It’s absolutely a trade off if your clients exhibit the prints in public spaces which are slammed with daylight everyday, a big trade off. And there was no huge gamut increase to justify that drop in stability.
Like I said, Epson went forward and Canon went backward. We all know that.
As far as Wilhelm goes, I don’t trust his methods or the data he provides. The methodology and the results are flawed - 200 year ratings for cheap rc media loaded with dye brighteners, please. I’m referring to Aardenburg tests that I do trust. Now how much longer those reliable tests will be available for say paper companies and artists to evaluate these various inksets is the primary question. Most likely not very long.
[quote wauthor=Mark D Segal link=topic=127542.msg1078167#msg1078167 date=1542294715]
I don't think Canon "stumbled". They have teams of world-class researchers/scientists and marketing types working on these products and they know what they are doing. They also know there are trade-offs. The ink, the hardware and papers all need to come together to meet certain explicit objectives they work towards in what they design. It could well be that in ranking the priorities of the various objectives to which they designed the products that certain trade-offs were inevitable and they ended-up with a longevity profile that they thought the market would find satisfactory. And I very much doubt they were the least bit surprised by anything Wilhelm published. Wilhelm doesn't conduct these expensive tests and write reports for the fun of it. They are paid. So in this case it was either Fila (Canson) or Canon who paid them to do this work, and Wilhelm would have needed the client's permission to publish the results. But getting back to objectives and priorities, bear in mind that the printing market is far larger than the relatively smaller number of fine art photographers and curators concerned about prints lasting hundreds of years. I'm reminded of this over and over again when I discuss the printer and printing market with those in the industry serving the whole spectrum of their clientele and seeing the broader picture. If it so happens that their longevity data doesn't conform with your or my particular wants or needs, then of course we can always use something else that better fits our priorities. That's what markets and choice are all about, and good thing we have it.
Now, as to how far their longevity profile suits our needs, it's worthwhile looking at the data to make that decision. I make prints that I bind in books or conserve in archival storage/presentation boxes. I have no idea once I pass what will really happen to all this material. The inheritors may treasure it or junk it, up to them; so when I see dark storage data greater than 200 years for any of these contemporary professional printers and inksets I simply set that whole issue aside. Doesn't matter. But even for dark storage, museums and other archival institutions will be concerned about whether the number reaches 200 years and from there onward the longer the better. For other purposing of prints - display, again, how important the data is depends a lot on the display conditions, how long they will be displayed, and how important to the owners of these works the length of the integrity period under display really is. So, it's a very mixed bag and you need to know the purposing and the objectives to determine the relative importance of this single criterion. And again, I would suggest not only focusing on Wilhelm data, but also Aardenburg when published.
As to what Canon will do next: They aren't about to tell us. One thing I happen to know for sure - they are conducting serious market research on the importance of longevity and they are talking to people. So they are taking it seriously and I would expect that given they have undertaken the time and expense of making these inquiries, they will consider the outcome of their research on the matter and from that data make informed decisions about their next steps.
Your last question: should we care about longevity if the prints look great? I don't see this as a trade-off. Prints look great from all of these printers, and longevity is a separate concern. Again, look at what the data says relative to your own and your customers' wants and needs to see to what extent any specifically relevant information matters. It's not binary, this or that; like so much of this, it depends.........
[/quote]
