Difficult to find reviews on Canon paper. i.e. Canon Pro Luster vs. Epson

[Schmoe]

Hi there, I've found some good local deals from people trying to offload Canon paper, presumably because they got it as part of some promotion.  I'm considering picking up some Canon Pro Luster (LU-101), but I've found it rather difficult to find any reviews on this paper.  I print with an Epson P800, and I have an i1 Studio spectrophotometer, so creating usable profiles for my printer shouldn't be an issue.  Can anyone offer any thoughts on how it compares to Epson's Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster?  Thanks in advance!

[mearussi]

I've used Canon, Breathing Color and Inkpress luster and can use the same profile on all of them. My understanding is that all RC luster sold by all paper companies worldwide comes from the same one source.

[MHMG]

Canon Pro Luster (LU-101) paper and Epson Premium Luster paper are more than likely sourced from the same factory, and their ink receptive printiing properties are so close that many people would be happy using the same ICC profile for both media interchangeably. That's not a 100% guarantee they are identical papers. Canon might specify, for example, some proprietary ingredients to boost dye fastness and gas fade resistance for its dye based Chromalife 100+ inks, but with respect to pigment ink sets using both Epson and Canon latest pigment ink sets, initial print quality and light fastness on display are within statistical testing variability of being the same (see for example, ID's 319 and 320 in the Aardenburg light fade test results database.

The common denominator for both of these RC photo papers (indeed all RC photo papers on the market today) with respect to print longevity is light induced low-intensity staining (LILIS) of the media whitepoint and image highlight values caused by the interaction of faded OBAs and TiO2 whitening pigments in these papers. Figure on about 10 megalux hours of light exposure on display as an upper limit to keep prints on RC Photo media in very good to excellent condition over time. That's only 5 Wilhelm years (450 lux for 12 hours per day illumination) on display, but if one adopts museum lighting standards of 50 lux for 12 hours per day, then prints made with OEM pigment inks on these RC photo papers should look good for 45+ years or more.

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

[stockjock]

I have used the Canon Pro Luster from time to time.  It is often available VERY cheaply because of promotions on Canon's Pixma Pro-100 ink cartridges.  I have never used the Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster but I suspect they are quite similar.  The Canon Pro Luster is perfectly fine and unlike their Semi-Gloss paper it doesn't have the irritating watermarks on the reverse.

[Schmoe]

Thanks all for the feedback!

[MHMG]

The Canon Pro Luster is perfectly fine and unlike their Semi-Gloss paper it doesn't have the irritating watermarks on the reverse.

I do totally understand why some printmakers hate watermarks on the print verso, but to photo historians and collectors, those watermarks are incredibly valuable, not only helping to identify the manufacturer of the media, but often the provenance, e.g., what decade the print was likely made because the manufacturers change out the "look" of those watermarks periodically. Photo history buffs keep track of those subtle changes over time.

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

[Alan Goldhammer]

When I bought my Pro=1000 last March, Canon were giving away a box of 17x22 pro luster as a promotion along with the $200 discount on the printer.  I've done some printing using the Canon profile as I don't particularly like these kinds of paper.  Prints look OK but as Mark notes, they don't have very good permanence.  I have them hanging up in my house on Jorgen Moller rails.  they can be easily swapped out when the inevitable problems develop.

[Schmoe]

Hi there, just to close the loop on this discussion, I acquired the Canon paper and so far so good.  I've enjoyed the prints I've made with them, and it's now my go to "cheap" paper when I want to play or experiment a bit.  In terms of feel, it's very close to the Epson but I think more discerning folks could probably notice they aren't the same paper.  I'll also note that using the Epson profile worked "ok", but was noticeably off in some ways in the one random test I tried.  I created my own profile and was happier with those results.  Not a surprising conclusion, I assume.

Cheers.