the lifetime of these inks far outlast the prints I made on the old Kodak Ektacolor 37 and 74 RC papers back in the 1970s into the 1980s in my darkroom, which would dark-fade--like the prints you showed. Fortunately, as you said, in many cases the color negatives haven't faded as much as the prints. But nothing compares to the Kodachrome film images I took 40 years ago. They look like they were shot yesterday. And scanning and printing them makes for great prints.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - glad it was of interest. I'd not seen these results from Wilhelm until the other day

[@RAS-pz3st]

Fantastic video, from an Epson 8550 owner aged 66!

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, it helps put print longevity into perspective ;-)

[@paulmaschak5267]

Thank you so so much Keith!! This has been a concern forefront in my mind considering whether to go for the 8550 as it is on a heavy sale discount right now here in USA. You have eased my mind with research.

[@KeithCooper]

Glad to have helped!

[@Harper.s_Art]

I just bought an ET 8500 from Costco (so when/if it hits the planned obsolescence with the waste ink pads, I have a backup)

[@jamesmgreen15]

Thanks, Keith. You are not much older than me, so some good advice for me. I was sorry to hear about your father in the last. It's tough to say bye even if it's the right way around (from experience). Hope that was OK to say. Thanks again for your valuable advice.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - always appreciated.

[@befo1968]

I own a p700 and was curious about it's numbers. For reference: Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper. Under glass 135yrs, UV > 250yrs, Bare 76yrs, Dark > 300yrs They are considerable higher then 8550, but so is its inkt price!

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks, that's pigments for you...

[@frequentlycynical642]

I've been using inkjet printers for 30 years. I well remember the ink fading disaster of an Epson series about 25 years ago. The prints started turning orange after not many months. I am of the opinion that's why Epson did a deep dive into pigment inks. Major dye egg on their face. Then the race was on to eliminate the very real disadvantages of pigment inks. Puddling, flat gamut needing glossy clear coats, etc. Once upon a time all inkjet color papers had a deep gel coat. Dang, can't remember the proper name. Ink went INTO the coating making it fade resistant. But the "problem" was that it didn't dry quick enough for modern people. God forbid, five minutes waiting before handling. So, "instant dry" papers became the norm, no one realizing the price being paid. Fading. I believe HP was the last to make the old fashioned paper. I've spent a zillion hours researching, doing my own tests in bright Florida sunshine, reading Wilhelm data, you name it. But the biggest variable is...does anyone care? Will anyone care in twenty, fifty, a hundred years? Most of the desire for longevity is due to the photographer's ego. That they really think their work is of such artistic value. Let me answer my own question: No one will care. Pigment inks have their place. Anything that will be mostly out of doors. Some signs, bumper stickers. But for interior work, a bad choice. Even un-glassed dye prints will perform well for decades if kept out of direct sunlight. And as noted, if worse comes to worse, print a new one. A side note: Those old machine prints used chromogenic technology, just like every color film and print system...except for Kodachrome. I have almost 90 year old Kodachrome film that is still stunningly perfect. 35mm and 4x5. Thank you, Dad!

[@KeithCooper]

The 'will anyone care' point is a very valid one ;-) It's partly why I mention print lifetimes from a print marketing POV - if 'archival' sells a print, I'm OK with it ... I won't be around ;-)

[@SmileToTheGeorgieBoi]

Thank you so much for this video. I bought an 8550 based on your review. I was thinking I might use my old Stylus photo R3000 for prints I would like to last longer, but it looks like prints made with the 8550 will last long enough! I’m still tempted to get a P900 though, its getting harder to find ink for the old R3000…

[@KeithCooper]

Glad I could help! I suspect that for many the benefit of the P900 is just the size of prints...

[@brightboxstudio]

I started with some of the earliest Epson photo printers 25+ years ago (as I think you also did), when fading and metamerism were major problems. We are at a wonderful point today, where we don’t even need to be too concerned about dye inks as long we display or store the prints in a protected way. Home inkjet printing today is not only largely free of the problems that plagued early inkjets, but can also be more stable than affordable chemical prints as you showed with the faded snapshots. It’s a really great time to want to print your own photos. We can simply print, and enjoy.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, steady improvements...

[@friartist]

Thank you for your review. On my shelf I have my wedding photo on Cibachrome from 1987, and as I gathered back then, made with superior dyes than what most photographers offered me back then. Shot on slide film with a Hasselblad and developed by the photographers brother in another part of Denmark, because he did Cibachrome. The photo looks pristine now, 37 years later. I tried Cibachrome myself, but it was too expensive for me, and too contrasty (my fault), but the images of my wife from 1986 have NOT changed, like the rest of us LOL

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, not so many prints from then will be doing so well.

[@AZJack]

Thank you, Keith, for looking into this.

[@KeithCooper]

Glad it was of interest

[@nimhla]

Thanks for the information, Keith! I wish you a lovely day.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks!

[@EPeltzer]

I recently bought an 8550 and am pretty thoroughly thrilled with it. But I did keep my old r2880 around, thinking I might use it for for pigment prints that I really wanted to last a long time. Based on these numbers there's no way I'm going to keep the r2880 with its tiny always empty ink cartridges and constant clogging problems. Also the 8550's black and whites on glossy anyway are quite wonderful. Keith I'm about your age, and I started printing large photos on Epson ink jets probably in the mid '90s. Those prints faded and yellowed and shifted in less than 10 years under glass. Bad old days, good riddance!

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, I reprinted one a few years ago for someone I'd made a print for around 2000. Still had the original file so it benefitted from modern software too...

[@ianflint4610]

Heat cycling is no friend of images even if they are in their packets in the dark. Most of us inadvertently keep them in drawers in rooms that have big temperate fluctuations over the year, or, even kept in boxes in the loft where the range is even higher. Must use acid free paper between prints. The lifetime of prints is what has stopped be buying the ET8550. Think I'll pull the rigger on that and pay for archival grade prints as and when needed.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - living in the UK I tend to forget about extremes of temperature variation ;-)

[@williamlaabs]

Thanks so much for this information, I've been wondering about that ever since I purchased the 8500 a while back. You mentioned somewhere that you have some print profiles for these printers and was wondering what I need to do to get them? Your reviews is one of the main reason why I went with the 8500 and I'm super pleased with the quality of the prints. Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - Profiles are listed in the main reviews www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/ and www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8500-printer-review/ ...email me at Northlight

[@NickClayton-b2t]

A great video as usual Keith. I have the ET 18100, would these figures apply to this printer as well or are the inks different to the ET 8550?

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I don't know I'm afraid

[@thierryhoornaert9950]

Thank you Keith for this very informative video, from an ET 8550 owner. The only frustration I have with this All-in-one printer is that we have to go back and forth between the computer and the printer to scan multiple files and pages. As this is a network printer, this is frustrating for everyone having this printer in a dedicated room away from the working desk. Epson should know and have a [Next/Continue] workflow on the printer display. Or do you know of an alternative?

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - Not something I tested to any degree - I just scanned individual items from a printer next to my computer... Any office type functions are aspects I don't really look at in any detail. Not sure if this is at all relevant, but try scanning to an attached USB stick? It's a shared drive IIRC www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/

[@thierryhoornaert9950]

​@@KeithCooperHi Keith, I tried (again) scanning to an attached USB stick from the ET8550, as you suggested. It only let us scan ONE (PDF) page at a time. While it certainly let us avoid to go back and forth (or up and down the stairs) between the computer and the printer/scanner, it is still illogic for a network device. Networking is important for businesses and home offices. IMHO reviewers and serious influencers should not only review what they use, but also go the extra mile for features that are used by and important to others. Why? Because the manufacturers listen to them and it would add to the total quality and user-friendlyness of their products for the sake of all.

[@KeithCooper]

@@thierryhoornaert9950 Useful to know, but I'm afraid not the sort of stuff I'm ever likely to look at in much depth. My reviews over the last 15 years, and recently the [supplementary] videos, have always been primarily aimed at photographers and artists looking to print their work. 'Office functionality' is noted if it's there, although usually only in the main written reviews. My 'extra mile' is all the colour management, media selection, and black and white coverage, along with all the icc profiles I make. Few cover that in any meaningful way - that's what I feed back to the printer makers.

[@tundrusphoto4312]

Thank you for this.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks

[@RogerHyam]

People get quite obsessed about permanence and it makes me laugh. Ever since the Fading Committee of the London Photographic Society of 1855 it has been an issue. So at least the debate is quite permanent 😃 I think that was largely inspired by the fact that much of what was produced by Fox Talbot's Reading establishment faded quite quickly - possibly due to the water quality. In the fine art world there is simultaneously a fetish for C-Type prints which are just RA4 prints and will fade in a couple of decades (like family photos from the 1970s and 80s) and platinum palladium prints which people claim with last "1,000 years" but for which there is little evidence. I find the PP claims particularly dodgy as the papers for most alternative processes have to be free of any buffering. Yes they will probably last a long time but no longer than a good pigment inkjet print. I presume that a simple office laser print on modern buffered paper will outlast most of these things because it is mostly carbon - but the print quality would be rubbish of course. I wonder if the pigment used in black inkjet ink is largely carbon too ? Any idea Keith? It is, of course, far more likely that one of our descendants will simply think our prints are ugly or a waste of space and throw them out! Also I wouldn't hold out for colour negatives not to have faded as they use many of the same dyes as the prints and the same dye coupler technology. Silver would be better, especially if briefly selenium toned.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, it's primarily a marketing feature for me personally ;-)

[@KeithCooper]

The black pigments are often carbon based - this is why they are a little warm, and need some colours for neutrality in many inkjet B&W print modes. If you like the warmer look and really want 'permanence' I suppose some of the specialist 'carbon black' ink sets might be the way to go. Good point about the dye negs. I've found them better than the actual 'corner shop' prints, but that's hardly an exhaustive testing.

[@brightboxstudio]

I have been scanning old film and yes, your concern is warranted. For color negatives over 20 years old, the degree and extent of dye fading I have seen is distressing, causing me to make it a higher priority to scan them before they degrade too much. For all those years, the film was stored and organized in “archival” filmstrip pages in closed film binders, and I do not live in a hot climate so temperatures are not extreme, yet they still fade. I could not have stored them any better without constructing a chamber with refrigeration and humidity control…

[@Georgeinthejungle]

After watching your video I went down the rabbit hole of searching forums and....I am now even more troubled. Do inkjet prints need to have a special coating applied as a final/sealing layer on top? Are they more susceptible to damage otherwise (compared to let's say a minilab print e.g. Fujifilm crystal archive paper?) Will they survive being stored in a shoebox and handled by people every now and then?

[@KeithCooper]

No coating needed in normal use. Robustness depends to some extent on the printer/ink/paper. 6x4 prints on a glossy paper from the 8550 should be pretty robust - and last longer than many I have on photo paper. The printers in some drylab units are inkjets... [pigment ink]

[@paulmaschak5267]

Yes John - next lifetime… hahaha great view in life

[@fredwilson1191]

Thank you for this information. I've just recently discovered your channel. What about sublimation inks/printing? It appears that its very easy to convert the Epson Ecotank printers to use sublimation inks and such.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks Ah, what about dye-sub? - my suggestion is always a proper dye sub printer like the Epson F2200 or the new F1000. I've no experience of modifying ecotank printers or just how much the more reactive dye-sub inks would affect the reliability of any converted printer [other than saying goodbye to any warranty]. I'm hoping to have a look at the new F1000 later this year

[@fredwilson1191]

@@KeithCooper thanks for the reply. My question, though perhaps I could have stated it better, was meant to be how is dye-sub compared to regular inks. Color stability and longevity, though based on your video here it appears that regular ink prints would certainly outlive me.

[@KeithCooper]

That's a complex one and depends on the substrate as well - this stuff is why I was hoping to have a look at such printing later this year if possible. My knowledge of the subject is very thin at the moment...

[@nerdnam]

Just wondering... if it would be possible to print on the back a representation of the digital coding for the picture?

[@KeithCooper]

Many photo papers won't take ink on the reverse, so you'd need to write it with a suitably archival pen

[@jamesclaassen8843]

Can the 8550 print on metal or is it just capable of printing on paper?

[@KeithCooper]

There is a straight through print path, so with a suitable ink receptor coating, there is no reason it can't Finding suitable metal and coating is left as an exercise for others... ;-)

[@jamesclaassen8843]

@@KeithCooper Thanks. I appreciate the info.

[@ddsdss256]

I'm more concerned with the longevity of "fine art" prints from my P900 (pigment-based inks, as you well know), as many of those are for sale and I've been telling people that, on the "archival" papers I use (I thought that the Epson Luster paper in your chart qualified as such, but there are multiple factors to consider), the prints should supposedly last (depending on how one defines "last") for about 200 years for color and 400 for B&W. I assumed that meant framed and displayed, but not in direct sunlight. Do I need to modify my statements? I don't want to make false claims (even though I've got a couple of years on you)! I assume that if a print started to show signs of age, one would re-scan, make adjustments, and re-print it. Of course as you mention, there are the negatives (assuming those don't deteriorate/get lost!) and digital files (which aren't necessarily as permanent as we'd like to think).

[@KeithCooper]

You need check the wilhelm data, but not unreasonable with archival media - RC type papers don't really count for that though

[@ddsdss256]

@@KeithCooper Yeah, I wonder about the RC factor. The thing is, so many prints look really good on that paper, although if I'm going to charge a significant amount for a print, it'll likely be on baryta, metallic, or textured rag (like Epson Cold Press Natural, which one could say looks ever-so-slightly "pre-yellowed"--ha ha).

[@JohnJohn-fz6nt]

They'll last OUR lifetimes👍 After that it's somebody else's problem!

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, that's why my prints come with a 'lifetime' guarantee ;-)