Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Geraldo Garcia on August 15, 2016, 05:11:48 pm
-
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.
-
Does anyone have any preliminary info ......
No, not yet; their tests are on-going with no ETA as far as I know.
-
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... :-\
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART164634&actp=RSS)
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 (https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/printing/can-photo-prints-really-last-a-lifetime/) But I haven't seen their Wilhelm report published either - however on that website anything would be easy to miss. (typo corrected)
-
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.
-
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.
-
There is this:
Wilhelm Research Canon PIXMA PRO-1 Printer [Lucia] – Print Permanence Ratings (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Canon_Pro-1_2012_10_24.pdf)
which gives a rating for some of the Lucia inkset as used in the Canon Pro-1.
-
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
-
Hey, may be the longevity is so good they can't find the end-point.... :)
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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]
-
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.
-
... 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/
-
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.
-
Longevity is an issue, and if selling a “collectible” 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 “famous” 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 Epson’s 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 I’m 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 doesn’t mean it won’t 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.
-
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.
-
... 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 can’t imagine those tests weren’t paid for by the manufacturer. But I’m 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 isn’t the data available? Either they decided not to do it because Wilhelm’s pricing was more than they wanted to pay, or the results are disappointing.
If Canon performed it’s 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. Doesn’t mean the data isn’t 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 “3 chromagenic photo papers”, 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 isn’t very relevant to most who are comparing inkjet output. So here we have an objectivity problem, either they didn’t 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 “independent” test performed, but under conditions and restrictions that don’t 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 it’s the same test as other media so the data has some point of performance comparison.
As far as “simulating” 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 don’t think many would trust a computer model without some real world testing to support it. But even if it’s useful and reliable ... we haven’t even seen this from Canon.
The current Canon situation is unusual. I haven’t 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 didn’t like the results of the test. I suppose it’s 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 it’s all speculation, but it certainly does appear that something is amiss.
It would be surprising if the inkset didn’t perform quite well. So the challenge might be an inkset the doesn’t 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% “worse” by comparison, they would still be really good, and to me more than adequate.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
(...)
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.
-
... I do wish HP had kept going with the development of the Z3200.
So do I, and maybe HP will step up one of these days. In the meantime, I bought an HP Z3200PS 44 inch model several months ago after many years of avoiding it due to what I thought was an uncomfortably higher price point (that price has since come down dramatically if you find the right reseller, at least in the USA), and although I don't want to sound like I'm a fanboy of any particular printer manufacturer, I must say, the Z3200PS has quickly become my favorite printer in my studio. Yes, it's got quirks, and yes, it's slower than the newer models from Canon and Epson, and yes, there's a knack to feeding cut sheet media into it, but wow, the print quality is right up there with the latest models on the market. Print longevity on good media is also at the top of the heap, and the Z3200 just sits there in a corner patiently keeping itself properly maintained in sleep mode so that there will be no surprises when you go to fire it up again after many weeks of non use. Bottom line: the nearly 10 year old Z3200 printer technology is still incredibly competitive on initial print quality with Epson's and Canon's latest WF printer models, but then excels beyond the competition if you value print permanence as a major reason to buy a wide format pigmented inkjet printer designed to satisfy the fine art printing market.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I totally agree with everything you just said. I bought another one a couple of months ago. It also makes great digital negs for alternative process with the software developed by Angel for them, and you can linearize the platinum prints right in the printer.
It's is a painfully slow printer though p and if someone needs a print quickly or do production work, forgetaboutit, but that is my only complaint. That was 3 grand well spent. Best dmax on matte media ever created by mankind, 1.83.
John
quote author=MHMG link=topic=112923.msg996610#msg996610 date=1503979762]
So do I, and maybe HP will step up one of these days. In the meantime, I bought an HP Z3200PS 44 inch model several months ago after many years of avoiding it due to what I thought was an uncomfortably higher price point (that price has since come down dramatically if you find the right reseller, at least in the USA), and although I don't want to sound like I'm a fanboy of any particular printer manufacturer, I must say, the Z3200PS has quickly become my favorite printer in my studio. Yes, it's got quirks, and yes, it's slower than the newer models from Canon and Epson, and yes, there's a knack to feeding cut sheet media into it, but wow, the print quality is right up there with the latest models on the market. Print longevity on good media is also at the top of the heap, and the Z3200 just sits there in a corner patiently keeping itself properly maintained in sleep mode so that there will be no surprises when you go to fire it up again after many weeks of non use. Bottom line: the nearly 10 year old Z3200 printer technology is still incredibly competitive on initial print quality with Epson's and Canon's latest WF printer models, but then excels beyond the competition if you value print permanence as a major reason to buy a wide format pigmented inkjet printer designed to satisfy the fine art printing market.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
[/quote]
-
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.
So did I have one since it first came out. It just died on me this week, leaving quite a few ink cartridges orphan. 24' is too big and too expensive for me. If I bought one of those, I may have to go into printing business which I do not want to do...:)
-
Best dmax on matte media ever created by mankind, 1.83.
John
The Dmax issue is equally fascinating in that the Z seems to deliver excellent Dmax across the board, i.e., on many classic media, both glossy and matte, plus the latest media on the market as well. In particular it matches or exceeds even Canon and Epson's latest ink sets with older paper formulations like HN photo rag or Moab Entrada (both papers having been on the market well over a decade). Both Canon and Epson are now extolling the virtues of their newest ink sets in terms of Dmax, but I'm finding that those benefits are very media dependent,i.e., tuned to some of the latest multi-coated papers but falling short on some of the classic older media. Best-in-class Dmax is not a slam dunk for the latest Canon and Epson Ink sets. For example, on my Epson P600 I have to back off the ink density to -20 using Epson's advanced media settings when printing on Moab Entrada Natural to get best Dmax. Using the normal zero setting paradoxically reduces Dmax, but there's no free lunch because color gamut volume begins to suffer, so -10 to -15 represents the final compromise. On the Pro-1000, I have to move down to "special 8" or compromise at "special 9" rather than the highest ink load special 10 media setting in order to hold a better Dmax, but again, color gamut volume begins to take a slight hit.
Entrada Rag Natural is a personal favorite of mine for high quality, high whitepoint, OBA-free, attractively priced cotton rag fine art matte paper. The Z3200 has no issues printing on Entrada Rag Natural. Output is gorgeous, color gamut very competitive with the latest fine art matte media. Wish I could hit that same high note when trying to use this paper on my Epson and Canon printers. The output is good, but not as good as the Z3200 output.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
HP Printer Division should merge with Canon's. Or Canon should license Vivera inks for their smaller (less than 24") machines. If any of them had any sense.
-
HP Printer Division should merge with Canon's. Or Canon should license Vivera inks for their smaller (less than 24") machines. If any of them had any sense.
Well, it's not likely to happen. But that said, I also don't think HP should combine forces with anyone. My preference is for HP to reenter the fine art photography and print market on its own merits and challenge the competition to do even better. It's not just about inks. Modern media has real issues that undermine the best ink set performance.
-
Considering that HP and Canon makes the the laserjet printers together, I think they can learn from each other in the inkjet field - https://www.wired.com/1994/10/canon/
-
Mark - i read your earlier post on the preliminary testing of the Lucia Pro ink and my head hurts and I feel for you. Is it possible for you to select existing media types with a proven record of longevity to test the new inks on? I also have a feeling that media types with rougher or coarser finishes are less susceptible to degradation vs extreme glossy types?
-
Mark - ... Is it possible for you to select existing media types with a proven record of longevity to test the new inks on? I also have a feeling that media types with rougher or coarser finishes are less susceptible to degradation vs extreme glossy types?
Yes, of course, but our ink and media campaign for 2017 is still only about 20% funded, so I'm probably not going to be able to get any more samples into test anytime soon even though Aardenburg Imaging & Archives does have the equipment capacity to run many more samples. More testing is definitely needed to eventually rank order the major aqueous pigmented ink sets on the market today in terms of good, better, best overall lightfastness. One thing for certain is that media choice really does add a lot of variability, so choosing media wisely has become increasingly more important as the overall stability of modern ink sets improve. It also means more specific tests of a wider range of media are sorely needed to give printmakers a more informed choice about what papers are best suited to their chosen ink set.
The heightened concern about the Canon Pro-11 ink set, as evidenced in this discussion, is that Canon for whatever reason to date has not yet commissioned and/or published any independents test results, let alone enough test results to answer a very basic question for endusers looking to replace older iPF x300 and x400 series printers with a newer model: namely, "Is the new Lucia Pro-11 ink set equal to, better, or worse in overall lightfastness compared to the earlier Lucia EX set used in Canon's older iPF x300 and x400 series of WF printers?" It's clear from the three samples I have in test now, that a larger paired comparison type of test methodology using both ink sets is going to be required to definitively answer that question. If Canon, for example, only tested Pro luster and Pro Platinum papers using both older and newer Lucia formulations, the results might indeed lean one way or the other, but it really doesn't answer the question for printmakers using many other popular fine art media choices commonly in use today.
To broaden the question further to include competitive ink sets means even more extensive testing. I do believe that Aardenburg will eventually answer these questions over time, but it's going to be a slow process, slow enough that who knows, by that time, there may be yet more new ink sets on the market :D As such, I'm concentrating my efforts more on identifying the "bad media apples", i.e., those that seriously impair good performance of any high stability ink set as well as the "good media" which generally allow all ink sets to turn in their best performance.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
To think that color science created well over 10 years ago, changed only once by the addition of Chromatic Red, to this day bests the finest offerings of Canon and Epson is poor commentary indeed.
The printer itself is truly a design marvel of simplicity and efficiency only rivaled by the fact that it is a monument to quirkiness in that it's output outperforms machines meant for service bureaus.
This machine, the Z3200ps was built for individual photographers as artists, and no other printer comes close in terms of versatility. The printer as defined for studio artist is all but relegated to small desktop printers these days, that can't begin to compete with the quality and longevity of the Z prints.
To think that a major corporation has made consistently the best machine over what amounts to 15 years, has done little to market it, and has just quietly kept making and selling is truly amazing.
Slow, yes, but for a studio artist concerned primarily with quality, who cares.
The fact remains, that given the Vivera inkset after well over a decade reigns supreme, is utterly an indictment of the sheer incompetence of the "competition". After 15 years, and nothing to best Vivera?
Really?
I'm thinking it is best to enjoy the time in which we live where this is the case, for I fear this luxury of Vivera will come to an end eventually. And then there will be the rest. Long live Vivera. What an inkset.
-
Best dmax on matte media ever created by mankind, 1.83.
John,
What matte media are you using on the Z3200 that you get 1.83? I had a Z3100 for 10 years that died a few months ago and am thinking about getting a Z3200.
-John
-
Canson Rag Photographique and Epson "Legacy" Fiber. The Canson Edition is very close to that and Hahnemühle Photorag 308 is close behind. You need to let them dry overnight as the density increases .
Best dmax on matte media ever created by mankind, 1.83.
John,
What matte media are you using on the Z3200 that you get 1.83? I had a Z3100 for 10 years that died a few months ago and am thinking about getting a Z3200.
-John
-
I was on the Wilhelm site this morning and saw that they posted a press release from Epson on September 6th, which quotes permanence numbers for the UltraChrome HDX pigment set. Has anyone else noticed this. It says color images tested at "approaching" 200 years and black and white over 400 years. Rather vague language, but at least it appears Wilhelm is still posting.
-
I was on the Wilhelm site this morning and saw that they posted a press release from Epson on September 6th, which quotes permanence numbers for the UltraChrome HDX pigment set. Has anyone else noticed this. It says color images tested at "approaching" 200 years and black and white over 400 years. Rather vague language, but at least it appears Wilhelm is still posting.
I think Epson issued that press release quite some time ago. I have yet to find a complete report available on WIR backing the press release; but that site isn't really configured for making a joy of finding stuff, so maybe I missed something.
-
I think Epson issued that press release quite some time ago. I have yet to find a complete report available on WIR backing the press release; but that site isn't really configured for making a joy of finding stuff, so maybe I missed something.
There is indeed a newer press release entitled: "Epson SureColor P5000 Featured as Professional Photographer Magazine 2017 Hot One" It has a press release date of September 6, 2017.
In that press release, various new claims about HD(x) versus K3 longevity are made, and Henry Wilhelm is quoted. I personally found the following statement about skin tone colors to be of great interest, especially considering the WIR test method doesn't currently include any skin tone color patches in the official WIR testing protocol. Note also that the WIR test method cannot distinguish any possible differences between the Epson HD and HDX ink sets because color blends involving the HDX orange and green inks are not included in the official WIR testing protocol. Any final WIR ratings for HD inks on various Epson media will most likely be repurposed by WIR to printer models using HDX inks like the SC P5000.
"According to Henry Wilhelm, director of research at Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc., the world’s leading independent print permanence testing laboratory, the improved light stability of the new Yellow pigment in the Epson UltraChrome HDX inks, together with the already high levels of permanence of the Magenta and Cyan pigment inks, provides much longer lasting skin tone colors. “The Epson UltraChrome HDX inks help preserve the warmth, richness and beauty of portraits and wedding photographs. Nobody looks good when the color of their skin starts to shift over time toward blue or green. Especially for portrait and wedding photographers, the greatly improved stability balance provided by the new Epson Yellow pigment ink represents a major advance in the overall permanence of their work.”
Mark S., I also concur with you that the official WIR test reports with the finalized ratings have apparently not yet been published, probably the reason why the ratings claim in the press release was vaguely worded "approaching 200 years..." I also find it amusing and a bit ironic that at this point in time, if anyone truly wants real test data and visual confirmation of Epson and WIR's claimed skin tone color stabiliy improvement then you need to go to Aardenburg Imaging & Archives not WIR. Epson is more than welcome to cite the Aardenburg research as well ;)
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/epson-ultrachrome-hd-140-mlux-hrs/
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I think this magazine is just riffing off of the "preliminary" data that Will put on his website what like a year and a half ago and never finished? The state of inquiry in the public photo realm now is so lazy that they get away with what Henry himself would have considered sloppy and unprofessional 10 years ago.
Another sloppy feature of his website is how he continues to label his Canson Rc media as having no optical brightening agents added at all, and gives them ratings that match or exceed premium cottton non oba media. Any clown can put them under a black light and see that is nuts. I don't know what to believe over there anymore. He's too busy traveling around giving speeches to do his tests properly. Apparently as long as Epson writes him a check they get to call the shots.
There is indeed a newer press release entitled: "Epson SureColor P5000 Featured as Professional Photographer Magazine 2017 Hot One" It has a press release date of September 6, 2017.
In that press release, various new claims about HD(x) versus K3 longevity are made, and Henry Wilhelm is quoted. I personally found the following statement about skin tone colors to be of great interest, especially considering the WIR test method doesn't currently include any skin tone color patches in the official WIR testing protocol. Note also that the WIR test method cannot distinguish any possible differences between the Epson HD and HDX ink sets because color blends involving the HDX orange and green inks are not included in the official WIR testing protocol. Any final WIR ratings for HD inks on various Epson media will most likely be repurposed by WIR to printer models using HDX inks like the SC P5000.
"According to Henry Wilhelm, director of research at Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc., the world’s leading independent print permanence testing laboratory, the improved light stability of the new Yellow pigment in the Epson UltraChrome HDX inks, together with the already high levels of permanence of the Magenta and Cyan pigment inks, provides much longer lasting skin tone colors. “The Epson UltraChrome HDX inks help preserve the warmth, richness and beauty of portraits and wedding photographs. Nobody looks good when the color of their skin starts to shift over time toward blue or green. Especially for portrait and wedding photographers, the greatly improved stability balance provided by the new Epson Yellow pigment ink represents a major advance in the overall permanence of their work.”
Mark S., I also concur with you that the official WIR test reports with the finalized ratings have apparently not yet been published, probably the reason why the ratings claim in the press release was vaguely worded "approaching 200 years..." I also find it amusing and a bit ironic that at this point in time, if anyone truly wants real test data and visual confirmation of Epson and WIR's claimed skin tone color stabiliy improvement then you need to go to Aardenburg Imaging & Archives not WIR. Epson is more than welcome to cite the Aardenburg research as well ;)
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/epson-ultrachrome-hd-140-mlux-hrs/
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I think this magazine is just riffing off of the "preliminary" data that Will put on his website what like a year and a half ago and never finished?
Because HD/HDX yellow is indeed more lightfast than the older K3/HDR yellow, the time it takes to reach the accredited failure point in test gets significantly longer. Pressure mounts to say something, so "preliminary" statements sometimes get published before testing comes to a final endpoint.
The Epson HD/HDX ink set is also a textbook example of a decidedly non linear fading behavior where the product starts out really strong but then begins to cave at a later stage in test as the testing gets to higher exposure doses. It is this non linear fading behavior of the new Epson HD and HDX ink sets that pretty much ensures HP's venerable Z3200 Vivera Pigmented ink set (which exhibits more a linear fading behavior) will remain king of the hill in terms of overall light fastness behavior on various media as more tests are conducted and published. Nevertheless, the HD/HDX ink sets are without a doubt a solid improvement over the older Epson HDR and K3 ink sets, but it's hard to predict with trendline analyses where such non linear systems will finally reach the defined failure point. In other words, the tests really need to go to completion before a definitive score can be decided, but protracted completion dates don't always satisfy corporate marketing agendas. The first press release in 2015 was thus more optimistic of the eventual test outcome because the non linearity was not as obvious in the testing data at that point in time. The newer press release is subtly more restrained by using the phrase "approaching 200 years" rather than "up to 200 years', and I think this subtle rephrasing reflects the fact that as the WIR tests proceeded between 2015 and 2017 the non linearity factor became more obvious as also has happened in our testing here at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Hi everybody,
http://www.wilhelm-research.com Post a update for the Canson paper with the new inkset for the Epson and Canon.You will find some clue for the permanences of the Canon Lucia pro ink!
Regard
Charles
-
Wow, so in very rough numbers, Lucia PRO is half of HDX which is half of Vivera.
-
Hi everybody,
http://www.wilhelm-research.com Post a update for the Canson paper with the new inkset for the Epson and Canon.You will find some clue for the permanences of the Canon Lucia pro ink!
Regard
Charles
Still surprised that Wilhelm considers some papers OBA free that are not OBA free.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Wow, so in very rough numbers, Lucia PRO is half of HDX which is half of Vivera.
Different conditions produce different relationships, but the encouraging observation for me is that the dark storage numbers are very long-term for all of it.
-
Still surprised that Wilhelm considers some papers OBA free that are not OBA free.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Is it possible that those spikes could be caused by factors other than OBA presence?
-
If print permanence matters to you, B&H and Adorama are both now offering a very competive price ($3,299.00) on the Z3200ps 44 Inch, and ($2,699.00) for the 24”.
As recent test results confirm, and as indicated in WIR statements, the HP Z3200ps printers with Vivera inks remain KING of the HILL.
This is a perfect time to get one - the price has never been lower, and a 5 year warranty is available for purchase.
Hard to know what HP is actually doing, whether they are letting go of current inventory for eventual EOL of the Z3200ps, or they are pricing to remain competitive. Either way, there should be a guaranteed 5 year support on printers sold today, and possibly longer.
HP is not allowing B&H or Adorama to post or advertise the new prices - you have to click on the “price” button to see the actual price.
The current price for the 24” Z3200ps is the lowest I have ever seen it.
Choose the right papers in combination with the Vivera inkset, and it’s the top most print longevity available today for aqueous color prints.
And, you can actually see the difference in the prints as well.
When HP hit a home run with the Z Series, they knocked it out of the park, and the Vivera Inks went into the stratosphere and are still in orbit! 20 year old ink color science/technology and still leading the pack.
Why would anyone NOT use the best color technology available today, other than to prioritize speed of printing above print longevity.
Think about it. HP has done NOTHING to advertise the Z Series. They have NOT fixed it because it’s not broken. And without trying, without putting ANY energy into changing ANYTHING, the Vivera inkset STILL outperforms EPSON and CANON.
For the individual and studio photographer, this is a NO BRAINER.
When the worldwide head of strategic marketing visited my studio from Barcelona, I told him that HP was still beating Epson and Canon in independent tests. He grinned and said: “HP welcomes any and all competition.”
And I asked: “Why haven’t you been promoting the Z Series DesignJet printers?”
“We’ve just been so busy with our Latex and 3D printers, our focus is on them.”
“The Z Series printers are doing fine - we don’t need to do anything.”
Again, if you’re concerned about print longevity, go to B&H and Adorama and see for yourself.
-Mark L
-
Mark
I liked the HP printers, I have owned them. I just found them to slow for any sort of production work. It would be nice if HP updated the 3200 printer and I would look at it again. Just to slow for me.
Steven
-
I might be misreading these results or simply being a little dense but it appears that Wilhelm tested the new inks for the Canon Pro series of printers as well as the older Lucia inks for the Canon iPF5100 but I don't see anything that specifically references the Lucia Ex inks used in the iPFx400 printers. Since the results for the Canon Lucia Pro inks are so disappointing I wonder if anyone has any data/opinions about where the Lucia Ex inks fall on the longevity spectrum?
-
................And without trying, without putting ANY energy into changing ANYTHING, the Vivera inkset STILL outperforms EPSON and CANON.
For the individual and studio photographer, this is a NO BRAINER.................
..............
I'm interested in hearing more. If your statement is a general one not only aimed at longevity, could you elaborate more specifically on the other respects in which Vivera outperforms the latest generation of Epson and Canon printers, and what is the underlying evidence showing this up. (Had they made a 17" version I would have been tempted to buy and try.)
As well, I wonder about the sales numbers over the past couple of years of Z3200s relative to say the Epson SC-P7000 or the Canon Pro-2000 in the 24" line for the individual and studio photographer market segment. One hears from various sources that on the whole the printer market could be more buoyant, so the battle for market share is quite intense.
-
I'm interested in hearing more. If your statement is a general one not only aimed at longevity, could you elaborate more specifically on the other respects in which Vivera outperforms the latest generation of Epson and Canon printers, and what is the underlying evidence showing this up. (Had they made a 17" version I would have been tempted to buy and try.)
As well, I wonder about the sales numbers over the past couple of years of Z3200s relative to say the Epson SC-P7000 or the Canon Pro-2000 in the 24" line for the individual and studio photographer market segment. One hears from various sources that on the whole the printer market could be more buoyant, so the battle for market share is quite intense.
Hi Mark, always good to hear from you, sir. Someone just posted a link to a major WIR permanence update for Canson’s line of fine art papers. The poster noted that Canon’s latest Lucia Pro 11 ink set got tested along with Epson’s latest HDX inks, and the report also includes the HP Vivera and older K3 and LuciaEX ink sets. According to the new WIR test results, HP is indeed still on top!.
I have more information that I can’t discuss, as results aren’t finalized and it’s not my place to publish any findings. NDA’s, etc.
Consider that several of the top printers here on Lula, Ernst Dinkla, John Dean, Geraldo Garcia, Mark McCormicak Goodhart, and several others all have Z3200 printers. Of course, both Canon and Epson are faster printers, but does this really matter to the studio photographer looking for ultimate quality in a small studio or in-home environment? Z-series printers sip inks, the machines don’t clog, and there are no waste tanks or changing from MK to PK inks. Additionally, the printers come with embedded spectrophotometers standard equipment.
They can’t fit 12 ink carts and the embedded spectrophotometer in a 17” printer as it is just too much and causes the printer to be too wide. The 24” printer enables multitudes of advantages over the 17” if there was one, particularly the larger cart capacity and the ESP. There’s no question that the build qulity of the Canon 24” and the Epson 24” both are more substantial, but they also weigh a whole lot more, are difficult to move in comparison, and are way more difficult to work on in comparison to the 24” Z3200ps.
There are advantages and disadvantages to all the printers. They all produce great prints. It comes down to test results of inks and paper combinations and environmental factors. All the date that is currently available shows HP Vivera inks to be leading the pack still. Not what I say, but what Wilhelm says.
If HP made a 17” model, I’d probably buy it, even though I have 3 Z3200 printers and a Z3100. Four Z Series printers is enough, but I’d sure be tempted. But there is so much more that can be done with a 24” printer.
Since the price fora 24” has come down so much, why not try one Mark? I bet you’d love it!
MarkL
-
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......... :-)
-
Is it possible that those spikes could be caused by factors other than OBA presence?
Absorption of UV light at the left and a bump at 440nm is a sign of fluorescence caused by UV light. When observed in papers it is 99.9% sure a result of the use of OBAs.
Plus there is evidence delivered by Canson itself; the specs for the Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique say Very Low OBA content and for the Baryta Prestige too.
Baryta Photographique paper white patch is the most color shifted patch (5 DeltaE) of a Z3200 Aardenburg test target at 140 Megalux hours. Which probably says more about the fade resistance of the Vivera pigment inks than of the paper quality. Not a bad paper but it has low OBA content so mention it I would say. The Prestige has actually more and still gets that No OBA content label at W-R. Has not been tested by Aardenburg.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
OK thanks for confirming Ernst - I thought that was pretty much the case.
-
Consider that several of the top printers here on Lula, Ernst Dinkla, John Dean, Geraldo Garcia, Mark McCormicak Goodhart, and several others all have Z3200 printers. Of course, both Canon and Epson are faster printers, but does this really matter to the studio photographer looking for ultimate quality in a small studio or in-home environment? Z-series printers sip inks, the machines don’t clog, and there are no waste tanks or changing from MK to PK inks. Additionally, the printers come with embedded spectrophotometers standard equipment.
MarkL
Just to add to what Mark L says, The HP Z3200's are really the best choice for anyone that does not print every day, to keep their nozzles clear. I never do nozzle checks before printing, 99% of the time it's perfect. Just keep machine turned on all the time, it does it's thing. VERY stingy on using inks. Print heads seem to last forever--I'm just on my 3rd set in 11 years. And they are very inexpensive ($70 list price/2 colors).
The built-in Spectro is a charm! You can't buy a comparible stand alone spectro for the price of the printer alone.
The gray component removal, of the print engine, means you use the Lt Gray and Gray inks more, but it results in very neutral looking results with less metamerizm (shifting of color balance under different types of viewing lights).
And, if you print B&W, this printer delivers exceptional B&W compared to a stock Epson or Canon. It uses the two grays plus both blacks when printing on art papers.
Nope, I'm not an HP sales person or dealer, just a VERY satisfied art reproduction printer for many years.
And, the support page the Mark has put up for DIY types is outstanding!!! Thank youi Mark!!!
-
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).
-
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?
I can't tell you exactly what Wilhelm did or what the report means--maybe Mark McCormick can--but the logical implications appear to be:
(1) the HP ink is more vulnerable to full-spectrum light than the Epson ink is, but the the Epson ink is more vulnerable to UV-filtered light than the HP ink is; and
(2) different tests may well be run to different endpoints, so maybe HP commissioned Wilhelm to 'test until it meets the failure criteria' but Epson commissioned Wilhelm only to 'test to a certain light exposure and then extrapolate within the limits of your precision'.
Also, IMO the differences seem relatively small. 56 years is only 12.5% less than 64 years. > 230 years could mean exactly 392 years if the test were extended, or it could be 250 years, or it could mean 400 years--I don't think we can infer much from the quoted figures. Moreover, different test results may show greater or lesser linearities in fade, which make relatively more precise results more or less discernible.
-
I can't tell you exactly what Wilhelm did or what the report means--maybe Mark McCormick can--but the logical implications appear to be:
(1) the HP ink is more vulnerable to full-spectrum light than the Epson ink is, but the the Epson ink is more vulnerable to UV-filtered light than the HP ink is; and
Or could it be that with the bare bulb exposure the paper white shift becomes more dominant when the inks themselves survive the torture? My bet is on that explanation.
While writing my thoughts on that, more and more of WIR's testing report showed the flaws I get used too. This industry has paper manufacturers that are not so consistent in their production and in the labeling of their products. We have seen it with Ilford and it shows here with Canson. Tests like these are like shooting at moving targets. So I checked whether I still had the older WIR Canson/inks report and it was there, the one of 2012. The "new" test result figures of WIR pages 3, 4, and 5, with the older inks, are exactly the same for the respective 11 papers tested then but the paper names are different. More than 11 papers were tested in 2012 though. Today's names represent the relabeling after Canson lost the rights to use the Arches names. I can not proof changes happened too in the paper qualities themselves but we have seen enough messages in this forum that consistency has not been very high. I doubt the old production runs of the first test papers were stored for the new inks tests. That Wilhelm went along with the relabeling of the papers for the copy of the 2012 test results in the 2018 PDF is strange. There also should have been an indication that the tests were done in different periods. Interesting screen grabs below of the 2012 and 2018 test for Baryta Photographique and Platine Fibre, Canon older ink sets, similar thing happened for the other older inks.
I take a bare bulb test average of resp 9 paper samples in the first and 11 paper samples in the second group. Highest scoring at the top.
1 HP Vivera (test ended 2012) 11 samples, average 74. 100%
2 Epson HDX (test ended 2018) 9 samples, average 66. 89%
3 Canon Lucia old (test ended 2012) 11 samples, average 57. 77%
4 Epson K3 (test ended 2012) 11 samples, average 36. 49%
5 Canon Lucia Pro (test ended 2018) 9 samples, average 33. 45%
I mention the flaws in the testing; the paper samples number 9-11 are different, the RC paper in the 9 samples test is not present among the 3 RCs in the 11 papers tests and where the papers ought to be the same, but relabeled, I have my doubts on their consistency. The reason why I threw all samples together for each test period and took the average. That Wilhelm is also neglecting Low OBA content in some papers is not that important for this either. The Baryta Prestige (2018) with OBA can be seen as a replacement for the two extra RCs with OBA in the 2012 group.
Despite that I think you can see that the "best in general" testing inks are also at the top in bare bulb exposure but closer to one another as the limitation is in the paper white shifting by the bare bulb exposure, IMHO. Improving inks more and the papers not will bring the numbers closer at some point.
Compare WIR pages 3, 4 and 5 to one another and remember that the same inks are still available but the papers could have changed in properties. Compare pages 1 and 2, inks are not changed and hope that nothing happened/happens with the papers since that test. The Ilford test also present on the WIR index page has the same limitations, paper white spectral plots I made winter 2014/2015 differ from older ones but maybe two that are more alike. Ilford's labels were not changed accordingly.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Or it could be that given inherent limitations of the testing methodology that surely exist but we don't know much about, perhaps we should treat all these numbers as indicative and not fret over fine differences, or depending on context even some large ones, between them. To me, whether the number is 43 or 56 doesn't matter - it just tells me that deterioration shouldn't begin under those display conditions until roughly half a century has passed. Again to me, whether a dark storage number is 200 or 300 doesn't matter because my grand-children will be long gone before the lower limit kicks in - and when it does, what will be the rate and character of deterioration? Who knows. Maybe those of us who have been playing with numbers and forecasts for many decades just become a bit jaded and circumspect about how much precision we should impute to them, especially when we have the opportunity to find out how wrong they've been. Sorry if this sounds a bit dismissive, but you know, there comes a point when common sense and a healthy dose of circumspection must intrude on pseudo-precision just because "the numbers come out that way". I expect opprobrium will come crashing down on me for making such suggestions, but I'll still remain skeptical about the merit of obsessing whether my prints will remain unaffected over generous ranges of these estimates emerging from the tests, useful as they are for indicative purposes.
-
Mark:
I believe all this testing should be taken with a grain of salt. In the end, it's all "comparative". The pigmented color inks from all three printer brands greatly outlast what Kodak was delivering to us in the 1960's, 70's, 80's.
I'm fond of saying that the prints I make today will last to the day, they are thrown into the land fill. :) But it's good to know, that if properly taken care of, they will last easily into the 2100's. And if a digital file is saved, they can last as long as art lovers still enjoy viewing a print as opposed to a digital display and there are still printing processes around.
The one thing I would note, the HP inkset seens to have the most "linear" rate of fade, compared to Epson & Canon, which is probably the reason it scores considerably better in fade resistance.
-
Or it could be that given inherent limitations of the testing methodology that surely exist but we don't know much about, perhaps we should treat all these numbers as indicative and not fret over fine differences, or depending on context even some large ones, between them. To me, whether the number is 43 or 56 doesn't matter - it just tells me that deterioration shouldn't begin under those display conditions until roughly half a century has passed. Again to me, whether a dark storage number is 200 or 300 doesn't matter because my grand-children will be long gone before the lower limit kicks in - and when it does, what will be the rate and character of deterioration? Who knows. Maybe those of us who have been playing with numbers and forecasts for many decades just become a bit jaded and circumspect about how much precision we should impute to them, especially when we have the opportunity to find out how wrong they've been. Sorry if this sounds a bit dismissive, but you know, there comes a point when common sense and a healthy dose of circumspection must intrude on pseudo-precision just because "the numbers come out that way". I expect opprobrium will come crashing down on me for making such suggestions, but I'll still remain skeptical about the merit of obsessing whether my prints will remain unaffected over generous ranges of these estimates emerging from the tests, useful as they are for indicative purposes.
I can see how you might take that attitude Mark, however, without any "opprobrium" or whatever intended, I respectfully disagree. Looking at Ernst's compiled numbers:
1 HP Vivera (test ended 2012) 11 samples, average 74.
2 Epson HDX (test ended 2018) 9 samples, average 66.
3 Canon Lucia old (test ended 2012) 11 samples, average 57.
4 Epson K3 (test ended 2012) 11 samples, average 36.
5 Canon Lucia Pro (test ended 2018) 9 samples, average 33.
There is certainly a huge disparity between Canon Lucia Pro (33), Canon Lucia Old (57) and HP Vivera's stellar 74. No contest actually.
Same with Epson Vs. Vivera.
I disagree that deterioration won't occur until half a century has passed. Given that there is no equality in how prints are stored whether archival, or not, framed archival, or not, or hung in ideal conditions or not, will significantly impact the longevity of the print, and most pointedly will impact the speed and manner in which the print begins to fade.
One of the most important aspects of fading that Mark McCormick of Aardenburg Imaging has been discussing is the manner in which the print declines and how some ink/paper combinations decline or fade gracefully as opposed to how other ink/paper combinations reach a point and just drop off a cliff declining terribly. It's not pseudo-precision regarding numbers, mainly because they indicate fading under in many ways the best of conditions as opposed to real life conditions that intrude upon the projections. When the numbers reflect comparative realities, they indicate the same proportions under the most adverse conditions.
So actually, I believe we should be much more concerned about whether our prints age gracefully or they drop dead like flashlight batteries.
And also, to be considered is whether the prints are viewed in the context of typical average ownership or in a museum context, and all in-situ scenarios in between.
We don't have those facts and figures in front of us, but as long as we're pseudo-extrapolating, perhaps we should look to someone who has a handle on those projections for answers.
Just my perspective, sir, YMMV of course.
As for me, I'll stick with Vivera, and the highest numbers, top scores, and prints that I believe look the best to my eye, comparitively.
Mark
-
John, yes, you're even going a bit further than I did but that's fine. As for linearity of fade - interesting point, but I don't think Wilhelm's published information tells us about that. Perhaps Aardenburg's does - Mark MG would have to educate at least me on that one. The inconvenience of fade of course is that if different colours fade at different rates the colour balance of the photos goes out the window, which is what we are accustomed to seeing with many of our decades-old C-41 media.
-
So actually, I believe we should be much more concerned about whether our prints age gracefully or they drop dead like flashlight batteries.
Mark
The extracted statement I agree with, and I agree it would be good to hear from Mark MG on the predictive reliability of the testing methodology at least that he's using.
Like you, I too prefer longer-lasting than shorter-lasting. I'm just concerned about how much reliance/significance to impute to spot estimates.
-
As for linearity of fade - interesting point, but I don't think Wilhelm's published information tells us about that. Perhaps Aardenburg's does - Mark MG would have to educate at least me on that one. The inconvenience of fade of course is that if different colours fade at different rates the colour balance of the photos goes out the window, which is what we are accustomed to seeing with many of our decades-old C-41 media.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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. :-)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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,
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.