Kodak COLORLAST - Ultima Picture Papers last 100 years with any ink?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by VT, Jan 30, 2004.

  1. VT

    VT Guest

    news item at imaging-rsource.com caught my eye:

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1075434463.html

    QUOTE:
    ROCHESTER, N.Y., January 29 - Eastman Kodak Company today introduced
    the world's longest lasting inkjet photo paper - new KODAK Ultima
    Picture Paper with COLORLAST technology. The vast majority of prints
    made on this paper using photo-quality home inkjet printers will enjoy
    brilliant color and resist degradation longer than prints made on any
    other inkjet paper. When used with the latest inks from various
    manufacturers, photos printed on the paper will last for more than 100
    years in typical home display without protection from gas and
    humidity.
    UNQUOTE

    this sounds amazing a paper that will make ANY ink last for over 100
    years?

    Here are the Kodak links:

    www.kodak.com/go/inkjet/

    COLORLAST technology
    http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1870&pq-locale=en_US
    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHING for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    http://UnknownVT.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Jan 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Not just any "ink" but " the latest inks from various manufacturers"
    Sounds somewhat limited.
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jan 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. VT

    Mark Roberts Guest

    Not ANY ink: "the latest inks from various manufacturers"
    Does this mean only pigment-based inks? Dye-based? Both?
     
    Mark Roberts, Jan 30, 2004
    #3
  4. VT

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: VT
    You have to read between the lines with Kodak's longevity claims and be careful
    about comparing them directly to the Wilhelm generated numbers, since Kodak is
    testing to "typical home display" conditions, which are far less stringent than
    the conditions Wilhelm uses.

    Specifically Kodak assumes a much lower ambient light level, less than half of
    what Wilhelm uses (which means their print life estimate gets cut by more than
    half just for this parameter) and also they assume 30% loss of color density is
    acceptable since the photos will still have meaning to a family with faded
    colors, while Wilhelm assumes much more restrictive density loss (basically
    when a trained observer can first see a difference between an unfaded and a
    faded picture, around 7%).

    Kodak also assumes less restrictive temperature and humidity numbers, but most
    of the differences are explained by the lower ambient light assumptions and the
    greater "acceptable" color density loss.

    In the past, 100 years under Kodak's test condtions have correlated to about
    18-22 years under Wilhelm's test conditions, which is what Epson and others are
    using.
    You have to read the fine print carefully with the Kodak numbers :)

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jan 30, 2004
    #4
  5. VT

    VT Guest

    you mean like the promise of "maƱana" (tomorrow never comes)?

    when one does reach any date in the future, when the the prints have
    faded - the inks used in the faded print would not then be the
    "latest" ?

    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHING for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    http://UnknownVT.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Jan 30, 2004
    #5
  6. VT

    VT Guest

    Thank you Bill for helping read between Kodak's lines.

    So.... in effect Kodak's COLORLAST technology Ultima Picture Papers
    gives no longer life than any Wilhelm rated ink/paper combination of
    18-22 years -

    that seems like the majority of papers from the major/reputable inkjet
    printer manufacturers.........

    So is Kodak's COLORLAST Technology no more than a marketing ploy -

    To sell papers no better than any other reputable manufacturer (with a
    Wilhelm rating of at least 18-22years) - but proclaiming 100 years'
    print life?

    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHING for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    http://UnknownVT.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Jan 30, 2004
    #6
  7. VT

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: VT
    Yes, under Wilhelm's test conditions ... but many people feel his conditions
    are too tough for consumer prints.
    I briefly read their release you linked to and it looks like they are claiming
    this print life with prints exposed to air (Wilhelm's numbers rely on prints
    mounted behind glass) and of course most of the snapshot prints that most of us
    keep are not mounted, so from that standpoint it looks like a better paper than
    some others.
    I don't think they intentionally mislead since, at least for a couple of the
    papers, they publish the test conditions and you can figure out from their own
    charts what the "Wilhelm equivalent" estimated life span would be, but it's
    definitely dangerous to compare their numbers to Wilhelm numbers without
    qualifying it.

    Basically Kodak's tests are trying to mimic conditions typical consumers might
    experience and Wilhelm's tests are much more stringent, designed for fine art
    collections and museums.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jan 31, 2004
    #7
  8. VT

    CBM Guest

    Last time I used Kodak paper on my Inj jet the inks separated and looked
    awful.
     
    CBM, Jan 31, 2004
    #8
  9. VT

    Don Stauffer Guest

    This is something I have long wondered about. I see many brands of
    paper, and various reviews, stating that the paper is the important
    thing in prints lasting a long time. I can see this if it is the acid
    or some other chemical in the paper that fades the ink.

    However, I was under the impression that the main deterioration of the
    dyes was due to UV and blue light causing a photo bleaching. How does
    paper prevent this?
     
    Don Stauffer, Jan 31, 2004
    #9
  10. VT

    Mark Roberts Guest

    The first time I used Kodak inkjet paper (with my Epson 1270) it looked
    awful - just as you described. When they introduced the first Ultima
    paper several years ago I tried it and was able to get results *close*
    to what I could achieve with Epson paper. But not close enough :(
    But there was definitely enough improvement between the first paper and
    the second (and enough time has passed since) that I'd experiment with
    Kodak paper again.
     
    Mark Roberts, Jan 31, 2004
    #10
  11. VT

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Best results will usually be obtained by using the paper suggested by
    the printer/ink manufacturer. They have a vested interest in giving you
    the best possible result. Note also that many newer inks are actually
    designed to work with the particular chemical content of a line of papers.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 31, 2004
    #11
  12. VT

    VT Guest

    That is sound advice -

    But there is very much a vested interest in the printer and ink
    manufacturer to sell their own brand of papers too.
    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHING for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    http://UnknownVT.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Feb 1, 2004
    #12
  13. VT

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Quite true, which is why they try to make them work well together.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 1, 2004
    #13
  14. VT

    CBM Guest

    My best results for my Canon printer was both the Canon paper and Epson
    paper.
     
    CBM, Feb 1, 2004
    #14
  15. VT

    VT Guest


    Just as there is every incentive for Kodak and any other manufacturer
    of "repute" to try to produce papers that give good/optimum results
    with the "popular" photo printers.....

    and please remember not long ago the best photo papers (chemical ones
    for film) were (and still are) produced by Kodak, Ilford and the like

    Don't get me wrong - I also use Epson papers with Epson printers - but
    it's just that printer manufacturers may not necessarily always have
    the exclusive corner in the optimum paper.............
    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHING for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    http://UnknownVT.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Feb 1, 2004
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.