Kodak's new 100 year paper.
2004-02-04 by Joe Davajon
Since many of us print both b@w and color, I thought I'd share this. I hope I'm not out of line. Here are my initial observations on Kodak's new Ultima Paper with Colorfast technology they report will last 100 years unprotected. After trying four different places, I finally found some High Gloss at CompUsa. Price: $32.28 out the door. I couldn't see any Satin which I prefer. I have made some initial tests on two of my printers: Epson 890 with OEM dye cartridges and the Epson 2200 with OEM cartridges. First: The 890. Prints are excellent! No issues and the ink does not look as if it were sitting on top of the paper. Color spectrum is wide as I've seen, and very nicely saturated. Great blues, reds, greens, and flesh tones are very pleasing. If Kodak's estimation of 100 years with dye inks, this would seem to me to be a significant and gratifying breakthrough in technology. One concern however, is that Kodak states that a fade rate of 30% over the life of the print is acceptable. At least one person in this group strongly feels that 30% is not acceptable. My question to the group is this: if the print will fade 30% in 100 years hanging on your refrigerator, what would the fade rate be if the same print were protected in an archival album or mounted on museum board behind glass which protects from UV? So perhaps, a 30% fade rate is a moot question. I'm asking the groups thinking on the matter. Next: The 2200. A different story here. There is significant bronzing in the deepest shadows. Too much. I sprayed the print with Premier Art Spray but that did not eliminate or alleviate the problem to any significant degree. It did, however, seem to brighten the print some. But the color spectrum while not dramatically inferior is not as wide as the 890 ink dye print. The 890 clearly has better reds, greens, blues. But you have to have the prints side by side to see the difference. Viewed individually, they both look good except for the bronzing of the 2200 print. In summary, the 890 with OEM cartridges produces superior prints. If Kodak's estimation for print life is accurate we've got a fine paper here. The 2200 has issues that discourage me personally from exploring the paper further. One caveat: These remarks are just my personal evaluation and others may not agree. I'm very interested in hearing the experiences of others exploring this paper. This is a great group and my personal thank you to all of you who are so generous in helping inform the rest of us. Joe Davajon