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

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/

 

Not just any "ink" but " the latest inks from various manufacturers"
Sounds somewhat limited.

 

Not ANY ink: "the latest inks from various manufacturers"
Does this mean only pigment-based inks? Dye-based? Both?

 

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

 

you mean like the promise of "mañana" (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/

 

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/

 

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

 

Last time I used Kodak paper on my Inj jet the inks separated and looked
awful.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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/

 

Quite true, which is why they try to make them work well together.

 

My best results for my Canon printer was both the Canon paper and Epson
paper.

 

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/