-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Yay, the Canon ImagePROGRAF PRO-1100 is here...
- Thread starter Keith Cooper
- Start date
The only thing in that list that's important to me - not on the Pro-1000, which I use for proofs, but on my Pro-4100.
Seriously!
You'd think the two would be concentric circles, but I do modern art printmaking rather than photography, and I'd like my pictures to last at least 200 years.
Seriously!
Last edited:
To each his own and for larger prints and art printmaking things are different indeed. I understand your motivation.
Last edited:
I mean, light fastness = how long the print lasts without fading due to light exposure, no?
And you seem a little snippy!
yes
Sorry if I seem like that. Don’t mean to. I edited my post just before I read yours here.
Last edited:
ChicagoRob
Senior Member
First Man Photography has the 1000 and 1100. Sample prints from the same file show noticeably bigger Dmax for the 1100 and improved color rendering.
Is it possible to see some of the images you make and print? Website maybe? Somewhere on the internet?
incoherent1
Leading Member
for sharing this information.
As a user (of P1000) from 'this' side of the pond, I would find it useful if you included Red River papers in your testing. They are a significant player over here, and in particular (at least for me) is their Red River PaloDuroSoftglossRag, a cotton based paper which is one of my favourites, and also one of their more popular papers.
As a user (of P1000) from 'this' side of the pond, I would find it useful if you included Red River papers in your testing. They are a significant player over here, and in particular (at least for me) is their Red River PaloDuroSoftglossRag, a cotton based paper which is one of my favourites, and also one of their more popular papers.
You can't see people's expressions in writing. I'm very good at making people mad at me because of that.
Well yes, it so happens.
www.NickBatzdorf.com
We're just finishing a short video explaining what I do, but that'll be another week or so.
Last edited:
Wow! Those colours jump off my iPhone screen! I’ll take a closer look tomorrow (larger screen). Evening (late) where I live. I guess you don’t print monochromes on coarse matte papers (?). Interesting work!You can't see people's expressions in writing. I'm very good at making people mad at me because of that.
Well yes, it so happens.
www.NickBatzdorf.com
We're just finishing a short video explaining what I do, but that'll be another week or so.
I wonder how you make these images..
By the way, English is not my native language (but you probably guessed already)
Last edited:
Joe Colson
Senior Member
Oh dear! But what does one do with a used, but in excellent condition, P1000? Take it to the landfill?
Joe
Joe
I didn't guess that!
And thanks very much.
I use fragments of iPhone images - maybe 25 in some pictures - in an image editor (Affinity Photo), but I don't use it the way normal people do. Also, the pictures don't usually make much sense on their own.
The video is to explain how this works, because it's the first question people ask. They look like paintings, only they're not quite like anything they've seen before.
Too late to edit my last post, but for clarity:
iPhone
(Also, I have a drawing tablet. I should have mentioned that.)
I found that, also.
Seems like a good guy.
The difference is he went to Canon office's and got use for an afternoon, versus Keith will have the printer for an extended period.
I expect it will be a huge success for Canon. They are more serious about this class of printers than what has happened with the consumer printers, some of which look to me like they are build in the same factory that churns out some HP models.
Seems like a good guy.
The difference is he went to Canon office's and got use for an afternoon, versus Keith will have the printer for an extended period.
I expect it will be a huge success for Canon. They are more serious about this class of printers than what has happened with the consumer printers, some of which look to me like they are build in the same factory that churns out some HP models.
Mark McCormick
Senior Member
Actually, no. Typical industry light fade tests use an endpoint in the test where the printed image reaches "easily noticeable fade" by some focus group-determined figure of merit . "Easily noticeable" is a very slippery term because different people evaluate such matters using different personal standards. That said, ask a focus group to agree on what constitutes a print remaining in excellent condition, i.e. little or no noticeable fade, and the agreement between all members in the focus group tightens dramatically.
Canon has apparently decided to base its latest Lucia Pro II longevity ratings on an obscure light fastness testing protocol ( JEITA CP-3901) promoted by the Standard of Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association, whereas in the past Canon, Epson, and HP all promoted ratings made by Wilhelm Imaging Research. The Wilhelm ratings assume 450 lux for 12 hours per day while the JEITA method assumes 250 lux for 12 hours per day. Back in the day, Kodak promoted a value of 120 lux for 12 hours per day. All of these values are valid real world light levels for indoor display. However, this range of light level assumptions alone generates a 4x difference in print display longevity ratings all other factors being equal.
I can't be 100% certain, but in looking through all the available literature to date it looks like the old LUCIA PRO rating of 60 years came from Wilhelm testing whereas the new LUCIA PRO II rating of 200 years comes from the JEITA CP-301 testing method. If we normalize the two methods' outcomes for just the higher 450 lux light level, then the new ink set would drop from 200 years down to 110 years. About 2x not 3x better than the older LUCIA ink set.
OK, I realize I'm pretty much beating a dead horse here, but the manufacturers also choose to disregard linearity of the fading behavior, in other words how does the onset of fading actually occur? Does the image fade linearly such that when the target print is halfway to endpoint in test, the print looks half as faded as it does at the end of test, or is the system non linear such that it could look hardly faded almost all the way to the endpoint and then rapidly fade, or might it look noticeably faded early on in test but then take much more light exposure to trigger the testing endpoint criterion, thus getting a much better score than it probably deserves. I have documented all three types of fading curve behavior in my own research. I realize this concept is a tricky concept for consumers, but it's a real "fairness" issue in this type of testing.
The way to eliminate the fading curve bias is to set a testing endpoint which truly measures "little or no noticeable fade" ...essentially what Nickbatz is alluding to with his remark "light fastness = how long the print lasts without fading". Aardenburg Imaging is the only testing lab to date that adopted this approach.
Lastly, neither the Wilhelm test method nor the JEITA test method tests all of the inks in multicolorant ink sets because the printed color targets used in these testing protocols don't contain a full range of colors and tones needed to exercise all of the inks. It seems almost ludicrous to believe this is still where we are today in the printing industry when it comes to consumer information about light fastness. The situation will only change when the consumer demands more relevant answers about print permanence. Hasn't happened yet, and it's pretty late in the game.
It seems almost ludicrous to believe this is still where we are today in the printing industry when it comes to consumer information about light fastness.
Ain't that the truth.
Is there any consensus among gallery owners, museums and the like about what "archival" standards of inkjet prints should be like?
Ain't that the truth.
Is there any consensus among gallery owners, museums and the like about what "archival" standards of inkjet prints should be like?
pluton
Veteran Member
Suffice to say that Canon claims modestly improved lightfastness for the newer set of inks.
NAwlins Contrarian
Forum Pro
No, Canon claims greatly improve lightfastness for the newer set of inks: 3.3x as long.
If they are in fact claim that based on two very different fade-testing protocols, as Mark speculates might possibly be occurring, then shame on Canon. Even if the ratings are based on the same testing protocol for each, there are still major issues of how 'real world' the protocol is for whatever set of highly-variable real world display conditions. Hopefully Canon will soon provide clearer information.
pluton
Veteran Member
Technically, you're right. Canon's claim is big. However, everybody knows that the manufacturer's marketing dept. selects the most favorable slant when making claims, especially those that few real-world customers are equipped or motivated to verify. Perhaps a better formulation would be something like 'Canon's claims for big improvements in permanence probably mean a modest improvement in permanence.'
Ruud uit de Graaf
Well-known member
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 150
Thanks for explaining Mark. Interesting read.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum