Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?  (Read 4366 times)

nirpat89

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
    • Photography by Niranjan Patel
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2017, 02:21:50 PM »

Canon had a really bad longevity rating on their website for this new inkset on one of their own  rc papers. When we started talking about it online, like 8 months ago they removed it. In the past Canon and Epson always posted full thorough ratings on Wilhelms website before the printers were released or at the same time. Not anymore. I suspect Canon and maybe even Epson had them tested and didn't like aspects of what they saw. Or maybe they didn't even bother finishing the tests.  Whatever the reason with Canon I gave up on them and bought a Z3200 44" for 3 grand and I'm very happy and know what I'm getting. Now all of a sudden Canon is dropping their prices.

If only HP would make a 17" printer.  I will be a happy camper.
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2017, 05:52:33 PM »


I know. It makes no sense. In a way this is the biggest market for their Vivera photo pigments and they never came out with one. Don't understand them.


If only HP would make a 17" printer.  I will be a happy camper.
Logged

traderjay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2017, 10:29:09 PM »

I work in technical marketing in fields such as semiconductor, robotics and machine vision. Before any specs are publicly released, it undergoes multiple layers of review by the engineering and legal team. For a company like Canon, I guarantee you the final third party result will not deviate too much from Canon's initial result.

At the end of the day, unless you are hanging your prints in a sauna room, they will out last and outlive any of of us here. As for why HP exited the 17 inch market, its because the entire company was having financial issues quarter over quarter and many non-essential stuff are canned. That is why they are now split into two, HPE and HP Inc. Printers are profitable for them, but it won't keep the company afloat.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2663
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2017, 07:27:04 AM »

I work in technical marketing in fields such as semiconductor, robotics and machine vision. Before any specs are publicly released, it undergoes multiple layers of review by the engineering and legal team. For a company like Canon, I guarantee you the final third party result will not deviate too much from Canon's initial result.
Unless Canon publicly disclose how they test ink permanence there is no way to know if a third party test result using a well known method of testing will deviate or not.  This issue can be simply dealt with by providing funding to Aardenburg so that Mark can conduct the appropriate stability test.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2017, 09:07:53 AM »


At the end of the day, unless you are hanging your prints in a sauna room, they will out last and outlive any of of us here.


Yes, I call this print longevity argument "the one generation rule", and it is a very commonly held point of view. It's certainly enough to convince commercial print shops and photo labs that they won't have any serious liability for faded prints coming back to them.   Then there's also the modern digital age notion I call the " I can always reprint" rule.  Even acid-choked lignin-filled newspaper print can easily meet the one generation rule, for that matter even a two or three generation lifespan if the environmental display conditions are chosen wisely (e.g., not "hanging your prints in a sauna room").  Similarly, most amateur printmakers are fully confident in the "I can always reprint" approach, so...

Also, in this thread Geraldo Garcia wrote: "Not so good" longevity may be acceptable, but we can not say for sure without knowing how worse it is"
John Dean wrote: "Canon had a really bad longevity rating on their website for this new inkset on one of their own  rc papers".


Not trying to go OT here, but I'd be interested in hearing in more detail what other's expectations for print permanence really are, because if the bar is set low enough, then a case can be made that what the inkjet printer manufacturers have presented over the last decade to their customers re: print longevity is already adequate enough to consider the topic "Game over".

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2017, 09:14:00 AM »

Yea?

That's the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard, and I hear it from sales people all the time.
Hell many of us could die in the next ten years. Does that mean an important Photographer's work  should should die n 10 years or 50 years. Or anything work that is meaningful?

What if a painter made a great series of paintings that were programmed to deteriorate in their children's life time or a musician recorded great albums that would disappear in a couple of decades.

People have been trained by Kodak over the decades, and others that longevity is just a luxury that is unimportant. That's stupid IF you are serious about your work as most of my clients are. As someone who has worked in museums I can tell you right now that no one knows exactly what will be considered important 50 or 100 years from now. I'll tell you one thing , I'm glad as hell that my favorite Photographer's from the 1860s to the 1960s used stable materials. By today's standards Edward Weston's and Alfred Stieglitz' work would be gone. But theirs is going to out live a lot of the work from the 1980s much of which has already deteriorated beyond recognition.

But this is a disposable culture, especially in America, that considers a week old post on Instagram to be an archival product. Most of the work being printed right now will be in a landfill in 10 years. But I'm not going to play into that game.



uote author=traderjay link=topic=112923.msg995132#msg995132 date=1503714549]
I work in technical marketing in fields such as semiconductor, robotics and machine vision. Before any specs are publicly released, it undergoes multiple layers of review by the engineering and legal team. For a company like Canon, I guarantee you the final third party result will not deviate too much from Canon's initial result.

At the end of the day, unless you are hanging your prints in a sauna room, they will out last and outlive any of of us here. As for why HP exited the 17 inch market, its because the entire company was having financial issues quarter over quarter and many non-essential stuff are canned. That is why they are now split into two, HPE and HP Inc. Printers are profitable for them, but it won't keep the company afloat.
[/quote]
Logged

kevinmcdnyc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2017, 09:36:30 AM »

What I find upsetting is that most people don't see that ink permanency as probably the most important aspect of a pigment printer. What is the use in knowing the fine placement of dots if they are going to fade in a generation.  We have reviews of these printers regarding their most technical aspects and yet for this last generation of Canon and Epson printers, the great reviews are published, the printers are sold to many and still the technical longevity of their inksets are an unknown. I've been wanting to purchase a new 24 inch printer for over a year and have been waiting for the release of this information that I now feel will never be released. Its been quite frustrating.
Logged

Paul Roark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2017, 11:07:34 AM »

... I'd be interested in hearing in more detail what other's expectations for print permanence really are, because if the bar is set low enough, then a case can be made that what the inkjet printer manufacturers have presented over the last decade to their customers re: print longevity is already adequate enough to consider the topic "Game over".


I, personally, get gratification in knowing that my black and white carbon pigment prints will last a very long time.  However, I suspect I'm a small minority of users.

Even when third party B&W was at it's height, prior to the K3 generation of the large printer companies, MIS Associates (Bob Zeiss, the founder) and I looked at the economies of starting with just the best pigments, and the volume needed to do so economically just for B&W was not there.  I had identified a watercolor pigment that would be ideal as a carbon warmth offset to achieve a neutral print tone with a single color pigment so that the differential fade issue would be eliminated.  But, given the economies of scale needed, and not met with MIS's B&W sales, I concluded I had to base my inkset formulas on pigments that had already gone through the grinding and dispersion-adding stages.  Excellent carbon pigments were and are relatively easy to source.  With the color pigments, however, I realistically have to start with the best that are already out there.  Currently, the Canon cyan and blue Lucia EX are what I use for my cool toner to offset the carbon warmth.  The printer OEMs have the economies of scale needed, but they have no incentive to serve a niche that is too small for them to utilize those economies of scale.  Fortunately, what they have is good enough that, when used as sparingly as possible, with the rest of the ink positions being 100% carbon, I can still beat the lightly selenium toned silver print.  That's not bad at all, but if we had not run into the economies of scale issue, I probably could have done better.

As a practical matter, the papers probably end up being the weak link.  Laminates always seem to end up cracking and/or de-laminating due to differential expansion and contraction of the layers with temperature and humidity changes.  Thus, to me, un-coated Arches watercolor paper printed with 100% carbon is the ultimate for B&W, even if it's not as smooth as an inkjet paper.  It just makes me feel good to know an image of mine has the potential to look almost like new hundreds of years from now.  But I really don't recommend most bother with it.  The best inkjet papers are "good enough," and that is the reality of what drives the large markets.

FWIW

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1654
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2017, 12:38:21 PM »

If only HP would make a 17" printer.  I will be a happy camper.

HP made the B9180 A3+ printer...
I have 3 of them here....only on works as it should.
I remember a review where it was called 'Built as a tank'

This is true, but it is not in the same league as the 24 and 44 inch printers. Also the cost for printing are much higher because of the small cartridges.
I would suggest a 24 inch printer with 12 inks.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3839
    • waynefox.com
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2017, 03:47:17 PM »

Longevity is an issue, and if selling a ďcollectibleĒ work, certainly needs to be a factor to be considered. I concern myself with it to some degree, but I am also a realist, and unless I become ďfamousĒ and my work becomes truly collectible (not likely), what I sell will be enjoyed for some time, but most likely will be stored away and eventually discarded far before the colors will objectionably fade. I do take some pride in that fact that there is a decent chance that a century from now if one of my pieces is still held in regard by some future generation, it has a pretty good chance of still looking OK.

If a museum ever wanted to acquire one of my images, I would probably produce it slightly differently, but even with Epsonís last inkset and the problem with the yellows, I never felt that longevity was seriously hampered.  Considering many of the more notable landscape photographers are still using chromogenic prints Iím well ahead of them and am comfortable.

It is interesting that Canon, after touting the longevity superiority over Epson for so many years to the point that Epson introduced new inks formulated for much longer life, felt compromising longevity for some other reason was acceptable. (assuming this is the reason for the delayed test results). That being said, just because the new inkset may not perform as well doesnít mean it wonít perform well enough. 

I have no answer to how long is long enough.  But I know the vast majority of cases, what we have now is long enough. Trying to create inksets that last even longer seems unlikely. 

there are those that produce work that will be historically important to at least a few in future generations (family photographs and the like), they seem to be the least interested in longevity despite the a much higher likelihood of future generations wanting and appreciating the image.  Most seem to be happy with chemical prints because they are the cheapest, despite longevity ratings that are fractional of current pigment inksets.

traderjay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2017, 08:49:40 PM »

Unless Canon publicly disclose how they test ink permanence there is no way to know if a third party test result using a well known method of testing will deviate or not.  This issue can be simply dealt with by providing funding to Aardenburg so that Mark can conduct the appropriate stability test.

If Canon or other printer manufacturer provide funding, the people will come out of the woodwork questioning objectivity. These third party test methodology can be easily simulated on the computer instead of actual testing to extrapolate the result and I can guarantee you the chemist at Canon with complete knowledge of the ink formulation have performed such analysis.

Lastly, the third party test uses accelerated method to gauge the ink fading and how realistic is that to real life? Is your photos exposed to constant UV and ozone on a 24/7 basis? This is why I used the sauna as an example.

I am not saying longevity is not important, heck I will be angry if prints made on my Pro 1000 starts fading after a few years and I trust that Canon or any reputable company will not dramatically overstate the longevity.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 08:53:05 PM by traderjay »
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2017, 09:36:20 PM »

...  These third party test methodology can be easily simulated on the computer instead of actual testing to extrapolate the result and I can guarantee you the chemist at Canon with complete knowledge of the ink formulation have performed such analysis.

Lastly, the third party test uses accelerated method to gauge the ink fading and how realistic is that to real life? Is your photos exposed to constant UV and ozone on a 24/7 basis? This is why I used the sauna as an example.


Nice try, but flawed reasoning on both counts.

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

traderjay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2017, 10:00:18 PM »

Nice try, but flawed reasoning on both counts.

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

My assumptions are only superficial and have no authority over this matter. I look forward to the test results of the Pro 1000 performed by your organization. The science behind inkjet printing and longevity is extremely fascinating and that is what drew me to the hobby and I no way do I want to discredit your great work. If I come across that way please  accept my apologies.

All I am trying to get across is before the longevity numbers are published by Canon, certain due diligence are performed and marketing have absolutely no authority over that number. If your testing reveals major deviation on the negative side, then Canon has lots of explanation to do. Every public facing material one sees on all the product be it printers or cameras come from marketing, but when it comes to specific performance claims these are vetted very rigorously. I once had to spend SIX months to prove a performance claim to the legal team before I was allowed to go public with that specific number.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 10:03:29 PM by traderjay »
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2663
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2017, 08:19:18 AM »

Lastly, the third party test uses accelerated method to gauge the ink fading and how realistic is that to real life? Is your photos exposed to constant UV and ozone on a 24/7 basis? This is why I used the sauna as an example.
Accelerated stability testing is used in the pharmaceutical industry to establish expiration dates and is well accepted by regulatory agencies.  The testing regime of Aardenburg (disclosure:  I have participated in one big study of Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth and provide yearly funding) is well documented.  In the absence of studies such as this, one would have little or no reliable data.  The sauna example is a false one.
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3839
    • waynefox.com
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2017, 01:32:39 PM »

If Canon or other printer manufacturer provide funding, the people will come out of the woodwork questioning objectivity. These third party test methodology can be easily simulated on the computer instead of actual testing to extrapolate the result and I can guarantee you the chemist at Canon with complete knowledge of the ink formulation have performed such analysis.

So you would rather Canon do the tests themselves?  This is where people would come out of the woodwork questioning objectivity.  Independent testing is almost always funded by the company interested in the results of the test. the key to me is that the testing methodology remains consistent so that all tests across all medias/manufactureres can be compared ... x performs better than y, y performs more poorly than z. Up until now Wilhelm has provided data for every inkset within a reasonable amount of time.  I canít imagine those tests werenít paid for by the manufacturer.  But Iím sure in that contract, wilhelm might be restricted in the release of the data (unlike aardenburg whose funding is provided by end users.  The challenge there is the difficulty in getting funding without manufacturer support). So why isnít the data available?  Either they decided not to do it because Wilhelmís pricing was more than they wanted to pay, or the results are disappointing.

If Canon performed itís own tests  (one of the problems with Kodak over the years, and my current issue with the test results available for chromaluxe panels from bay photo), you have an objectivity problem. Doesnít mean the data isnít reliable based on the conditions and definitions of the study, but there again we find another problem - the only useful test is the same methodology and criteria to all medias tested. Thus the Chromaluxe problem, they only tested against ď3 chromagenic photo papersĒ, brands unknown, but not against any current inkjet media. So while their methodology seems sound and is provided in the test and they support the data with fade charts comparing rates of fading, it isnít very relevant to most who are comparing inkjet output. So here we have an objectivity problem, either they didnít test any inkjet medias (seems odd), or the results of the inkjet media by comparison made the aluminum look bad so they omitted it from the results. All the test shows is it appears to fade slower  than some unknown brands of chemical photo paper which might not have even been known products such as Fuji Crystal or Kodak Endura. (interestingly enough, it also shows the magenta layer of aluminum prints fades at a substantially different rate than the other dyes, so while the overall fading might seem better, there seems a strong possibility of a green shift over time). So we have an ďindependentĒ test performed, but under conditions and restrictions that donít provide enough relevant data and obviously a test that seems designed to favor the desired outcome. Were Aardenburg or Wilhelm to run the test, at least itís the same test as other media so the data has some point of performance comparison.

As far as ďsimulatingĒ it on a computer, I assume that the engineers use such models when creating inksets, but computer models can only be trusted when verified by real world results, and this assumes no new conditions/chemicals/manufacturing processes which introduce an unknown element into the model.  I donít think many would trust a computer model without some real world testing to support it. But even if itís useful and reliable ... we havenít even seen this from Canon. 

The current Canon situation is unusual.  I havenít seen a ink formulation result not published in a reasonable amount of time for any Epson/Canon/HP inkset in the past.  Either Canon has decided to not test, or they didnít like the results of the test. I suppose itís possible that Wilhelm made some serious mistake and had to discard results and restart after a substantial period of time into the test, but this seems unlikely.

At this point itís all speculation, but it certainly does appear that something is amiss.

It would be surprising if the inkset didnít perform quite well. So the challenge might be an inkset the doesnít perform quite as well as the previous inkset, and how to spin that to consumers since it seems to be problematic.  Personally the Canon inkset has done very well in the past, even if the current inks performed 10% or 20% ďworseĒ by comparison, they would still be really good, and to me more than adequate.

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2017, 10:58:22 PM »

Firstly, I have personal knowledge of accelerated color testing by the paint industry for over 50 years. It's not a recent concept and is completely accepted by industry.
Secondly, as with a lot of predictive studies, tests etc, the real value is in the comparative results. Which is best, or how does A compare with B, and so on. I really only want to know which ink lasts the longest out of what's available, for example.
Logged

Geraldo Garcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 460
    • Personal blog
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2017, 05:24:27 PM »

Also, in this thread Geraldo Garcia wrote: "Not so good" longevity may be acceptable, but we can not say for sure without knowing how worse it is"
John Dean wrote: "Canon had a really bad longevity rating on their website for this new inkset on one of their own  rc papers".

Not trying to go OT here, but I'd be interested in hearing in more detail what other's expectations for print permanence really are, because if the bar is set low enough, then a case can be made that what the inkjet printer manufacturers have presented over the last decade to their customers re: print longevity is already adequate enough to consider the topic "Game over".

Ok Mark, here is my view on this matter (as an artist/photographer and also as a print studio owner):

As a photographer I consider the HP Vivera level of permanence almost perfect. I don't think increasing it would bring any real life benefit for the vast majority of users. Sure there is no thing as "excessive" longevity, but when we have to sacrifice something (gamut, contrast...) to get those extra "years on display", we have to weight the pros and cons.

As a print studio owner the situation is a bit different. We only work for artists, photographers (professionals and amateurs), art-galleries and museums, we do not print for signage or decoration, our clients are (supposedly) the kind of people that should care about longevity. Well... they do, but they care as much about the gamut and perceived detail. When we added some canons to our business (IPF8400) we traded some longevity for a better gamut and speed (for a business speed matters). I don't think it was a bad trade, but I don't feel like giving up more on longevity. We kept a Z3200 because of the ongoing series printed on demand by some artists and we still love it's B&W, but it became impractical to work with it. The carts are hard to find around here and cost triple of what they used to, so we are forced to move on.

Now that I answered your question, please answer this one: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?  ;D

Best regards.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2017, 08:48:03 PM »


Now that I answered your question, please answer this one: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?  ;D


Aardenburg has only 3 ink/media combinations printed on a Canon-1000 in test to date. I wish we could have started more media in test because these three samples show that media is now a very important consideration with respect to any published ratings for the Canon Pro-11 ink set, but funding didn't permit.  The three Aardenburg test samples have reached 50 Megalux hours in test, but I have been reluctant to publish any results to date because definitive conclusions are still problematic at this point in time.

All three samples are still passing lower and upper Aardenburg Conservation Display ratings, but two of the three samples are very close to triggering the lower CDR limit while the third is doing much much better. This disparity between best media and worst media is sobering to say the least, and it very likely explains Canon's dillemma with any Wilhelm test results (if indeed Canon commissioned any such tests). As far as I can tell on WIR's difficult-to-navigate website, Canon paid WIR to test the older Lucia EX set with just two media. One was Canon's flagship RC photo paper at the time (Canon Heavyweight Satin Photo), but that paper has been discontinued, so an apples-to-apples comparison of Canon's Lucia EX versus Pro-11 on that paper would be of little practical value to customers today. Likewise, the older Lucia EX set has never been tested (either by WIR or Aardenburg) on the newer Canon Pro Luster paper. This is unfortunate because Canon's newer Pro Luster paper is on a path to turn in the lowest score of the three Lucia Pro-11 printed samples I have in test, and thus, if WIR were to publish results for Lucia Pro-11/Canon Pro luster, the only recent WIR rating to directly compare the result to would be Canon Lucia EX/HW Satin photo. In this situation, any step backwards in the rating is just as likely to be caused by the media chemistry rather than the ink chemistry. In other words, it's a confounded experiment, thus only useful from a marketing perspective if the new ink and newer RC photo paper matches or exceeds the older ink/media test result. However, my ongoing tests already show that the older Canon Lucia EX/Canon Heavyweight Satin combination is indeed going to end up with the superior lightfastness rating, but again, that doesn't mean the Lucia Pro-11 ink is necessarily worse, only that the newer Canon RC photo ink/media combination taken as a combined unit is worse. On the other hand, the best Lucia Pro-11 sample I have in test, i.e., Canon Pro-11 printed on Moab Entrada Rag Natural paper, is running in a "dead heat" so far in  direct comparison to the Lucia EX/Entrada Rag Natural sample I also have it side-by-side on the same light fade test unit. Hence, it's unclear at this time if the newer inks are equal, better, or worse than Canon's older inks sets on a wider variety of media, although better seems increasingly unlikely. We sorely need a bigger sample size containing numerous popular papers printed with both older and newer Canon ink sets to determine a proper answer to this question. I seriously doubt Canon has commissioned such a study with WIR or anyone else. I'd like to be wrong on that, but given past history of commissioned industry testing and marketing claims, I doubt I will be wrong. It's not just Canon that falls short on the testing regimens. Neither Epson nor HP as well have ever been even close to up to date across their entire branded media lines printed with their major ink sets.

Hence, the Lucia Pro-11 ink set is still sort of a can of worms with respect to print longevity that only testing a larger sample size involving different main stream media is going to sort out in the longer run.  Is it equal to, better, or worse than the older Lucia EX ink set? Very hard to say at this point in time. Is it in third place behind Epson's newest HD/HDX ink sets and HP's now decade old Vivera pigment set.... yes more than likely, but further testing is required. All that said, Is it good enough? Well,  if TraderJay's "one generation" expectation is good enough for you, then you can indeed buy a Canon Pro1000, 2000, 4000, or 6000 printer model with reasonable expectation that your customers won't return faded prints to you any time soon.  However, if you set the bar that low, then Canon's Chromalife 100+ dye base set also gets you there, as do conventional color chromogenic wet processed prints. That's why I asked the question: "what is your expectation for print longevity?"

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 09:36:12 PM by MHMG »
Logged

kevinmcdnyc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2017, 10:10:33 PM »

Thanks for the information, Mark!  It is good to have some information on the Canon inkset. It makes me lean more in Epson's direction.  I do wish HP had kept going with the development of the Z3200.
Logged

Geraldo Garcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 460
    • Personal blog
Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?
« Reply #39 on: August 28, 2017, 11:14:59 PM »

(...)
Hence, the Lucia Pro-11 ink set is still sort of a can of worms with respect to print longevity that only testing a larger sample size involving different main stream media is going to sort out in the longer run.  Is it equal to, better, or worse than the older Lucia EX ink set? Very hard to say at this point in time. Is it in third place behind Epson's newest HD/HDX ink sets and HP's now decade old Vivera pigment set.... yes more than likely, but further testing is required. All that said, Is it good enough? Well,  if TraderJay's "one generation" expectation is good enough for you, then you can indeed buy a Canon Pro1000, 2000, 4000, or 6000 printer model with reasonable expectation that your customers won't return faded prints to you any time soon.  However, if you set the bar that low, then Canon's Chromalife 100+ dye base set also gets you there, as do conventional color chromogenic wet processed prints. That's why I asked the question: "what is your expectation for print longevity?"

Mark,
I can't thank you enough for this. I completely understand how complicated it is to disclose this type of information so early and from a limited sample. I will always support and promote Aardenburg because of the invaluable work you do.
And of course not, from my perspective "one generation" expectancy is not good enough.
Thanks again.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 11:19:42 PM by Geraldo Garcia »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up