Since carbon tissue pigments don't have to be ultra-fine like inkjet color, this allows more flexibility in choice,
including better permanence, though in certain pigment categories, very small particle size can equate to better
transparency in the overall sandwich. Old-school Fresson prints used a choice of process colors which by today's
standards would be considered poor from both a hue and permanence perspective, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were more permanent than most current inkjet offerings, simply because you've only got CMYK to deal with,
and not a complicated blend of many different programmable jet nozzels. Then folks started looking into auto pigments etc. Certain watercolors were used also, and I certainly preferred their look to the more mechanized
schools are pigment printing, but can understand their relative inconvenience due to batch variability. I've had
some pretty extended conversations with Aardenburg and do think he intelligently addresses some of the shortcoming in Wilhelm's approach. But having had many years of experience dealing with industrial pigments and how accelerated aging tests work, I take all of them with a degree of caution. For instance, I would never ever claim any print I sell will last so many decades because some lab extrapolated it. That's marketing bull as far as I'm concerned. But given an intelligent choice of pigments, a modern carbon print should resist fading longer than any of the common alternatives, including inkjet. The integrity of the sandwich and substrate is a
whole different issue, however, and has its own weak spots in prediction.