Digital BW, The Print

My only problem with Wilhelm's test is thaat he uses fluorescent 
lighting for his testing.

Fluorescent lighting doesn't contain NEAR the amount of harmful UV 
light as sunshine, or, Xenon Arc, for that matter.

Other than that, I think his work is great.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>
> I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. But there is a
> lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
> difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the stability
> domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections in his
> projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson Premium
> Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and staining that
> existed apart from the lux level figures and confused everyone. The
> culprit ended up being ozone.
> 
> This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints being
> stored and shown behind glass, started. Later the talk about sprays
> doubling or tripling the life of the print. 
> 
> Now.. how ones tests for these airborne contaminants and 
subsequently
> publish stability data that takes them into consideration, well that
> is a big one that I'm certainly ignorant about. This is someting we
> all need to know a lot more about. 
> 
> My procedure, much to the horror of many of us out here, is to spray
> everything that I need the greatest permanece for. At this point my
> assumption is that airborne substances are even more toxic to inkjet
> prints than uv light.
> 
> But spraying itself is toxic too, to us humans, and everyone has to
> make that decision for himself for the needs of his clients. 
> John
>