[FatCat1979]

> However, if you want your pictures to last 10+ years under the sun

Ah yes, the standard usecase for a printer. putting pictures outside for a decade.

[bayindirh]

Printing a family picture on 4"x6" photo paper, framing it and putting in a living room exposes it to copious amount of UV light over a decade.

It's one of the exact reasons inkjet printers and blank, inkjet-compatible photo paper exists. HP was bundling them with their printers when I last opened mine.

[allarm]

I think it would make perfect sense to print another photo in 10 years and stop giving us a hard time with this ridiculous argument.

[bayindirh]

Thanks for the laugh. No, seriously (not in a derogatory manner. I really laughed it when I read your comment).

I'm an amateur photographer. I print way more photos than you assume.

Here's a selection: https://bayindirh.vsco.site/

[allarm]

Good for you I guess?

[bayindirh]

Allows one to see with different perspectives and with a calm mind, too.

Maybe you should try some.

;)

[account42]

No one is using a bog standard inkjet for something they want to frame for years.

[bayindirh]

A "bog standard inkjet" with pigment inks is not inferior to photo printing. "Photo lab processed photos" degrade equally badly when not displayed behind UV filtering glass.

Even my "bogger standard" inkjet with dye-based colors hold up extremely well. Heck, the photo is taking at dusk with a very dark-blue background, and it's still equally dark. Maybe the paper coating has UV resistance. IDK.