Any news about Canon's Lucia Pro inks permanece?

[Geraldo Garcia]

Does anyone have any preliminary info other than the cryptic "60 years on display" without any additional info that Canon wrote on the printer's specifications?
We always believe they will move forward, improving the permanence, but we know that sometimes compromises are inevitable.
I am considering buying a Pro 1000 to speed up cut sheet printing and to allow smaller margins, but I don't want to make this move without some info about the permanence.
Thanks.

[Mark D Segal]

Does anyone have any preliminary info ......

No, not yet; their tests are on-going with no ETA as far as I know.

[Geraldo Garcia]

Thanks Mark, that is what I feared.
A local dealer is offering me one with a nice discount and the exchange rate is favorable at this time so my "buying window" will not last long.
Decisions, decisions... 

[drchevalier]

Hello Geraldo,

I have no specific information, but Martin Bailey on his recent podcast talked about moving to a new ImagePROGRAF - 4000.  He is a very good fellow and you may be able to get some feedback from him through his website https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com  He said he did not get a ton of support from Canon but did speak to them in Tokyo about the inks.

Good luck,

Ross

[deanwork]

I would suspect that they hired Wilhelm to test them as usual and that they are in progress. Or, they could have had them tested and they don't won't to publish the results. Usually these companies have 3rd party tests done while the ink is in formulation, that is what Epson and Hp have done in the past.  It seems strange that they would release this new inkset before the tests are completed but I believe they did that before, release the inks and then a year later we had thorough tests revealed. Nobody believes any "internal" tests anyway we've been burned way too many times for that but maybe they have faith in their own tests, hard to say since they took that result off of their website.

Hello Geraldo,

I have no specific information, but Martin Bailey on his recent podcast talked about moving to a new ImagePROGRAF - 4000.  He is a very good fellow and you may be able to get some feedback from him through his website https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com  He said he did not get a ton of support from Canon but did speak to them in Tokyo about the inks.

Good luck,

Ross

[Geraldo Garcia]

I have no specific information, but Martin Bailey on his recent podcast talked about moving to a new ImagePROGRAF - 4000.  He is a very good fellow and you may be able to get some feedback from him through his website https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com  He said he did not get a ton of support from Canon but did speak to them in Tokyo about the inks.

Thanks Ross! I will have a look and try to talk to him, but i doubt Canon would say anything different on this regard.

[Geraldo Garcia]

I would suspect that they hired Wilhelm to test them as usual and that they are in progress. Or, they could have had them tested and they don't won't to publish the results. (...)
(...)It seems strange that they would release this new inkset before the tests are completed (...)

Hi John,
Your statements above perfectly summarize my fears.
Anyway... I am sure any info on this will hit this forum as soon as released.

Thanks.

[kevinmcdnyc]

Geraldo,

There was an event at Adorama, here in NYC a little over a month ago. There was a new Pro-2000 set up and representatives from Canon Imagining US there to man the booth. I was told by the Canon Imaging rep that the ink were being tested by Wilhelm and that they hoped to have the results by the end of August/beginning of September.

[Geraldo Garcia]

Thanks for the info Kevin, at least we have a possible answer in the near future. I may be able to delay the Pro 1000 acquisition a month or so to wait the results.

Thanks.

[shadowblade]

A recent email from Aardenburg Imaging suggested the Lucia Pro inks were next in line to be tested, once the requisite funding came up.

Hopefully that happens soon.

If not, even a rough, side-by-side comparison test (e.g. back window of the car or on the roof) between Lucia Pro and some other baseline inks (Lucia EX, HP Vivera and various Epsons) on the same paper would give us a good idea of relative performance.

[Geraldo Garcia]

Sorry for resurrecting this topic after a year... but that itself is the main reason I did it: A whole year has passed since my original question, way more than that from the release, and we are still without any solid info about the longevity of this inkset! Sure, we know Aardenburg is testing it and they are limited by their testing schedule and community funding, but isn't it weird that a major company like Canon isn't interested in disclosing the longevity ratings of their "premium" inkset? Sure they have that data by now.

Anyway, any news about it that I am not aware of?

Regards.   

[Mark D Segal]

This is hardly encyclopedic on the subject (as in e.g. no discussion of methodology), but may be of some indicative value, I don't know:

Pro Lucia Longevity - Canon

With zero discussion one has no way of knowing how useful the information is.

Perhaps that info was taken as a result of the testing mentioned here? PDN Online But I haven't seen their Wilhelm report published either - however on that website anything would be easy to miss. (typo corrected)

[kevinmcdnyc]

It is shocking and disappointing for a major Brand to be selling a fine art printer for over a year and still not publish more information on the ink longevity.

[Wayne Fox]

It's been long enough now it's seems to be raising some red flags ... the only reason I can see they don't have better information is the results are problematic so they are trying to downplay it.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

There is this:
Wilhelm Research Canon PIXMA PRO-1 Printer [Lucia] – Print Permanence Ratings
which gives a rating for some of the Lucia inkset as used in the Canon Pro-1.

[DtEW]

Lucia inkset as used in the Canon Pro-1.

From what I understand, the LUCIA inkset is two generations older than the LUCIA PRO inkset.  The LUCIA EX came between the LUCIA and LUCIA PRO generations, but did not seem to manifest much-if-any improved permanence over its predecessor (where it did improve was in gamut).  I think this is part of the reason why people are concerned about the extended unavailability of permanence data for the LUCIA PRO: there hasn't exactly been a streak of progress on that particular front.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/index.html

[nirpat89]

Hey, may be the longevity is so good they can't find the end-point....

[Geraldo Garcia]

Well...
Lucia -> Lucia EX -> Lucia Pro,

Lucia and Lucia EX are "old friends" of printers, tested used and abused in any way possible. Lucia Pro is a completely different story. The new inkset has better D-Max, different gamut (better on some colors and worse on others) and different bronzing and gloss differential characteristics. All that raise a suspicion of it being a completely reformulated inkset, with the consequence of a different longevity rating. It could be better or worse, but if it was better they would surely advertise it. That makes us think it has to be worse... but the question is: how much worse?
The bronzing and some quirks with thicker paper already got me on the fence about buying a Pro 4000 as the fourth printer of our studio. "Not so good" longevity may be acceptable, but we can not say for sure without knowing how worse it is.

If I remember correctly, Mark from Aardenburg said it was too soon to give any solid info but so far the Lucia Pro was "not better" than the old inkset.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

From what I understand, the LUCIA inkset is two generations older than the LUCIA PRO inkset.  The LUCIA EX came between the LUCIA and LUCIA PRO generations, but did not seem to manifest much-if-any improved permanence over its predecessor (where it did improve was in gamut).  I think this is part of the reason why people are concerned about the extended unavailability of permanence data for the LUCIA PRO: there hasn't exactly been a streak of progress on that particular front.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/index.html

I did wonder whether some reformulation had taken place.  I didn’t know that there were various flavours of Lucia.  You live and learn !

[deanwork]

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.

Well...
Lucia -> Lucia EX -> Lucia Pro,

Lucia and Lucia EX are "old friends" of printers, tested used and abused in any way possible. Lucia Pro is a completely different story. The new inkset has better D-Max, different gamut (better on some colors and worse on others) and different bronzing and gloss differential characteristics. All that raise a suspicion of it being a completely reformulated inkset, with the consequence of a different longevity rating. It could be better or worse, but if it was better they would surely advertise it. That makes us think it has to be worse... but the question is: how much worse?
The bronzing and some quirks with thicker paper already got me on the fence about buying a Pro 4000 as the fourth printer of our studio. "Not so good" longevity may be acceptable, but we can not say for sure without knowing how worse it is.

If I remember correctly, Mark from Aardenburg said it was too soon to give any solid info but so far the Lucia Pro was "not better" than the old inkset.