Digital BW, The Print

" Let's all remember: "data is king."

Funny you should be the one to say that.

After all, you posted meaningless "statistics" on your Nanochrome (so 
called) test.

You print out some bands of ink on a paper. You hang them in a  
window for 18 days and then take some measurements and then tell us 
that Nanochromes are no good.

But what you failed to do was even TRY to measure the amount of LUX 
your prints recieved. That's what's most important: How much TOTAL 
LUX the inks (and papers, coatings...) can recieve before fading (or 
yellowing, or cracking...).

When a few reputable people have come up with a standard (whether you 
agree or disagree with their method)you should have attemped to use 
the same method yourself.


At least Wilhelm and Livick have measures the total about of LUX 
their samples have recieved. You can agree or disagree on which light 
source should be used for testing, but at least these two are using 
a "scientific" method for measurement. Adn at what fade % is 
acceptable to you. Wilhelm uses a 30% fade rate.
Livick used 30% as well, and even gave numbers form as little as a 5% 
fade rate.

18 days of south facing light below the Mason-Dixion is probably 
better than it sounds. That maybe 8 million LUX which could be equal 
to over 100 years in a room without direct sunlight shining on it, 
and the room reciveing about 200 LUX per day.

After using a good coating, that could really increase the fade 
resistance of those inks to a staggering degree.

Sadly, "sheep" will take that Nanochrome post of yours and go on 
believing that these inks are no good and never give Nanochrome the 
benefit of the doubt. 

 That is truly the sad part of your (un) scientific test.

Yes, "data is king".

Scott

 

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
<shileshjani@b...> wrote:
>
> Tyler wrote:
> 
> > The point to me was it's not the numbers... it's the visual 
impact.
> > It's not a big number black, it's a gorgeous velvety black you can
> > fall into.
> 
> Sounds like religion; "get-by on faith, my faith" and so on. You 
can 
> fall a lot deeper into a Dmax 2.0 hole than a Dmax 1.7 hole - oh, 
don't 
> belive the numbers, just trust me because my head has a bigger bump 
> falling in the former.
> 
> I don't mean to be impudent, but what is the point to the original 
post 
> unless you give the readers some point of objective reference, 
i.e., 
> measured density. Bill Atkinson is proabably a great guy, but I 
hazard 
> a guess that his reputation is built not by "Bill-Speak" but with 
real 
> data - his printer profiles. Let's all remember: "data is king."
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Shilesh
>