Slashdot Mirror
New ChromaLife 100 Canon Printer Inkset
Mark Goldstein writes "Some exciting news today for everyone who loves the speed of Canon printers, but hates the fact that they don't have archival-quality inksets. PhotographyBLOG reader Phil Aynsley has sent me a translated version of a page from Canon Japan's website, which talks about a new ChromaLife 100 inkset using BCI-7 dye-inks, with promises of 30 years light-proofness under glass and 10 years antigas fading when used with Canon's "genuine photograph paper". Let's hope it leaves Japan and reaches the rest of the world soon. " The archival issue of printing is a big one for people thinking long term - this would definitely be cool.
It is rather simple with automated remote backups.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I've used them all and like Canon the best. The dual black inks (one an ink, the other a pigment for photos) is a really nice feature, especially if you print a lot of text. Unfortunately, Canon no longer seems to be supporting this feature in their current line of printers, all of which seem to be strictly photo printers. Bummer. You can still find the i860 on their site, but you have to search for it.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Disclaimer- I am very much affiliated with them.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
I've had Epson, Canon, and HP and I love Canon's seperate ink cartridges, however every Canon I've owned has been a jamming piece of shit.
I don't care if you purchase Canon paper, the most expensive paper you can find, fan the paper before install and keep extra paper in a hermetically sealed mason jar they still jam.
As long as you've got someone seated next to it clearing jams all day long I'm sure it's a fine purchase. NOT!
Bob Marley couldn't jam better than Canon
Epson has had this type of archival ink available for at least 6 months, as I bought one and the output is spectacular. I'm not sure why this is story is newsworthy.
If you want archival prints, get them printed in a traditional photo-lab. Many 1-hour labs can turn your digital photos into photographic prints, made with the same paper and chemicals regular prints are made from.
These should last 30 years easy if taken care of and kept out of the sun.
If you want 200 year prints, you can probably get digitals put on IlfaChrome (formerly CibaChrome), which can last centuries if treated properly.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
With the purchase of a digital camera I found that I can take the memory chip to Costco and for $0.19 per print create 4x6 prints on photo paper (developed and printed like normal 35mm prints). I did it as a test and found that the photos (snapshots) were by and large comprable to the 35mm point and shoot I had been using. (haven't made anything larger than 4x6 yet)
While actual photo prints don't last forever, they do last substantially longer than anything I've ever seen come out of a printer. The cost and time (costco is 1 hour @ $0.19 per print) is substantially less than photopaper, ink, printer, and printing time. (They made 50 Thanksgiving prints in one hour).
Doesn't solve the long term problem of storing and archiving the 'digital negative', but seems like a really great option for snapshots and the like.
Filmo The Klown
Epson released the first Archival printer, the 2000p, in the summer of 2000. And it was rated for 200 years light-fastness. It was followed in 2002 by the very popular Epson 2200, which used a newer 7-color archival pigmented ink set, prints up to 13 x 19, uses roll paper, does borderless printing on many sizes, and prints at 2880 x 2880 dpi with a minimum 3 picoliter droplet. It produces more crisp pictures than any photographic process except the laser exposures of the Durst Lambda.
They folowed that up in 2002 and 2003 with four large format archival printers of comparable print quality, the 4000, 7600, 9600, 10600, printing up to 44" wide by 100' long. All of these are rated at 100 years light-fastness.
Now, in 2004, they've released their third generation of archival printers, starting with the R-800, which is the first pigmented printer to produce true glossy prints without "bronzing," has a wider color gamut that any other consumer level printer of any photographic process, prints borderless sheets as well as CD's and DVD's, and prints at up to 5760 x 1440 with 1.5 picoliter droplets. These prints are also rated at 100 years.
Don't get me wrong, it's nice that Canon's bringing on the competition, but is a new 30-year ink set four years after Epson's really big news in the industry? Epson dominates here, and with their huge range of printers that take ink sets good for 100 years or more, this isn't a very aggressive step for Canon.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
The PIXMA 3000, 4000, and 5000 All replaced that line of printers and offer 4 (C,Y,M,Bk) for the 3000 or 5 (C,Y,M,PBk,Bk) inks for the 4000 and 5000.
Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
A properly stored clay tablet will last at least 2000 years, making it superior to CD technology as far as longevity is concerned. (And of course there is stone tablets which has an even longer life span).
I have to say that, at that point at least, Canon was most popular, because their quality was good considering their low prices. Though it also might have had something to do with the in-store sales rep they had. But HP was miles ahead of the competition in quality, if you could afford their ink. Epson couldn't seem to find a good balance between quality, speed, and ease of use. Lexmark was fast, but the quality was less than stellar, plus their ink was ridiculously expensive.
If I were to go out and buy a printer today, I'd be focused on quality, so I'd still check out HP first.
They're much more resistant to light, scratching, and plain old entropy than other CD's. They're the only digital media certified by the Library of Congress, and most other libraries, as an "archival medium."
Here's some more info and a place to buy them.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Other than the "I need it right now so I'll pay twice the price for a bad quality picture which fades fast too" factor, why would anybody pay a ton of money for a printer and then pay again in EXPENSIVE consumables, when they have a better choice.
If you're printing snapshots of your dog, you're right, you'll go to Costco. However, I don't think this article was targeted to you.
People who know what they're doing can make massively superior prints on an ink-jet printer, when compared to those shoveled out of a high-throughput fotomat. And they can usually do it more cheaply than a pro-quality lab can produce a fine-art print.
Ultimately, your jab at inkjet prints isn't very informed -- fotomat prints are actually about as shitty as their price reflects. You just don't realize it until you see the quality of a good print, done by a skilled professional. The difference is dramatic.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Hmm, let's see.
- A good inkjet print, like with Epson's Ultrachromes, will last as long or longer.
- Good inkjets now produce sharper prints than any photographic process except the laser exposures of the Durst Lambda. The newest generation or the next may surpass even it. Oh, and good luck finding a local lab with one of those anyway.
- With an ICC-based Color Management system, you can get more accurate color from your digital files on an inkjet than you can with any traditional photographic print.
- With newer printers like the Epson R-800, you can get wider color-gamut prints than any photographic process.
- You could do all of this at home, anytime you like, without going anywhere. If you want to touch-up the print and redo it, you don't have to drive home to your computer and back.
- I don't have time to look this up for other printers, but the marginal cost of a 4 x 6 print with Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper and Ultrachrome inks on a desktop Epson printer is $0.31. Buy third party inks and papers, and I bet you can get it down to under $0.20.
Need more reasons? If you make many prints to amortize the cost of the printer, and are comfortable with the technology, is there any reason NOT to make your prints at home?
/unbiased information
Incidentally, this is where I throw in a shameless plug. If you want high quality, and maybe additional services that are hard to do yourself like making hardbound photo albums, and photo websites, and archiving, but you don't want to buy your own equipment and figure it all out yourself, try The Family Reserve.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
I decided to learn about inkjet dyes and (pigment) inks immediately after reading sashuka's post. I felt it necessary after seeing him so vehemently deny the existence of pigment based ink. After fifteen minutes of light research, the following document revealed the existence of a milled pigment inkjet ink. EPSON's UltraChrome Ink Factsheet provides information in detail. Below are listed some of the clues to this ink's existence... clues which EPSON cleverly hid on their own website!
It appears that EPSON has had a line of inks for (at least) a year now that are milled pigment inks in an acrylic suspension. Their method of delivery is inkjet technology.
According to the literature, EPSON UltraChrome(tm) Inks are: "super penetrating pigment inks" that "are engineered to deliver incredible print quality and color brilliance rivaling that of dye based inks" and that have "a lightfastness rating of up to 82 years under glass on certain Epson media".
They further go on to describe these inks as consisting of: "Evenly milled microencapsulated pigments."
Since EPSON compares their ink to dye-based ink, and since dyes use pigments dissolved in solution, not "milled pigments in suspension", we can safely conclude that EPSON makes a non-dye based ink. This would seem to invalidate your proclamation that states, "there are no inkjet "inks," they are all dyes."
Now, I don't want to seem harsh here, but I feel you need a little bit of a scolding. You see, I'm tired of amature hobbyists who also happen to be intelligent jumping on Slashdot and proclaiming their knowledge of the state of the universe without actually knowing what they are talking about. There is something which tempers the sharp cutting edge of intelligence and guides its proper use. It's called wisdom.
One of the primary assumptions which wise people everywhere seem to know intrinsically is that no one knows everything about anything. So be careful when using words or phrases like never, impossible, no such thing, et cetera. I would also add that it compounds the problem when you make such proclamations in bold text. You might give off the impression that you are on a rant.
You don't understand physics yourself. The color of hair comes from light refracting inside the hair itself. It is like oil paint, which has a thick body of binder with particles of pigment in suspension. The surface of the oil paint hardens to prevent air from penetrating and oxidizing the pigments deep in the layer. In the same way, the outer protein shell of the hair protects the pigment within the hair. Also, hair is coated with oils, which keeps oxygen from penetrating and oxidizing the color. Just go ask a woman what happens to her hair dye when it gets frizzy and dry from washing it without a conditioner.
And besides, black and brown pigments like those found in hair are generally not prone to fading, it's colors like magenta that are considered "fugitive pigments." You're comparing apples and oranges.
Do you have any references for this idea that all inkjet printers use ionized ink? It's true that the IRIS (now IXIA) printers use continuous-flow inkjet printing, where the ink is ionized and the droplets are "steered" by running them past charging plates and deflection plates. But most inkjets use thermal printing, where the ink is rapidly heated in the print head to make a bubble, which pressurizes the ink and squirts it out the nozzle. It is only aimed based on careful positioning of the print head. Epson, and some high-end professional printers like Roland, use piezoelectric printing. The piezoelectric effect is where a mechanical stress occurs in a material due to an electrical charge. A small piezoelectric diagram forces the ink out through a narrow (10 micron) orifice. Again, dot-placement is controlled by careful print-head placement, not by electric plates guiding ionized ink.
In fact, while Epson and HP's ink formulations are not known, there are many third-party ink sellers who do list their formulations, and they tend to be rather clear about the fact that they de-ionize the carrier (water) before making the inks. And they don't add anything ionized. Yet, these non-ionized inks work with these printers. How is that? Fuji also mentions that only a few expensive large-format printers use ionized ink.
Even if the inks were ionized, it is entirely unclear that oxidation would break down the large color particles in pigment based inks like Ultrachrome inks. Your arguments fail to address this. Pigmented inks are what were used in classical oil paintings, many of which have been displayed without glass since the renaisance, probably without significant fading. During this time, they've been heavily oxidized. You do not present any case that adding an ionizing agent to the ink would accellerate the breakdown of the pigments to make the inks significantly unstable. Do you have any research, or math, or arguments as to what makes you think that the addition of any ionizing agent would break down any conceivable pigment too quickly to make it stable?
"I won't even get into the chemical formulation of dyes, and let me make it clear, there are no inkjet "inks," they are all dyes. Inks have a binder, and dyes do not. Dyes cannot be deposited on a surface in sufficient quantities to provide a stable layer of pigment, they merely stain the surface of the substrate."
Yes, that's why, at least with dye-based inkjet inks, the paper is critically important to the life of the prints. The paper is the binder. There are two main types of inkjet photopaper coatings. Microporous coated papers provide the least protection against oxidation. Still, good microporous papers, like the microcermaic coatings invented by Asahi Glass, allow large amounts of ink to be deposited with quick drying and without smudging, and the more ink, the more it can oxidize without changing. They use tiny ceramic (alumnia sol) particles in a silca gel, which rapidly sequesters the ink. Viewed under a microscope, this paper looks like jagged mountains. This is how they gather enough ink to "provide a stable layer of pigment." That's why these papers are usually used with more stable inks, they don't protect the ink much, but they take a whole lot of it into the paper.
Swellable Polymer papers use a nonporous coating of organic polymers that are water-receptive and SWELL TO SURROUND THE INK after it hits the paper. The majority of the ink is completely protected from direct air exposure. How do the inks oxidize, then?
Kodak has managed to combine these two approaches in their latest Ultima Picture Paper, which both takes a heavy coating of ink and en
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
It's a damned lie. We have some medical image backups on this stuff where I work, from about 3-8 years ago. Close to half of them are corrupted and unreadable.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.