Chromalife inks

[Tom W]

OK, I have to ask, since I'm considering a photo printer (finally). Has anybody heard any news of late on the Chromalife 100 Archival ink? Will it ever make its way across the Pacific Ocean to the US?

I'm really balking at going with a printer if the longevity isn't there. I can get prints from a multitude of sources when I need them, but it would be nice to be able to print my own, if the quality and longevity is there.

[Hellashot]

Never heard of Chromalife 100, but several Epson printers use Ultrachrome inks that are rated 100 to 200 years.

[Tom W]

Never heard of Chromalife 100, but several Epson printers use Ultrachrome inks that are rated 100 to 200 years.

It's Canon archival ink. Apparently available only in Japan at this time. It's been mentioned on this forum before, but I hadn't heard anything recently.

[Longwatcher]

Just remember that color prints that last at least 25 years exceed what could be done at photo lab in terms of longevity. B+W on the other hand can last considerably longer.

Both Kodak and Wilhelm are not extremely accurate to date although both are getting better so you need to decide for yourself anyway what to believe.

I trust Kodak Ultima and Ilford Classic paper to 25 years using Canon's BCI-6 ink set and I trust Epson using their archival ink and paper to about 30+ years, beyond that is all just ..... at this point.

I have been watching for Canon's Chromalife ink as well, but have heard nothing new in english at least. Some cool stuff in Japanese that indicates less bleed off to atmosphere (my biggest gripe) and they have apparently silently updated the PR-101 paper. Also finding out a new i9900 like printer the pixus iP9910 (looks the same, probably different controller). There are also some unsubstantiated rumors that BCI-7 inks will fit BCI-6 compatable printers (maybe). They did do this with an earlier printer when they upgraded the ink, the new printer could only use new ink, but the old one could use either. I sure hope so.

[Tom W]

Thanks for the answer, Longwatcher. I'm reluctant to trust anything but pro printing so far. I haven't had any fading problems from those prints that I've had made from film over the years, but of course, I can't draw them up on the screen to compare to the original. They're all behind glass of varying UV capability, except for the hundreds of 4X6 prints that occupy many shoeboxes in their original Kodak packaging.

Perhaps I'll keep watching for a bit longer. It would be nice to produce my own output, but I don't want fading images. I don't want anyone to even think that the images might be from a home printer.

[Longwatcher]

Perhaps I'll keep watching for a bit longer. It would be nice to produce my own output, but I don't want fading images. I don't want anyone to even think that the images might be from a home printer.

Well so far, at this time, I can only recommend using Ilford Gallerie Classic Pearl paper (if you use Canon printer) as it does not have any stupid inkjet words on back (like Kodak Ultima) and the results to date have surprised a lot of people. Or the alternative of Epson with archival ink and paper (although the color is apparently not quite as good from what I have read).

When the Chromalife inks come out, I am probably going to have to re-run my paper/ink test for myself again as I don't trust Canon's marketing on ink and paper.

[Tom W]

Well so far, at this time, I can only recommend using Ilford Gallerie Classic Pearl paper (if you use Canon printer) as it does not have any stupid inkjet words on back (like Kodak Ultima) and the results to date have surprised a lot of people. Or the alternative of Epson with archival ink and paper (although the color is apparently not quite as good from what I have read).

When the Chromalife inks come out, I am probably going to have to re-run my paper/ink test for myself again as I don't trust Canon's marketing on ink and paper.

Right now, I'm probably not going to buy any printer until Canon's new inks are out (and you or some other trustworthy member has tested them). I don't print much (actually, I don't print images at all - I get them done at a regular photo printer lab) yet so I can wait. If they're good, I'll go Canon. If not, Epson.