I got into a long discussion with Kodak about this a couple years back
when they first introduced their dye sub photographic copy centers into
stores, because I was noticing people tossing old photos after they made
a cleaned up, larger version on the Kodak machine.
I suggested, at that time, that Kodak warn people against this, since
the output from their dye sub printer was not nearly as permanent as
either color or especially B&W silver prints.
Kodak's reply was that their research showed that dye sub without a UV
layer was very vulnerable to UV and heat damage, and that they had
stopped using a non-coated product. 3M told me that their dye sub
products should only be considered working proofs, because they could
fade within 30-60 days enough to not be consider accurate after that point.
Kodak claims the UV coated dye sub prints have equivalent lifespan to
"typical modern color photographic prints".
I suspect that pigments are much more stable than sublimated color dyes,
and I would not make any assumptions about longevity. However, having
said that, I have some print samples in dark storage which look as good
as memory allows for accuracy, and some of them are a good 4-5 years
old. I have not kept any under more normal display situations.
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> [stuff about dye sub]
>
> There seemed to be stuff on the Epson list that dye sub prints may
not last
> as long as pigment based inkjet prints. Anyone have any ideas on dye sub
> longevity?
>
> Rob
