Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?

[mearussi]

Hi Mark - thanks for getting back on this. Perhaps it should be in another thread, but what I was trying to find out is whether there is much to distinguish these printers print-quality wise, quite apart from longevity. There are first-rate professionals in the "LuLa Family" using one or more of all three brands so that itself just makes it all the more interesting to drill down more on the print quality aspects - but I think you wrapped it up succinctly saying they all make great prints. From all I've seen, I agree.

Nope - not buying another printer any time soon - no space here for 24" models, the value of the CAD means multiplying US prices by 25%, I don't need that big and I've just shed two other printers to recoup some office space, so now sticking with the Epson SC-P5000. It does all I need, it's built like a brick s...house, has tremendous colour gamut, great B&W performance, superb resolution and works just fine. But that said, one is always interested in poking around as opportunity and favorable circumstances warrant.... who knows, one of these days.........  :-)

The HP ink set is the oldest and comparison tests have shown it to have less gamut than the newest ink sets from Canon and Epson. So if longevity is your primary concern then choose HP, but if gamut and dmax is more important then choose the latest from Epson and Canon.

For me Epson has the best of both worlds, it has a display life almost as good ad HP but with much better gamut and dMax.

[Ernst Dinkla]

The messy publishing WIR does in cooperation with Canson is no invitation for a precise and thorough interpretation of the numbers anyway.  Aardenburg-Imaging is simply more reliable. Which probably is also the reason it does not get the attention of the manufacturer's marketing departments.

Ernst, op de lei getypt.

[mearussi]

Interesting that Canon has gone substantially backwards in this test.

What doesn't seem to compute to me is the correlation between bare bulb and UV glass.  Epson on Baryta PHotographique rates 64 years, HP rates 56 years, yet  under UV glass the Epson rates >230 years, but the HP comes in at 392 years.  not greater than, but a specific number like that?  and that much greater even though the Epson is slightly better without glass?

Seems illogical.

Also curious why they didn't test the Baryta Prestige on the HP, but did so on the others. (also noticed Canson doesn't provide profiles for the Prestige).

They do for my printer (Epson 7800). BTW, I was also able to use Canson's profile designed for their MuseumPro Canvas Satin and got a perfect visual match (go figure). 

[Mark D Segal]

Aardenburg's data does allow one to see how the various colors change over time.  Just look at any one of the completed tests and you will see all the relevant data.

Thanks - done that in the past but didn't remember. :-)

[deanwork]

Yea, glad I didn't buy the new Canon. Ug. Those comparative numbers suck for Canon. No wonder they didn't release them. I'm surprised they let Canson do it.

Yes, Epson is definately back in the game for longevity, and apparently less headaches for their big  printers as well and a great new black. There is a $1,000.00 instant rebate for the P8000 and I'm seriously thinking about it.

[PH Focal-Scape]

Hello

Sorry if I missed this being mentioned earlier but I just came across this on a Canon site (published 9th Feb 2018):

https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART164634&actp=RSS


PRO Series Printers:
 
PRINT LONGEVITY PRO
                                      Photo Paper Pro Platinum    Photo Paper Pro Luster
Gas Fastness                     Approx. 60 Years           Approx. 60 Years
Light Fastness                    Approx. 60 Years           Approx. 45 Years
Longevity in Photo Album    Approx. 200 Years    Approx. 200 Years


Regards

Peter

[Mark D Segal]

I hadn't seen it mentioned earlier, so thanks very much - this is new. Good they finally published something. Says nothing about where the results comes from, how they were derived etc., etc., but at least we now have a company statement FWIW.

[Ryan Mack]

That's the same numbers they've had for Lucia PRO posted there for a year but the TD ink information is a recent addition.

[enduser]

There are a lot of variables in ink tests such as paper construction, paper additives, surface coatings and surface sheen or lack of and the ink itself.  As someone who spent years working in a test lab where paints were tested among other things, I recall that in such a case the testers would test all the paints on one inert surface.
Then comparisons of performance paint-to-paint could avoid thinking whether differing surfaces were or were not causing performance differences. Then, selected ones were tested again on various surfaces.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Interesting that Canon has gone substantially backwards in this test.

What doesn't seem to compute to me is the correlation between bare bulb and UV glass.  Epson on Baryta PHotographique rates 64 years, HP rates 56 years, yet  under UV glass the Epson rates >230 years, but the HP comes in at 392 years.  not greater than, but a specific number like that?  and that much greater even though the Epson is slightly better without glass?

Seems illogical.

Also curious why they didn't test the Baryta Prestige on the HP, but did so on the others. (also noticed Canson doesn't provide profiles for the Prestige).

Wayne,

The pages 3, 4, and 5 are copies of the tests ending in 2012, some papers were removed from that old test report and the 11 remaining ones in the copies got the new Canson names applied (Arches references stripped).  Slight changes in some numbers too; 300>250 for dark storage. Baryta Prestige didn't exist pre 2012. So while it is not mentioned in the 2018 report the pages 3, 4 and 5 are old material and I have my doubts that the papers did not change since. I see that some of the result numbers date even back to a 2009 WIR pdf.

As I explained already the bare bulb tests could be limited by the paper white shift when the better inks actually withstand the exposure, like the Vivera and the HDX. That a bare bulb test result of a paper in 2018 gets ahead of a 2012 test probably says more about the paper manufacturing through time than the inks used. Check the Platine numbers, difference is even more revealing. That paper does not have OBA content but in the bare bulb test does worse than the Baryta Photographique. Improved from 2012 to 2018 too though. The 2012 test PDF mentions the start of tests on improved versions of both papers for the 3 older ink sets (my screengrabs in another message).  However in the 2018 PDF the 2012 test numbers of the old version papers are copied for the 3 older ink sets, not of the two improved papers, they were never published I guess. I suppose the improved paper versions were used for the 2 new ink sets though.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Ernst Dinkla]

There are a lot of variables in ink tests such as paper construction, paper additives, surface coatings and surface sheen or lack of and the ink itself.  As someone who spent years working in a test lab where paints were tested among other things, I recall that in such a case the testers would test all the paints on one inert surface.
Then comparisons of performance paint-to-paint could avoid thinking whether differing surfaces were or were not causing performance differences. Then, selected ones were tested again on various surfaces.

A sound approach but I think inert surfaces are not suitable for the inks used here. It would be nice if an institute like Fogra described a paper manufacturing process + quality controls that delivers a test calibration paper like your inert surface.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Wayne Fox]

Wayne,

The pages 3, 4, and 5 are copies of the tests ending in 2012, some papers were removed from that old test report and the 11 remaining ones in the copies got the new Canson names applied (Arches references stripped).  Slight changes in some numbers too; 300>250 for dark storage. Baryta Prestige didn't exist pre 2012. So while it is not mentioned in the 2018 report the pages 3, 4 and 5 are old material and I have my doubts that the papers did not change since. I see that some of the result numbers date even back to a 2009 WIR pdf.

As I explained already the bare bulb tests could be limited by the paper white shift when the better inks actually withstand the exposure, like the Vivera and the HDX. That a bare bulb test result of a paper in 2018 gets ahead of a 2012 test probably says more about the paper manufacturing through time than the inks used. Check the Platine numbers, difference is even more revealing. That paper does not have OBA content but in the bare bulb test does worse than the Baryta Photographique. Improved from 2012 to 2018 too though. The 2012 test PDF mentions the start of tests on improved versions of both papers for the 3 older ink sets (my screengrabs in another message).  However in the 2018 PDF the 2012 test numbers of the old version papers are copied for the 3 older ink sets, not of the two improved papers, they were never published I guess. I suppose the improved paper versions were used for the 2 new ink sets though.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

Thanks Ernst. Great insight as usual.