Digital BW, The Print

This is way out of order.

Shilesh very helpfully did a side by side comparison.  The amount of lux the
prints received was completely irrelevant.  The point was the 3 inks
received the same lux and hence their reaction could be compared.

Data is not "king" but it does provide a means of communication for many
aspects of printing.  Of course everyone's reaction to colour is different
and for this very reason the ICC devised a "standard observer".  Even
Clayton who seems to abhor things technical makes an effort to express
densities in ratings that allow him to express what he sees, although it's a
pity those ratings aren't of a scale that's more broadly meaningful.

I look forward to the day you provide a meaningful contribution to the
Group.


> From: scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:09:47 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news
> 
> " 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