Digital BW, The Print

First of all , we're not "buddies".

Second, I could care less about NanoChrome.

Third, unless you plan on diplaying you photos in direct sunlight, 
keep running you little useless test.

And let me give you a tip: If you're going to display your prints in 
direct sunlight, go buy a Roland printer and some of there solvent 
inks. At least you can get a year or two out of your prints before 
fading.

You can have the last word.

Fire away...

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
<shileshjani@b...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
> 
> I don't know how I missed this post of yours today.
> 
> A preamble: You are not doing NanChrome any favors, I hope you know 
> that. Why? Because these inks are touted in their press release as:
> 
> "NanoChrome™ Hybrid Resin Technology has met the strict challenges 
of 
> fade resistance tests conducted by independent laboratories and 
> industry specialists. Test results are available at 
> www.inkvillage.com and conclude that fade resistance is comparable 
or 
> better than major archival inks currently on the market while 
> maintaining more vivid and dense colors."
> 
> So I called InkVillage and asked them for the data, and was told it 
> is not available yet. Hmm, I thought, should I risk putting them on 
> my 4000 strictly on their word. No way, absolutely not. Hence my 
own 
> test. 
> 
> TO-DATE, THERE IS NOT ONE, NADA, ZILCH PIECE OF FADE INFORMATION ON 
> THESE INKS AVAILABLE TO THE BUYING PUBLIC RELEASED BY INKVILLAGE. 
> Hell, you should be bitching at them for making these outrageous 
> public claims without data from a reputable source; for crying out 
> loud they could even be from a disreputable source. I have no beef 
> against them, as I wrote, I was going into this eyes-wide open. But 
> YOU have taken on an interesting role.
> 
> So let's see what data you have. Please, please point me to it.
> 
> Now, here I am going into my teaching mode:
> 
> My test had (1) my subject (the NanChrome inks), (2) a negative 
> control (Epson UC), and (3) a positive control (Epson Dye).
> 
> Let me explain. UC inks have a reputation backed by user 
experience, 
> and fade data from Wilhelm and others. It is a "fairly" good inkset 
> for fade resistance. The Epson dye inks also have a reputation, 
also 
> backed by exprience and data. It is not considered good for fade 
> resistance.
> 
> Did you notice the wide variety of common papers I used? I was 
making 
> sure that I did not unduly bias my tests through paper selection. I 
> have no interest in RC papers, yet I went to the local CompUsa to 
get 
> EPG and EPSG for the test.
> 
> So now, we have a variety of papers, an inkset known for "fairly 
> good" fade resistance, an inset known for "fairly poor" fade 
> resistance, and my test inkset NanoChrome. If I had tested the 
> NanoChrome alone, I should be justly criticised, it would have been 
> shoddy on my part.
> 
> And guess what, my test showed NanoChromes I received from 
InkVillage 
> are no better than Epson dye inks. Now for some people that is OK, 
> and I have no argument with them. But to claim as InkVillage did in 
> their press release is BLATANTLY WRONG.
> 
> Scott, do you get my drift here buddy. You are not doing NanoChrome 
> any favors, because now, I am exposing to a wider public the 
> shortcomings in their press release, i.e., VERY IMPRESSIVE CLAIMS 
> WITH NO DATA. And, when they do get the data, they decide to redo 
> everthing. What's up with that? I really think you should take that 
> up with them.
> 
> You signed-off "Yes, data is king." Now run along and ask 
InkVillage 
> to give you some data.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> <scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
> >
> > " 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
> > >
> >
>