Digital BW, The Print

Clayton Jones wrote:
> Scott, Walt,
> 
>> In the "test" Shilesh performed the Epson dyes faded, the 
>> Nanochromes faded, the Ultrachromes didn't. 
> 
> I have to agree with Walt.  The test does have some validity because
> of the other control prints.  If two fade and one doesn't under the
> same conditions, then that says a lot about the relative merits of
> those inks.  

It may have been a quick and dirty method of testing that
Shilesh has used but it still is a warning to stay away from
dye inks if longevity is an issue. There's no proof either
that the inks will sustain the more Wilhelm like tests better
than Epson dyes do. Shilesh indicated before he gave the
numbers that the test wasn't that scientific.

The Nanochromes were not advertised as a replacement for Epson
dyes, they aimed higher but they were worse than the Epson dye
inks in Shilesh test. It would be a remarkable ink chemistry
if they performed at UC level in for example the Wilhelm test.
Gas fading isn't a good quality either if that was causing
the shift in Shilesh test.

It would still be a good idea if more DIY tests are done given 
the lack of any good tests done by reputed laboratories. I'm 
glad we have left the Dmax and gamut only stadium left behind 
and get a wider perspective. The next stage is the paper/ink 
compatibility issue. At best we get a HP dye/paper quality 
with all the limited choices possible in that scheme, at worst 
Epson dye/paper quality, something that was possible 2 years 
ago. All very predictable steps and a shame that early 
adopters have to do the experiments because the company 
doesn't do the testing or isn't revealing the test results. 
Even more shame that the Guinea pigs are getting bad treatment 
by bystanders because their test methods are not up to standard.

Ernst



                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )