"Rick" <me_at_privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2idds4Flvh17U1_at_uni-berlin.de...
> "ThomasH" <henrymot_at_some.net> wrote in message
news:40C163ED.5347217C_at_comcast.net...
> > Skip M wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <me_at_privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2iapjpFl039iU1_at_uni-berlin.de...
> > > > "Huey Fong" <nospam_at_auspics.com> wrote in message
news:2iap52FkdeeuU1_at_uni-berlin.de...
> > > > >
> > > > > "ThomasH" <henrymot_at_any.net> wrote in message
news:40BF9FBD.E5FA51F_at_oracle.com...
> > > > > > The data looks very promising:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson_sp4000.html > > > > > >
> > > > > > I am surprised about absence of data about top of the
> > > > > > line Canon printers on this web page... Nothing positive
> > > > > > to report??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they research Canon? They are funded by Epson... Funny
that, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Canon and HP are a full three years behind Epson in development
> > > > of ink technology. Canon's are especially poor -- they run and
> > > > smear easily, and have virtually no water resistance.
> >
> > This is a massive bunch of nonsense and a proof that you have
> > never been using a Canon printer. Like with their cameras and
> > lenses, Canon did a splendid job and cut severely into Epsons
> > domain.
>
> No, they haven't "cut severely into Epson's domain". Canon has
> no equivalent of Epson's archival pigment inks. Dye based inks
> (which are all Canon has to offer at present) are far less water
> resistant than pigment inks.
>
> Rick
>
>
I don't know how much more water resistant the Canon inks need to be. Any
more exposure to water (see my above post) and the paper would be the issue,
not the ink.
Epson pigment inks are more fade resistant than Canon's dye inks, though.
But I've only seen them rated on Epson paper, not other leading independent
papers like Ilford and Lumijet.
