Digital BW, The Print

With all due respect to Epson and Wilhelm:

Epson does state "behind glass" when they talk about longevity with 
their inks and papers.

And Wilhelm states that he uses fuoresecent lighting for testing.

One has to keep these two things in mind.

The problem is, no matter how intense the testing is, someone will 
always come along and complain about something.

What's RESONABLE?

I think sunlight testing is the best methode. To me, it represents 
a "worst case scenario".

So, if an ink, paper, and varnish combo can give me 6 months in the 
sunlight without fading, what's that worth in typicle room lighting, 
say 255 LUX?



Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... 
wrote:
>
> john dean wrote:
> 
> > I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. 
> 
> I also hate that you are 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.
> 
> And we might add, Wilhelm missed this completely. Those inks went 
out to 
> the marketplace with his stamp of approval. Hundred year life, I 
think 
> he said.
> 
> The culprit here was assumptions. Epson assumed that every print 
that 
> came off their printers would be framed (I mean -- duh). Wilhelm 
agreed 
> to test that way (where was his integrity?). Epson was being 
arrogant. 
> Wilhelm, who knew better (the guy ain't dumb), took their money and 
said 
> "you're the boss."
> 
> Whether he knew or didn't, whether he should have or not, he put 
his 
> name and reputation on the 1270 inks. He said they would last. 
Under 
> glass. Knowing that this was contrary to the way people actually 
use the 
> products.
> 
> Ever since then, his integrity has been suspect to a great many 
people. 
> This is why you are always having to defend him ;-)
> 
> You have to remember - this is the guy who went after Kodak because 
all 
> those color photographs were fading in people's shoe boxes in the 
back 
> of their closets. He knew that this is what people did with prints. 
He knew.
> 
> >
> > This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints being
> > stored and shown behind glass, started. 
> 
> Yes - Epson and Wilhelm trying to CYA. That's how we tested - so 
that's 
> how you should use the product. Sorry if that's not real world 
> conditions. Sorry if you can't afford to frame every scrap of 
paper. 
> Sorry if you are putting family photos into scrap books.
> 
> > Later the talk about sprays
> > doubling or tripling the life of the print.
> 
> That was us, trying to recover from having bought equipment, paper, 
and 
> inks based on Wilhelm's OK. Just trying to salvage something from 
the 
> 1270 debacle.
> 
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 
> They are called "environmental chambers." Examples:
> 
> http://www.lre.com/test2/docs/menu.htm
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> You are spraying both sides then? Else, you still need to seal the 
> print, front and back, in a frame.
> 
> >
> > 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
>