Digital BW, The Print

In addition to the whispers about Hahnemühle price increases, it also
seems they are discountinuing the White Velvet. A big disapointment as
people here were finally picking up on it.
I was recently a guest at Bill Atkinson's studio. He has no use for
the matte and art papers, seeking maximum gamut and dmax. In fact, I
don't believe he has even profiled them for the x800 printer.
However, when going through some of my quad prints, he stopped on one
made with White Velvet impressed by the black and even pulled out a
spectro to measure it.
Prints on this paper are very impressive, and there is none other like
it. I'm sorry to see it go so soon, I don't think it was given a chance.

Constant materials turnover is going to be an issue for us. It was
with silver, but not at this rate.
Tyler

Tyler,

Quit the tease, what density value did Bill get with the Spectro? 
What is your K ink?

Shilesh 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> In addition to the whispers about Hahnemühle price increases, it 
also
> seems they are discountinuing the White Velvet. A big disapointment 
as
> people here were finally picking up on it.
> I was recently a guest at Bill Atkinson's studio. He has no use for
> the matte and art papers, seeking maximum gamut and dmax. In fact, I
> don't believe he has even profiled them for the x800 printer.
> However, when going through some of my quad prints, he stopped on 
one
> made with White Velvet impressed by the black and even pulled out a
> spectro to measure it.
> Prints on this paper are very impressive, and there is none other 
like
> it. I'm sorry to see it go so soon, I don't think it was given a 
chance.

> 
> Constant materials turnover is going to be an issue for us. It was
> with silver, but not at this rate.
> Tyler
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani"
<shileshjani@b...> wrote:
>
> Tyler,
> 
> Quit the tease, what density value did Bill get with the Spectro? 
> What is your K ink?
> 
> Shilesh 

He was sneaky and measured it with one of the new cordless spectros
that allow you to download your data later, so I never saw it.
But I can assure you it was nothing out of the ordinary for coated
fine art papers, probably around 1.7. I use Cone PK underprinted with
a dark gray.
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. I don't think the smoother card like surface of HPR has the
same impact, but measures the same, or near it.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani"
> <shileshjani@b...> wrote:
> >
> > Tyler,
> > 
> > Quit the tease, what density value did Bill get with the Spectro? 
> > What is your K ink?
> > 
> > Shilesh 
> 
> He was sneaky...

That probably sounds wrong, it was my great pleasure to meet him and
he was very generous with his time.
Tyler

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

Shilesh   -
   
  "Data" is not king.  The image is king.
   
  Tom Baker

Shilesh Jani <shileshjani@...> 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





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

the point of the original post was that a paper that can yeild extraordinary B&W prints is 
being discontinued. Purely conversational I guess, thought it was "news".
You lost me on the rest.
Tyler

--- 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
>

Tom,

If I was trying not to be impudent with Tyler, I am trying not to be 
argumentative with you. But really, if you I are head-to-head, each 
looking at prints A and B with different Dmax, and each agree to 
the "black deep enough to fall into", then sure you are right.

But can you communicate that to me in cyber-space? I have no idea 
what your or Tyler's idea of "deep" is. Give me a number or send me a 
print. At which point the "print IS the datum, and it IS king"

Excuse my pedantic state of mind. I am an engineer and have no 
patience for opinion, other than it being a spark that sends me into 
the lab.

Shilesh 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
>
> Shilesh   -
>    
>   "Data" is not king.  The image is king.
>    
>   Tom Baker
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" 
in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT 
THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL 
BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT 
OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) 
ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
>     
> ---------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
>     
>     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>     
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>     
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 

> 
>     
> ---------------------------------
>   
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I know what you mean; I was dismayed when I saw that William Turner 
190 gsm was discontinued.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> the point of the original post was that a paper that can yeild 
extraordinary B&W prints is 
> being discontinued. Purely conversational I guess, thought it 
was "news".
> You lost me on the rest.
> Tyler
> 
> --- 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
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" <shileshjani@b...> 
wrote:
...
> But can you communicate that to me in cyber-space? I have no idea 
> what your or Tyler's idea of "deep" is.

I'm not sure how it can be quantified, at least the impression I was talking about. It's visual, 
this paper had a richer looking black than some others with similar numbers.
Sure numbers are part of the deal, I would never say otherwise. But we also have to actually 
look at things and let them effect us.
To make the point better- Bill, your numbers guy, responded to this particular paper/print as 
did all there, enought to grab something to measure it with.
I think I'm repeating myself...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" <shileshjani@b...> 
wrote:
>
> I know what you mean; I was dismayed when I saw that William Turner 
> 190 gsm was discontinued.

Really? I hadn't heard. I printed on that a lot with my old 3000s. They must be thinning the 
line.
Tyler

Shilesh  -
   
  Go measure a really great platinum print. They're beautiful, and probably won't reach 1.7.
   
  And, anyway, opinion=subjectivity=what is good art.
   
  Tom Baker

Shilesh Jani <shileshjani@bellsouth.net> wrote:
  Tom,

If I was trying not to be impudent with Tyler, I am trying not to be 
argumentative with you. But really, if you I are head-to-head, each 
looking at prints A and B with different Dmax, and each agree to 
the "black deep enough to fall into", then sure you are right.

But can you communicate that to me in cyber-space? I have no idea 
what your or Tyler's idea of "deep" is. Give me a number or send me a 
print. At which point the "print IS the datum, and it IS king"

Excuse my pedantic state of mind. I am an engineer and have no 
patience for opinion, other than it being a spark that sends me into 
the lab.

Shilesh 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
>
> Shilesh   -
>    
>   "Data" is not king.  The image is king.
>    
>   Tom Baker
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" 
in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT 
THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL 
BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT 
OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) 
ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
>     
> ---------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
>     
>     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>     
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>     
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 
> 
>     
> ---------------------------------
>   
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tyler,

Atlex has the 13x19 size "discontinued". 

http://www.atlex.com/hahnemuhle/hahnemuhle-william-turner-190-paper.htm

I called Jim Doyle at Shades of Paper and he said the same. Fortunately 
for me, he had some left over boxes, so I stocked up. Perhaps if he has 
any more left, I should clean out his stock. HWT is my "fall into" 
paper ;-). I meant no offense, I hope you see that.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
<shileshjani@b...> 
> wrote:
> >
> > I know what you mean; I was dismayed when I saw that William Turner 
> > 190 gsm was discontinued.
> 
> Really? I hadn't heard. I printed on that a lot with my old 3000s. 
They must be thinning the 

> line.
> Tyler
>

Tom,

Yup, I agree re: platinum. In fact I doubt it can hit 1.5 routinely. 
But I see what you mean, precisely because I HAVE seen, held a 
platinium print, which, to me is data. How would I convince someone 
else of the the gorgeous quality of a Pt print? Show him/her one.

Shilesh


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
>
> Shilesh  -
>    
>   Go measure a really great platinum print. They're beautiful, and 
probably won't reach 1.7.
>    
>   And, anyway, opinion=subjectivity=what is good art.
>    
>   Tom Baker
> 
> Shilesh Jani <shileshjani@b...> wrote:
>   Tom,
> 
> If I was trying not to be impudent with Tyler, I am trying not to 
be 
> argumentative with you. But really, if you I are head-to-head, each 
> looking at prints A and B with different Dmax, and each agree to 
> the "black deep enough to fall into", then sure you are right.
> 
> But can you communicate that to me in cyber-space? I have no idea 
> what your or Tyler's idea of "deep" is. Give me a number or send me 
a 
> print. At which point the "print IS the datum, and it IS king"
> 
> Excuse my pedantic state of mind. I am an engineer and have no 
> patience for opinion, other than it being a spark that sends me 
into 
> the lab.
> 
> Shilesh 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
> <tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Shilesh   -
> >    
> >   "Data" is not king.  The image is king.
> >    
> >   Tom Baker
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
> visiting this same page.
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages 
> to keep them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
> from the membership without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of 
digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
> group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" 
> in the Files section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> > 
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, 
THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT 
> THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
> LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR 
OTHER 
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL 
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO 
OR 
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR 
CONDUCT 
> OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR 
(iv) 
> ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     
> > ---------------------------------
> >   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> > 
> >     
> >     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
> >     
> >     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >     
> >     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service. 
> > 
> >     
> > ---------------------------------
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" 
in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT 
THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL 
BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT 
OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) 
ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
>     
> ---------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
>     
>     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>     
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>     
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 

> 
>     
> ---------------------------------
>   
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" <shileshjani@b...> 
wrote:
>
> Tyler,
> 
> Atlex has the 13x19 size "discontinued"... 

At least there is the thicker version which I use a lot, it's still my favorite paper. The 3000s 
wouldn't advance it so I used the thinner.

> HWT is my "fall into" 
> paper ;-). I meant no offense, I hope you see that.

No problem. Now we all just have to keep buying HWT so it won't get totally discontinued.

Tyler

There is the possibility that you could head into the lab, measure the wrong
thing, and draw a conclusion based on wrong information.  I know I have done
it


More on point, a 45/0 spectro does not measure the “deepness” of a print as
viewed in typical lighting.  Other than carefully controlled gallery type
lighting, matte prints can often appear as black, or blacker than glossy
prints which have a superiour 45/0 Dmax value.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Shilesh
Jani
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:55 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news

Tom,

If I was trying not to be impudent with Tyler, I am trying not to be
argumentative with you. But really, if you I are head-to-head, each
looking at prints A and B with different Dmax, and each agree to
the "black deep enough to fall into", then sure you are right.

But can you communicate that to me in cyber-space? I have no idea
what your or Tyler's idea of "deep" is. Give me a number or send me a
print. At which point the "print IS the datum, and it IS king"

Excuse my pedantic state of mind. I am an engineer and have no
patience for opinion, other than it being a spark that sends me into
the lab.

Shilesh




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>Atlex has the 13x19 size "discontinued"... 
>Now we all just have to keep buying HWT so it won't get 
>totally discontinued.

I have often wondered how Hahnemuhle is being affected by the changing
paper marketplace.  A few years ago there were few papers that could
match theirs for dmax and beauty, but today there are many more good
papers to choose from.  There has to be some sorting out going on. 
Discontinuing this paper, and White Velvet, I would think are good
indicators of them feeling the pinch.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- 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
>

" 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
>

Well the Epson dyes faded. The Nadachromes faded. The Ultrachromes DIDN'T. That's all the "data" I need. At least I don't have blue wool. Baaaaaah, baaaah,
baaaaaaaaaaah.

Walt



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

Scott,

Well yes, there wasn't a TOTAL LUX amount for this given test. To me, 
regardless of whatever the total LUX was in this test, what the fade 
results were for the inks that were tested don't bode well for the 
NanoChrome inks.
I cannot find any test parameters that explain how the 6+ BLUE WOOL 
results were attained or who did the test for the NanoChrome inks 
touted on the web site. Shilesh at least did give some outcome numbers 
and background on his fade test he did.

Larry

On Jan 29, 2006, at 9:09 AM, scott_now_coming 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".

Ultrachromes didn't fade? LMAO!

Please submit your data.

WOW, an ink that doesn't fade, I can't wait to see your data.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha" 
<wkm@k...> wrote:
>
> Well the Epson dyes faded. The Nadachromes faded. The Ultrachromes 
DIDN'T. That's all the "data" I need. At least I don't have blue 
wool. Baaaaaah, baaaah,

> baaaaaaaaaaah.
> 
> Walt
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>

Walt Mucha wrote:

> Well the Epson dyes faded. The Nadachromes faded. The Ultrachromes 
> DIDN'T. That's all the "data" I need. At least I don't have blue wool. 
> Baaaaaah, baaaah,
> baaaaaaaaaaah.
>
> Walt

Ultrachromes don't fade? Watcha smoking Walt?
--
Bruce Watson

In the "test" Shilesh performed the Epson dyes faded, the Nanochromes faded, the Ultrachromes didn't. If these inks fade in this simple "test" I doubt they would fare well in any test Livick or Wilhelm would perform and that's my point. As to data. I wonder where it is. Inkvillage said it would be available in January. Well the months almost gone -------. I guess the beta testers haven't been released from thier NDAs either. No feedback from them, hmmmmmm.

Walt  

-----Original Message-----
From: hogarth@... [mailto:hogarth@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 06:15 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news

Walt Mucha wrote:

> Well the Epson dyes faded. The Nadachromes faded. The Ultrachromes 
> DIDN'T. That's all the "data" I need. At least I don't have blue wool. 
> Baaaaaah, baaaah,
> baaaaaaaaaaah.
>
> Walt

Ultrachromes don't fade? Watcha smoking Walt?
--
Bruce Watson
























Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Bruce, Scott, Walt,

Before this becomes a pro vs anti NanoChrome conversation, I thought 
I would provide some clarifications.

First, InkVillage (specifically Michael Labella) were responsive to 
all of my questions; he were prompt in returning emails and phone 
calls. I have no ill-will toward them and I hope earnestly they solve 
the question so I can go back to enjoying the superb Dmax I was 
getting.

Additionally, the South Window test was actually suggested to me by 
Michael at InkVillage. The reason was that I was reluctatnt to load 
these inks on my 4000; the hassle, expense of associated is quite 
significant (~ $1000) and I could not risk of having to revert back 
to UC inks. So I bought the R220 only for my tests, otherwise I have 
no use for the printer.

Now I hate to air-out phone conversations, but Michael even suggested 
that I do the South facing test outside, with NO glazing in front of 
the prints. Sadly my home is not amenable to that approach. He also 
encouraged me to post the results WHEN they become available. Clearly 
something went wrong. I have asked Michael at InkVillage to go back 
and check their records to make sure that I was shipped the right 
ink, to make sure their dye ink was not shipped by mistake. For those 
wanting to dwell into this mystery, all I can say is call InkVillage. 
They do HAVE fade data, but according to their website, they are re-
doing all the tests.

http://inkvillage.com/News.htm

Now back to my results. In my original post I was clear (or so I 
hope) that this is a very limited test, for reasons I explained. No 
one is claiming that UC inks do not fade. Rather what I saw was that 
under specific, identical light exposure conditions in which the UC 
MK and PK inks did not fade to a measurable extent, prints made on 
the same corresponsing papers with Epson Dye K and NanoChrome K 
showed measurable, visually apparent fade. That is it, no more, no 
less. Is this real world? I don't know.

My own personal feeling is "damn shame". I was terribly excited about 
the inks. But in the same spirit of Robert Falcon Scott - I was 
taking a risk, I knew I was taking a risk, things have come out 
against us, therefore I have no cause for complaint. The R220 makes a 
nice test bed for future games with inks. You should see what K ink I 
have just put into it (Dmax 2.0 on HWT), and yes the prints are on 
the South window, and yes, I will report back in 18 or so days. Boy, 
now I am teasing.

In the final analysis, this is just photography; prints are not life 
and death. Have fun and enjoy making your prints.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha" 
<wkm@k...> wrote:
>
> In the "test" Shilesh performed the Epson dyes faded, the 
Nanochromes faded, the Ultrachromes didn't. If these inks fade in 
this simple "test" I doubt they would fare well in any test Livick or 
Wilhelm would perform and that's my point. As to data. I wonder where 
it is. Inkvillage said it would be available in January. Well the 
months almost gone -------. I guess the beta testers haven't been 
released from thier NDAs either. No feedback from them, hmmmmmm.
> 
> Walt  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hogarth@s... [mailto:hogarth@s...]
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 06:15 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news
> 
> Walt Mucha wrote:
> 
> > Well the Epson dyes faded. The Nadachromes faded. The 
Ultrachromes 
> > DIDN'T. That's all the "data" I need. At least I don't have blue 
wool. 
> > Baaaaaah, baaaah,
> > baaaaaaaaaaah.
> >
> > Walt
> 
> Ultrachromes don't fade? Watcha smoking Walt?
> --
> Bruce Watson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" 
in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT 
THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL 
BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT 
OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) 
ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

As I said in another post, my spectro is ready and waiting to measure 
those papers with the faded Nanochromes. I'll even do some graphs 
just for fun. I'm in the US so postage shouldn't be too bad. Contact 
me offlist for my address.

-Excuse my pedantic state of mind. I am an engineer and have no
-patience for opinion, other than it being a spark that sends me into
-the lab.

-Shilesh


You may have no patience for opinion, but every print I have ever sold was 
purchased by someone who in their opinion just liked the image. I have never 
had a discussion about DMAX with any collector.

Gary


www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown

Well, I'm not going to get into this more other than to say that 
pending the outcome of the emails to Ink Village, my spectro has been 
enlisted to do the measuring.

If Ink Village want the prints, then they should get them. If not 
I'll measure and post when I receive them. As far as the testing 
goes, they were stacked up against the Epson dye and pigment inks. 
For a good comparison, the amount of light would be nice, but not 
really needed since it is a relatively general comparison between the 
Epson dye and Epson pigment inks. You should also remember that these 
were done behind double pane glass, I bet the amount of UV that gets 
through is pretty low.

I now see why Livick removed all his testing...

Totally out of context, but try this: Make photocopies of the prints 
and see if the same people buy that in preference over your originals.

Sorry, but no cigar. If you want me to believe you have something 
good, you have to show it to me, failing that give me some objective 
measure of "goodness". For "deep blacks", I am afraid Dmax is what we 
have available.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Brown" 
<baffin@c...> wrote:
>
> -Excuse my pedantic state of mind. I am an engineer and have no
> -patience for opinion, other than it being a spark that sends me 
into
> -the lab.
> 
> -Shilesh
> 
> 
> You may have no patience for opinion, but every print I have ever 
sold was 
> purchased by someone who in their opinion just liked the image. I 
have never 

> had a discussion about DMAX with any collector.
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
>

I was always taught that listening to engineers talk about art was like 
dancing about architecture

"Well yes, there wasn't a TOTAL LUX amount for this given test. To me,
regardless of whatever the total LUX was in this test, what the fade
results were for the inks that were tested don't bode well for the
NanoChrome inks."

How can you reasonably say that?

11 hours of sunshine is equal to about 1 million lux.

Shilesh, I believe stated, that her test print didn't recieve total 
sunshine all day, everyday, but most days. 

Everyday, all day would be about 18 million LUX. So, let's say it 
recieved 45% sunshine for those 18 days. That would give us about 8.1 
million LUX.

Under an interior setting that recieves about 255 LUX per day, would 
not fade for about 87 years. And this is an "UNCOATED" print!

And, I think her fading was , what, between 10 and 16%?

That's not even going for a 30% fade rate!

I think people that discounted the Nanochrome inks because of 
Shilesh's test, should re-think their position.

Because if Shilesh's testing is what it appears to me, those 
Nanochrome inks are a lot more stable than Shilesh's post leads 
people to believe.

Remember, a good varnish like Golden or Clear Shield will increase 
the fade protection 1000% (10 times compared to an "un-protected" 
print).

Scott




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Larry Wangelin 
<lwangelin@h...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
> 
> Well yes, there wasn't a TOTAL LUX amount for this given test. To 
me, 
> regardless of whatever the total LUX was in this test, what the 
fade 
> results were for the inks that were tested don't bode well for the 
> NanoChrome inks.
> I cannot find any test parameters that explain how the 6+ BLUE WOOL 
> results were attained or who did the test for the NanoChrome inks 
> touted on the web site. Shilesh at least did give some outcome 
numbers 
> and background on his fade test he did.
> 
> Larry
> 
> On Jan 29, 2006, at 9:09 AM, scott_now_coming 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".
>

Shilesh measured the fading, just not the amount of light the test was 
exposed to.

That's what's really needed.

Scott

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> As I said in another post, my spectro is ready and waiting to measure 
> those papers with the faded Nanochromes. I'll even do some graphs 
> just for fun. I'm in the US so postage shouldn't be too bad. Contact 
> me offlist for my address.
>

Shilesh  -
   
  That's just absurd.  Spoken like a true engineer.
   
  Tom Baker

Shilesh Jani <shileshjani@...> wrote:
  Totally out of context, but try this: Make photocopies of the prints 
and see if the same people buy that in preference over your originals.

Sorry, but no cigar. If you want me to believe you have something 
good, you have to show it to me, failing that give me some objective 
measure of "goodness". For "deep blacks", I am afraid Dmax is what we 
have available.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Brown" 
<baffin@c...> wrote:
>
> -Excuse my pedantic state of mind. I am an engineer and have no
> -patience for opinion, other than it being a spark that sends me 
into
> -the lab.
> 
> -Shilesh
> 
> 
> You may have no patience for opinion, but every print I have ever 
sold was 
> purchased by someone who in their opinion just liked the image. I 
have never 
> had a discussion about DMAX with any collector.
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
>







Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  SPONSORED LINKS 
        Digital wedding photography   Learn digital photography   Digital photography college     Digital photography   Digital photography web site   Digital photography course 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You're an engineer and you can't see where your test was flawed?

I'm just a photographer, and it was readily evident to me  how you 
failed to make a test with any meaningful results.

Scott

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
<shileshjani@b...> wrote:
>
> Totally out of context, but try this: Make photocopies of the 
prints 
> and see if the same people buy that in preference over your 
originals.
> 
> Sorry, but no cigar. If you want me to believe you have something 
> good, you have to show it to me, failing that give me some 
objective 
> measure of "goodness". For "deep blacks", I am afraid Dmax is what 
we 

> have available.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Brown" 
> <baffin@c...> wrote:
> >
> > -Excuse my pedantic state of mind. I am an engineer and have no
> > -patience for opinion, other than it being a spark that sends me 
> into
> > -the lab.
> > 
> > -Shilesh
> > 
> > 
> > You may have no patience for opinion, but every print I have ever 
> sold was 
> > purchased by someone who in their opinion just liked the image. I 
> have never 
> > had a discussion about DMAX with any collector.
> > 
> > Gary
> > 
> > 
> > www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
> >
>

"I now see why Livick removed all his testing..."

Yes, and it's a shame.

Also, according to Livick, glas, of any type, only give about an 
additional 10% protection. And I think that was with the "museum" type 
glass.

Scott




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> Well, I'm not going to get into this more other than to say that 
> pending the outcome of the emails to Ink Village, my spectro has been 
> enlisted to do the measuring.
> 
> If Ink Village want the prints, then they should get them. If not 
> I'll measure and post when I receive them. As far as the testing 
> goes, they were stacked up against the Epson dye and pigment inks. 
> For a good comparison, the amount of light would be nice, but not 
> really needed since it is a relatively general comparison between the 
> Epson dye and Epson pigment inks. You should also remember that these 
> were done behind double pane glass, I bet the amount of UV that gets 
> through is pretty low.
> 
> I now see why Livick removed all his testing...
>

OK, now this is pure entertainment - no other value can be gained 
from these conversations, I am LOL:

Did you see me make any "meaning" to my test? Did I not state the 
limitations? Just like Dmax tells us about "deep black", the ability 
to read and comprehend what is written needs education. Please, 
please read what I said, not what you "think" or "feel" what I said. 

To reiterate: under equal conditions A and B faded more than C. What 
more is there to understand? Or I am thick?

I am laughing a lot today.

Shilesh

PS: I am printing a bunch of b/w photographs right now, for my office 
wall, and I am using the NanoChrome K. If or when the prints fade, I 
will just print it again. The Dmax, oops, I mean the black depth is 
awesome. And no, I will not sell or give these prints.


--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
>
> You're an engineer and you can't see where your test was flawed?
> 
> I'm just a photographer, and it was readily evident to me  how you 
> failed to make a test with any meaningful results.
> 
> Scott
> 
>  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh 
Jani" 
> <shileshjani@b...> wrote:
> >
> > Totally out of context, but try this: Make photocopies of the 
> prints 
> > and see if the same people buy that in preference over your 
> originals.
> > 
> > Sorry, but no cigar. If you want me to believe you have something 
> > good, you have to show it to me, failing that give me some 
> objective 
> > measure of "goodness". For "deep blacks", I am afraid Dmax is 
what 
> we 
> > have available.
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Brown" 
> > <baffin@c...> wrote:
> > >
> > > -Excuse my pedantic state of mind. I am an engineer and have no
> > > -patience for opinion, other than it being a spark that sends 
me 
> > into
> > > -the lab.
> > > 
> > > -Shilesh
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You may have no patience for opinion, but every print I have 
ever 
> > sold was 
> > > purchased by someone who in their opinion just liked the image. 
I 

> > have never 
> > > had a discussion about DMAX with any collector.
> > > 
> > > Gary
> > > 
> > > 
> > > www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
> > >
> >
>

More entertainment:

.....Spoken like a true engineer.


Thank you for the compliment.

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
>
> Shilesh measured the fading, just not the amount of light the test 
was 
> exposed to.
> 
> That's what's really needed.
> 


As I said, I won't get into this anymore at this time. When I get the 
prints, I'll spit out the numbers, and maybe some graphs. I'm not 
going to get into the logic behind this test. You can draw your own 
conclusions from what I'll give you.


And as I said, if Mr. Livick received this much grief for each of his 
tests, I can understand why he pulled all the results and killed all 
the email accounts that went with his site. He didn't know exactly 
how much light hit each print either.

Scott,

Fading does not just depend on light, it also depends on airflow over the 
print, and the concentrations of oxygen, ozone, etc, etc in the air. So you 
need to specify all these things for a controlled fading test. And for 
light, you need to specify the wavelenths and amounts of each. Best to leave 
that to people like Wilhelm who have the equipment and facilities to measure 
and control all these variables, and just do simple ABC comparisons under 
the same conditions, as Shilesh did.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "scott_now_coming" <scott_now_coming@...>


Shilesh measured the fading, just not the amount of light the test was
exposed to.

That's what's really needed.

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.  

I've been conducting windowsill tests (getting some direct sunlight
every day) for over two years now (in S. Florida which technically is
in a sub-tropic latitude) and the results are revealing:

Epson dyes - showed fading in a few weeks.
Septone - showed fading between two and three months.
Early UT7 - showed fading between five and six months.
New UT7 - almost one year (Feb 8th), no fading.
2200 UC (grayscale print w/ color inks) - showed color shifting at
around 1.75 years (turning pinkish purple) - is now at 2.3 years and
continuing to get worse)
Eboni BO - 2.25 years (Feb 5th), no fading.
K3 - four months, no fading or color shifting.

Of course we don't have any scientific numbers so we can't begin to
translate this into years of life framed under glass with room light.
 But armed with these results would anyone in their right mind decide
to use Septone inks?

I think Shilesh's test was very revealing.  Anything that would fade
on a windowsill in 4 weeks should not be considered archival.  

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

"He didn't know exactly
how much light hit each print either."

Not "exactly", no, because he took readings every hour and added them 
together. And if I remember correctly, he only ran the test 
on "sunny" days.

What I would like is a LUX meter that could be left on to give 
an "accumulative" measurement.

In other words, if I leave the mater on for 72 hours, the meter would 
give a reading of the total amount of light that it's sensor has 
recieved in that 72 hour period.

That would make testing a lot easier, as one wouldn't have to take 
hourly readings or worry about clouds rolling in during your testing 
period.

Actually, cloudy days would matter, other than the fact that it may 
slow down ones testing.

A quick search on GOOGLE didn't return any such meter. Though, there 
was a lot of LUX meters availible.

Scott




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> <scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Shilesh measured the fading, just not the amount of light the 
test 
> was 
> > exposed to.
> > 
> > That's what's really needed.
> > 
> 
> 
> As I said, I won't get into this anymore at this time. When I get 
the 
> prints, I'll spit out the numbers, and maybe some graphs. I'm not 
> going to get into the logic behind this test. You can draw your own 
> conclusions from what I'll give you.
> 
> 
> And as I said, if Mr. Livick received this much grief for each of 
his 
> tests, I can understand why he pulled all the results and killed 
all 

> the email accounts that went with his site. He didn't know exactly 
> how much light hit each print either.
>

Yep.  Shoot the messenger definitely seems to be in play in this stuff.  Maybe that's one reason Wilhelm gets so much grief.  He oughta get paid well for doing what he does.
   
  Tom Baker
  
Greg <dfaprinting@...> wrote:
  --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
>
> Shilesh measured the fading, just not the amount of light the test 
was 
> exposed to.
> 
> That's what's really needed.
> 


As I said, I won't get into this anymore at this time. When I get the 
prints, I'll spit out the numbers, and maybe some graphs. I'm not 
going to get into the logic behind this test. You can draw your own 
conclusions from what I'll give you.


And as I said, if Mr. Livick received this much grief for each of his 
tests, I can understand why he pulled all the results and killed all 
the email accounts that went with his site. He didn't know exactly 
how much light hit each print either.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I know there are a few meters that work in conjunction with a 
computer, so in theory you could monitor the amount of light during a 
very long interval. Check the Jensen tools catalog, they used to 
carry things like this. Also in theory you could calibrate either a 
photovoltaic cell or a photoresistor and an A to D converter to 
report back to a computer. You could also set up some photovoltaic 
cells to run an hour meter, the lower the voltage, the slower the 
meter runs, the higher the faster (etc.). To do it correctly, you 
also need to know the spectrum of the light in addition to the 
amount, now you are talking much more money.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
>
> Yep.  Shoot the messenger definitely seems to be in play in this 
stuff.  Maybe that's one reason Wilhelm gets so much grief.  He 
oughta get paid well for doing what he does.
>    
>   Tom Baker

The Image Permanence Institute at RIT gets $750 per paper for a 
simple light fading test, and no public reports. I'm sure Wilhelm 
gets much more per test.

I am a jestful mood today. But, once calibrated, some paper/ink 
combinations would make pretty good cumulative light meters.

This is fun!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> I know there are a few meters that work in conjunction with a 
> computer, so in theory you could monitor the amount of light during a 
> very long interval. Check the Jensen tools catalog, they used to 
> carry things like this. Also in theory you could calibrate either a 
> photovoltaic cell or a photoresistor and an A to D converter to 
> report back to a computer. You could also set up some photovoltaic 
> cells to run an hour meter, the lower the voltage, the slower the 
> meter runs, the higher the faster (etc.). To do it correctly, you 
> also need to know the spectrum of the light in addition to the 
> amount, now you are talking much more money.
>

Thank you for the laugh!  Finally... a bit of humor in
this, by now very old and tired, "eyes vs meters"
controversy.

Michael Vendrell

--- Shilesh Jani <shileshjani@...> wrote:

> I am a jestful mood today. But, once calibrated,
> some paper/ink 
> combinations would make pretty good cumulative light
> meters.
> 
> This is fun!
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "Greg" 
> <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I know there are a few meters that work in
> conjunction with a 
> > computer, so in theory you could monitor the
> amount of light during a 
> > very long interval. Check the Jensen tools
> catalog, they used to 
> > carry things like this. Also in theory you could
> calibrate either a 
> > photovoltaic cell or a photoresistor and an A to D
> converter to 
> > report back to a computer. You could also set up
> some photovoltaic 
> > cells to run an hour meter, the lower the voltage,
> the slower the 
> > meter runs, the higher the faster (etc.). To do it
> correctly, you 
> > also need to know the spectrum of the light in
> addition to the 
> > amount, now you are talking much more money.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

In a message dated 1/29/06 1:31:06 PM, dfaprinting@... writes:


> You should also remember that these
> were done behind double pane glass, I bet the amount of UV that gets
> through is pretty low.
> 

Whether its just two panes of window glass, or a thermo-pane window with UV 
screening low-e glass is a question of some interest... as the ratio of visible 
to UV light would differ hugely between the two.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom,
He is the Gold Standard of testing IMHO. Sure he has had bumps along 
the way but he is concise and he tempers his results with his 
methodology. He also publishes in great detail how he comes to his 
results.

Larry

On Jan 29, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Tom Baker wrote:

> Maybe that's one reason Wilhelm gets so much grief.  He oughta get 
> paid well for doing what he does.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@a... 
wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 1/29/06 1:31:06 PM, dfaprinting@y... writes:
> 
> 
> > You should also remember that these
> > were done behind double pane glass, I bet the amount of UV that 
gets
> > through is pretty low.
> > 
> 
> Whether its just two panes of window glass, or a thermo-pane window 
with UV 
> screening low-e glass is a question of some interest... as the 
ratio of visible 
> to UV light would differ hugely between the two.
> 


Yup, I didn't want to even throw that out at the time, same might 
apply to IR light too (depending on the glass).

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
<shileshjani@b...> wrote:
>
> I am a jestful mood today. But, once calibrated, some paper/ink 
> combinations would make pretty good cumulative light meters.
> 
> This is fun!
> 
OK people are going to start yelling about the OT content, but this 
seemed to apply to the last post:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/Greg_E/Blue-Sheep.jpg

In a message dated 1/29/06 5:45:49 PM, dfaprinting@... writes:


> 
> Yup, I didn't want to even throw that out at the time, same might
> apply to IR light too (depending on the glass).
> 
> Which is why one brandname of low-e glass is HeatMirror... but mostly that 
relates to how the ink and paper combo are effected by high temperatures, which 
is less of a concern for indoor display, though a matted framed image can 
become a greenhouse if direct light gets at it. One non-low-e skylight in a room, 
can do a great deal of damage to artwork and other fadable items, as the sun 
moves across the sky each day, and the arc it cuts moves across the room with 
the seasons.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Shilesh Jani <shileshjani@...> wrote:

> I am a jestful mood today. But, once calibrated,
> some paper/ink
> combinations would make pretty good cumulative light
> meters.

I've not considered using them for that; but I often use Epson dyes on 
non-swellable gloss media   as an ozone meter... any location where that shifts to 
orange in short order is not someplace that dye inks of any kind are advisable.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Oh, cool! The best laugh today. 

I just packed THE prints in a box for FedEx to you. I don't know how 
light-tight the box is ;-) whether in UV, UV-VIS, IR, N-IR, F-IR, and 
so on. Hope my packing methodology does not skew the results.

Growing up, LUX was the only soap we ever used.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
> <shileshjani@b...> wrote:
> >
> > I am a jestful mood today. But, once calibrated, some paper/ink 
> > combinations would make pretty good cumulative light meters.
> > 
> > This is fun!
> > 
> OK people are going to start yelling about the OT content, but this 
> seemed to apply to the last post:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/Greg_E/Blue-Sheep.jpg
>

According to this article  
<http://www.mirror99.com/20051202/ 
inkvillage_launches_nanochrome_inkjet_ink_with_infu6_bjeh.jspx> there  
are other archival test that have been done.
Quote from the article, "NanoChrome� Hybrid Resin Technology has met  
the strict challenges of fade resistance tests conducted by independent  
laboratories and industry specialists."
I have to wonder where that information is if it does exist?

On Jan 29, 2006, at 1:31 PM, scott_now_coming wrote:

> "I now see why Livick removed all his testing..."
>
> Yes, and it's a shame.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David, 
      in your considerd opinion, given what you say below, if the following refered to the "NanoChromes" or any other dye type Inkjet Ink placed in exactly the position you refer to below what would be your initial thoughts?
   
  If you prefer please reply off group!
   
  Regards John_E
   
    Below is a  brief  statement ref the unfinished tests or at least as much as we have at the moment:-
   
  Fading test result:

Set up on July 20, 2005
Just passed that 6 months mark!

With the fingers crossed again, the test result still hold. While the original magenta shows a small amount of fading; The 30% magenta is behaving correctly.



Pedro Ho  


   
  
CDTobie@... wrote:
   
  One non-low-e skylight in a room, 
can do a great deal of damage to artwork and other fadable items, as the sun 
moves across the sky each day, and the arc it cuts moves across the room with 
the seasons.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager

  
I've not considered using them for that; but I often use Epson dyes on 
non-swellable gloss media   as an ozone meter... any location where that shifts to 
orange in short order is not someplace that dye inks of any kind are advisable.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  SPONSORED LINKS 
        Digital wedding photography   Learn digital photography   Digital photography college     Digital photography   Digital photography web site   Digital photography course 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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
> >
>

Wilhelm also uses flour. lighting for his test. I think that's what 
really iritates people about his testing.

I know I'd feel better about his testing results if they were 
conducted under Xeneon light.

But then, that would make all of his previous test pretty much 
meaningless.

It's still just a guide. Just remember, other types of lighting will 
give you different longevity results.

Scott
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Larry Wangelin 
<lwangelin@h...> wrote:
>
> Tom,
> He is the Gold Standard of testing IMHO. Sure he has had bumps 
along 
> the way but he is concise and he tempers his results with his 
> methodology. He also publishes in great detail how he comes to his 
> results.
> 
> Larry
> 
> On Jan 29, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Tom Baker wrote:
> 
> > Maybe that's one reason Wilhelm gets so much grief.  He oughta 
get 
> > paid well for doing what he does.
>

Scott, 

Ouch, I feel neutered; I am a he, not a she. But that's tough to 
fugure out with aname like mine. I once reminded a coworker, "my name 
is Shilesh, not Celeste" His response: "OK Celeste".

Please read my last posting. I reiterate, NanoChrome inks I tested 
are no better than Epson Dye, nothing less, nothing more. I am not 
stating in years or any such thing. And, NanoChrome FADE FASTER than 
UltraChrome, nothing less, nothing more.

No one said anything about coatings. By your arguments, you could use 
the relatively inexpensive Dye insk from a whole buch of places 
(much, much cheaper than NanoChrome) and they would perform just as 
well, if coated. So why bother with NanoChrome.

Again, Scott you are doing a lot of harm to NanoChrome and InkVillage 
with your posts. Remember they have ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLIC DATA. Should 
I say it again? They may fix the issue, if any, with the ink, but 
they will have to contend with this idiocy nonetheless.

Do InkVillage a favor, and quit digging a deeper hole for them.

Shilesh

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
>
> "Well yes, there wasn't a TOTAL LUX amount for this given test. To 
me,
> regardless of whatever the total LUX was in this test, what the fade
> results were for the inks that were tested don't bode well for the
> NanoChrome inks."
> 
> How can you reasonably say that?
> 
> 11 hours of sunshine is equal to about 1 million lux.
> 
> Shilesh, I believe stated, that her test print didn't recieve total 
> sunshine all day, everyday, but most days. 
> 
> Everyday, all day would be about 18 million LUX. So, let's say it 
> recieved 45% sunshine for those 18 days. That would give us about 
8.1 
> million LUX.
> 
> Under an interior setting that recieves about 255 LUX per day, 
would 
> not fade for about 87 years. And this is an "UNCOATED" print!
> 
> And, I think her fading was , what, between 10 and 16%?
> 
> That's not even going for a 30% fade rate!
> 
> I think people that discounted the Nanochrome inks because of 
> Shilesh's test, should re-think their position.
> 
> Because if Shilesh's testing is what it appears to me, those 
> Nanochrome inks are a lot more stable than Shilesh's post leads 
> people to believe.
> 
> Remember, a good varnish like Golden or Clear Shield will increase 
> the fade protection 1000% (10 times compared to an "un-protected" 
> print).
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Larry Wangelin 
> <lwangelin@h...> wrote:
> >
> > Scott,
> > 
> > Well yes, there wasn't a TOTAL LUX amount for this given test. To 
> me, 
> > regardless of whatever the total LUX was in this test, what the 
> fade 
> > results were for the inks that were tested don't bode well for 
the 
> > NanoChrome inks.
> > I cannot find any test parameters that explain how the 6+ BLUE 
WOOL 
> > results were attained or who did the test for the NanoChrome inks 
> > touted on the web site. Shilesh at least did give some outcome 
> numbers 
> > and background on his fade test he did.
> > 
> > Larry
> > 
> > On Jan 29, 2006, at 9:09 AM, scott_now_coming 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".
> >
>

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
> > >
> >
>

Scott wrote:

> Second, I could care less about NanoChrome.
> 
So what does this from you mean?: "I think people that discounted the 
Nanochrome inks because of Shilesh's test, should re-think their 
position."

You care, go on admit it - no shame in it. I need to quit goading you 
on. It's too easy.

Scott wrote:

> "Because if Shilesh's testing is what it appears to me, those 
> Nanochrome inks are a lot more stable than Shilesh's post leads 
> people to believe."
> 
Exactly the same can therefore be said for Epson Dye inks; remember I 
tested the Dye inks at the same time. So why bother with NanoCrome?

We drive 3 different cars 100 miles, and notice 2 of the cars are gas-
guzzlers, while one is far more economical.

The pundits scream:

Was it windy?

Was the road wet? 

The three cars would have given the same gas mileage if driven to the 
grocery store and back, because no one drives 100 miles at time, all 
the time.

And on, and on.

......................please, give me a break.

Clayton,

Thank you for interjecting some sanity.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> 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.  
> 
> I've been conducting windowsill tests (getting some direct sunlight
> every day) for over two years now (in S. Florida which technically 
is
> in a sub-tropic latitude) and the results are revealing:
> 
> Epson dyes - showed fading in a few weeks.
> Septone - showed fading between two and three months.
> Early UT7 - showed fading between five and six months.
> New UT7 - almost one year (Feb 8th), no fading.
> 2200 UC (grayscale print w/ color inks) - showed color shifting at
> around 1.75 years (turning pinkish purple) - is now at 2.3 years and
> continuing to get worse)
> Eboni BO - 2.25 years (Feb 5th), no fading.
> K3 - four months, no fading or color shifting.
> 
> Of course we don't have any scientific numbers so we can't begin to
> translate this into years of life framed under glass with room 
light.
>  But armed with these results would anyone in their right mind 
decide

> to use Septone inks?
> 
> I think Shilesh's test was very revealing.  Anything that would fade
> on a windowsill in 4 weeks should not be considered archival.  
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Man, you really ought to check your logic first and your math second. I'd do it for you, but, I don't want to embaress you. :-)

Walt

-----Original Message-----
From: scott_now_coming [mailto:scott_now_coming@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 09:22 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news

"Well yes, there wasn't a TOTAL LUX amount for this given test. To me,
regardless of whatever the total LUX was in this test, what the fade
results were for the inks that were tested don't bode well for the
NanoChrome inks."

How can you reasonably say that?

11 hours of sunshine is equal to about 1 million lux.

Shilesh, I believe stated, that her test print didn't recieve total 
sunshine all day, everyday, but most days. 

Everyday, all day would be about 18 million LUX. So, let's say it 
recieved 45% sunshine for those 18 days. That would give us about 8.1 
million LUX.

Under an interior setting that recieves about 255 LUX per day, would 
not fade for about 87 years. And this is an "UNCOATED" print!

And, I think her fading was , what, between 10 and 16%?

That's not even going for a 30% fade rate!

I think people that discounted the Nanochrome inks because of 
Shilesh's test, should re-think their position.

Because if Shilesh's testing is what it appears to me, those 
Nanochrome inks are a lot more stable than Shilesh's post leads 
people to believe.

Remember, a good varnish like Golden or Clear Shield will increase 
the fade protection 1000% (10 times compared to an "un-protected" 
print).

Scott




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Larry Wangelin 
<lwangelin@h...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
> 
> Well yes, there wasn't a TOTAL LUX amount for this given test. To 
me, 
> regardless of whatever the total LUX was in this test, what the 
fade 
> results were for the inks that were tested don't bode well for the 
> NanoChrome inks.
> I cannot find any test parameters that explain how the 6+ BLUE WOOL 
> results were attained or who did the test for the NanoChrome inks 
> touted on the web site. Shilesh at least did give some outcome 
numbers 
> and background on his fade test he did.
> 
> Larry
> 
> On Jan 29, 2006, at 9:09 AM, scott_now_coming 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".
>






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Bob,

I agree 100% with your post. What Scott fails to understand is that 
the vendor had no Wilhelm-like data from a highly contolled 
enviroment. Such tests can be used to make comparison even when A and 
B are not tested concurrently, precisely because it is highly 
controlled.

If the vendor won't do it, and yet choose to release the product with 
unverfied claims that A is as good as B, my skepticism rears it's 
ugly head; good thing too from my recent experience. I shudder the 
thought of having to revert the 4000 to the UC inks.

While not controlled to the nth degree, my tests put in enough 
controls to reduce the likelihood of whacky data.
I stand by them, they guide my decision until some revelation comes 
about.

Some people must not have read my posts very carefully; I am 
contnuing to use the NanoChrome K ink on the smaller R220 and R2400 
printers because they do not present the same ink change-over hassle 
and expense. The depth of black is addictive.

Shilesh


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bob@f...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
> 
> Fading does not just depend on light, it also depends on airflow 
over the 
> print, and the concentrations of oxygen, ozone, etc, etc in the 
air. So you 
> need to specify all these things for a controlled fading test. And 
for 
> light, you need to specify the wavelenths and amounts of each. Best 
to leave 
> that to people like Wilhelm who have the equipment and facilities 
to measure 
> and control all these variables, and just do simple ABC comparisons 
under 
> the same conditions, as Shilesh did.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "scott_now_coming" <scott_now_coming@y...>
> 
> 
> Shilesh measured the fading, just not the amount of light the test 
was

> exposed to.
> 
> That's what's really needed.
>

In a message dated 1/29/06 6:03:24 PM, shileshjani@... writes:


> I just packed THE prints in a box for FedEx to you. I don't know how
> light-tight the box is ;-) whether in UV, UV-VIS, IR, N-IR, F-IR, and
> so on. Hope my packing methodology does not skew the results.
> 
One reason why photo wrap paper, and photo boxes are traditionally black. 
Back during the anthrax scare, one profile target that was mailed to me was on a 
paper I was familiar with by name, but not by color. I contacted the sender, 
and indeed, the paper had been white at the time it left his studio, but was 
very yellow by the time it arrived at mine. They never made public what measures 
were used to attempt to kill anthrax in the mail, but a FedExed version of 
the target came through the correct color a couple of days later, so apparently 
the shipping services were not using a similar safety precaution.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 1/29/06 7:12:53 PM, charleysfabrics@... writes:


>       in your considerd opinion, given what you say below, if the following 
> refered to the "NanoChromes" or any other dye type Inkjet Ink placed in 
> exactly the position you refer to below what would be your initial thoughts?
> 

Given the "Through the Looking Glass" nature of the testing and release of 
the NanoChrome products, I am going to refrain from answering that question at 
this time.

However, in terms of other dye inks: timeframes would vary with ink 
formulation and media involved, but any or all dyes I've worked with would fade or 
shift under the powerful onslaught of UV from a non-low-e window or skylight. An 
occasional glancing blow of direct light would reduce the longevity of most 
prints significantly; a position which caught stong midday UV for a couple of 
hours might not last long enough for the seasons to change and give it a break. 
Those who have put a laminated or glazed dye ink print outdoors for even a few 
days can vouch for the power of direct sun exposure. I once exposed a print 
using HP pigment black and dye color inks to north light only, no direct sun, 
through a plate glass window... and watched the color shift, fade, and 
eventually disappear, leaving a totally black and white image.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Shilesh, you have done a good job. A quick and dirty test that 
gives more strength to the questions we had from the start. 
Thank you again. Stop the discussion on the test method I 
would say. Not worth the trouble

Scott, order a set of Nanochrome inks and do your own testing 
or shut up. This isn't about commas in the test protocol but 
whether ink buyers are getting the right information from 
Inkvillage & Co or not.

Ernst
                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

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         )

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

I'm sorry but this is yet another daft post given the context.  This is a
forum conducted in cyberspace about the technical aspects of printing B&W
(new inks, old inks, papers, printer linearization, ICC profiles etc etc etc
etc).  It will, by nature, be technical.  It can't, by nature, discuss the
aesthetic qualities of a particular image.  People need to communicate their
results in technical speak in order to ask for help, communicate
performance, or whatever.  The statement below has no bearing whatsoever on
the discussion. 

> From: Gary Brown <baffin@...>

> 
> 
> You may have no patience for opinion, but every print I have ever sold was
> purchased by someone who in their opinion just liked the image. I have never
> had a discussion about DMAX with any collector.
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown

I think we should all chip in and buy Clayton a spectrophotometer so that he
can express the results of his considerable testing in a more informative
manner.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:35:49 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news
> 
> 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.  
> 
> I've been conducting windowsill tests (getting some direct sunlight
> every day) for over two years now (in S. Florida which technically is
> in a sub-tropic latitude) and the results are revealing:
> 
> Epson dyes - showed fading in a few weeks.
> Septone - showed fading between two and three months.
> Early UT7 - showed fading between five and six months.
> New UT7 - almost one year (Feb 8th), no fading.
> 2200 UC (grayscale print w/ color inks) - showed color shifting at
> around 1.75 years (turning pinkish purple) - is now at 2.3 years and
> continuing to get worse)
> Eboni BO - 2.25 years (Feb 5th), no fading.
> K3 - four months, no fading or color shifting.
> 
> Of course we don't have any scientific numbers so we can't begin to
> translate this into years of life framed under glass with room light.
>  But armed with these results would anyone in their right mind decide
> to use Septone inks?
> 
> I think Shilesh's test was very revealing.  Anything that would fade
> on a windowsill in 4 weeks should not be considered archival.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Yikes!  Is that really all?

> From: Greg <dfaprinting@...>
   
> 
> The Image Permanence Institute at RIT gets $750 per paper for a
> simple light fading test, and no public reports.

Well said.  And Shilesh, thanks for your testing.  We likely need more,
including some from the company that sells the ink...

> From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>


 
> Even more shame that the Guinea pigs are getting bad treatment
> by bystanders because their test methods are not up to standard.
> 
> Ernst

>> You may have no patience for opinion, but every print I have ever sold was
>> purchased by someone who in their opinion just liked the image. I have never
>> had a discussion about DMAX with any collector.
>> 
 I don't think it's daft at all.  As much as I value the technical
information that is exchanged on this post, it is my understanding that it
is also quite legitimate to talk about esthetic concerns as well.

 I think it's important to appreciate that (for better or for worse) some
people use technical matters as a means to an end, and that others use them
as an end in and of itself.

It's just like the Zone System with film.  There were some photographers who
did a lot of exposure and development testing in order to make good prints.
There were others who got so caught up in the testing that they never had
time to do creative work.  And there were others who did none of the
technical stuff, but who still managed to make some really interesting
images and even some beautiful prints.

Stephen Petegorsky
petegorsky@...
www.spphoto.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:

I don't think you get much more than a set of readings every X hours 
for that. They used to have the testing rates published on the web site.

>
> Yikes!  Is that really all?
> 
> 
> > From: Greg <dfaprinting@y...>
>    
> > 
> > The Image Permanence Institute at RIT gets $750 per paper for a
> > simple light fading test, and no public reports.
>

Tom,

>   Go measure a really great platinum print. They're beautiful, and 
probably won't reach 1.7.
>

You will be lucky to hit 1.5 for a palladium/platinum print and I'm 
speaking from experience and testing not conjecture.

Cheers,

Don Bryant

Hello,

The following is a quote from Inkjet Village marketer of Nanochromes 
re a query about the lack of information re longevity on their 
website.

"Due to technical issues (test samples where improperly prepared) the 
test has been re-commissioned and will be conducted between two 
independent Universities; one in the U.S. and the other in Europe. In 
the meantime we have received a  large amount of feedback from users 
and consumers interested in NanoChrome who requested comparisons with 
K3 inks and other 3rd party inks on a variety of substrates including 
fine art and photographic medias; due to this and the fact that the 
tests need to be repeated anyway we have decided to expand the scope 
of the tests to compare Nanochrome to Ultrachrome K3®, and other 
leading 3rd party inks in addition to Ultrachome®. While the 
consequences of further delays in delivering promised data are well 
understood, InkVillage is confident that ultimately the facts will 
speak for themselfs and any doubts will be dissolved"

Will be interesting to see what they publish.

Paul Hathaway


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
>
> 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         )
>

Tom,

>   Go measure a really great platinum print. They're beautiful, and 
probably won't reach 1.7.
>

You will be lucky to hit 1.5 for a palladium/platinum print and I'm 
speaking from experience and testing not conjecture.

Cheers,

Don Bryant

Hello Stephen,

>>You may have no patience for opinion, but every print I have 
>>ever sold was purchased by someone who in their opinion just 
>>liked the image. I have never had a discussion about DMAX 
>>with any collector.

>I don't think it's daft at all.  As much as I value the technical
>information that is exchanged on this post, it is my understanding
>that it is also quite legitimate to talk about esthetic concerns 
>as well.

Add my vote to this.  He was making a point that, while subtle, was
relevent to the tone of the thread.  Unfortunately it seemed to go
over the heads of some readers.

 
>I think it's important to appreciate that (for better or for worse) 
>some people use technical matters as a means to an end, and that 
>others use them as an end in and of itself.
> 
>It's just like the Zone System with film.  There were some
>photographers who did a lot of exposure and development testing 
>in order to make good prints.  There were others who got so caught 
>up in the testing that they never had time to do creative work.  
>And there were others who did none of the technical stuff, but who 
>still managed to make some really interesting
> images and even some beautiful prints.

Well said, thank you.

A few days ago Tyler described the visual effect of the White Velvet
blacks that go "beyond the numbers".  I thought it was an important
observation because there are observable phenonema that can't be (or
at least aren't) quantified.  I don't recall anyone jumping all over
him for that.  Discussions of the aesthetic side of things are as
valid and relevent as the technical.  After all, the technical things
are supposed to serve the aesthetic end result.

Let's not forget that there are some thousands of readers of this
forum eagerly (and sometimes desperately) searching for information to
help them get started or make make decisions.  Aesthetic observations,
such as the visual effect of blacks on White Velvet, can be an
important contribution.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Me thinks you prostestith too much.

Frankly with all of the numbers that are thrown about by all of the 
pseudo-scientists on this forum, IMHO many of the technical discussions are 
worth less than opinions.

I guess it's time to start the art vs. engineering argument again?

Gary

www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news


I'm sorry but this is yet another daft post given the context.  This is a
forum conducted in cyberspace about the technical aspects of printing B&W
(new inks, old inks, papers, printer linearization, ICC profiles etc etc etc
etc).  It will, by nature, be technical.  It can't, by nature, discuss the
aesthetic qualities of a particular image.  People need to communicate their
results in technical speak in order to ask for help, communicate
performance, or whatever.  The statement below has no bearing whatsoever on
the discussion.


> From: Gary Brown <baffin@...>

>
>
> You may have no patience for opinion, but every print I have ever sold was
> purchased by someone who in their opinion just liked the image. I have 
> never
> had a discussion about DMAX with any collector.
>
> Gary
>
>
> www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

I find myself shouting here-here yet again.  Thanks
Clayton for stating this so eloquently and speaking up
for those of us who wish to use the technical in
service of the aesthetic whilst not losing sight of
the original goal...Michael Vendrell, MD

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:

> Hello Stephen,
> 
> >>You may have no patience for opinion, but every
> print I have 
> >>ever sold was purchased by someone who in their
> opinion just 
> >>liked the image. I have never had a discussion
> about DMAX 
> >>with any collector.
> 
> >I don't think it's daft at all.  As much as I value
> the technical
> >information that is exchanged on this post, it is
> my understanding
> >that it is also quite legitimate to talk about
> esthetic concerns 
> >as well.
> 
> Add my vote to this.  He was making a point that,
> while subtle, was
> relevent to the tone of the thread.  Unfortunately
> it seemed to go
> over the heads of some readers.
> 
>  
> >I think it's important to appreciate that (for
> better or for worse) 
> >some people use technical matters as a means to an
> end, and that 
> >others use them as an end in and of itself.
> > 
> >It's just like the Zone System with film.  There
> were some
> >photographers who did a lot of exposure and
> development testing 
> >in order to make good prints.  There were others
> who got so caught 
> >up in the testing that they never had time to do
> creative work.  
> >And there were others who did none of the technical
> stuff, but who 
> >still managed to make some really interesting
> > images and even some beautiful prints.
> 
> Well said, thank you.
> 
> A few days ago Tyler described the visual effect of
> the White Velvet
> blacks that go "beyond the numbers".  I thought it
> was an important
> observation because there are observable phenonema
> that can't be (or
> at least aren't) quantified.  I don't recall anyone
> jumping all over
> him for that.  Discussions of the aesthetic side of
> things are as
> valid and relevent as the technical.  After all, the
> technical things
> are supposed to serve the aesthetic end result.
> 
> Let's not forget that there are some thousands of
> readers of this
> forum eagerly (and sometimes desperately) searching
> for information to
> help them get started or make make decisions. 
> Aesthetic observations,
> such as the visual effect of blacks on White Velvet,
> can be an
> important contribution.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Clayton,

I don't think you should use the word 'archival' in the same sentence as 
windowsill fading. Archives of prints etc are usually kept in the dark, 
where totally different things are responsible for fading!!

The whole subject is a mess!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>

I think Shilesh's test was very revealing.  Anything that would fade
on a windowsill in 4 weeks should not be considered archival.

No.  Just print a black and white image and try to convey, in terms that I
and 10 others will be able agree absolutely on, the dynamic range you've
achieved without a measurement.  Your "opinion" that you and your workflow
achieved, say, a good black is of no information value to anyone, except to
say that you are happy. That's nice to know but then it's not very useful.
Shilesh was simply stating that measurements in units that are agreed are
useful for conveying information in an informative manner.  Nothing to do
with science or art.  Everything to do with communication.  Much like
agreeing a language and writing and spelling the words correctly.  We can't
discuss the aesthetic qualities of a print unless we each have a copy of the
print.  That's why we have, in conjunction with this cyberspace forum, print
exchanges so that those aspects and other technical aspects difficult to
measure and communicate can be discussed.  By its very nature, this forum
will be technically centric. I have some lovely images sitting on my desk.
What useful conversation can you and I have about the quality of my printed
images when you can't see them?  I can however, describe my workflow and
make and report various measurements which would give you objective insight
into what my workflow can achieve.  It won't cover all the bases but it will
cover many.  The more measurements with agreed units that can be made the
more that can be objectively conveyed via cyberspace.  You might, as a
result, compare such measurements with what you achieve with your workflow
and convey them to me via this forum.  I, or you, might then make the
decision to amend workflows and try other variants.  That's something we can
discuss.  Once done, though, we still can't discuss prints themselves unless
we each have copies of the same print.

> From: Gary Brown <baffin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:52:00 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news
> 
> Me thinks you prostestith too much.
> 
> Frankly with all of the numbers that are thrown about by all of the
> pseudo-scientists on this forum, IMHO many of the technical discussions are
> worth less than opinions.
> 
> I guess it's time to start the art vs. engineering argument again?
> 
> Gary
> 
> www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
>

And who would be happy with a Wilhelm stop value of a fade of 30%?  I'd
consider a print to have "faded" well before then.

> From: Bob Frost <bob@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:25:14 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> I don't think you should use the word 'archival' in the same sentence as
> windowsill fading. Archives of prints etc are usually kept in the dark,
> where totally different things are responsible for fading!!
> 
> The whole subject is a mess!
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>
> 
> I think Shilesh's test was very revealing.  Anything that would fade
> on a windowsill in 4 weeks should not be considered archival.

Steve,

That's a bit unfair isn't it? After all what matters in the end is how that 
marvellous optical device - the eye -assesses an image. You can quote as 
many Dmaxs, lux, etc, etc, as you like, but the only test that really 
matters is what the person with the image can see, over a long period of 
time. Leave the other equipment to the ink chemists who have to work out the 
dynamics of the chemical reactions that go on in ink/paper complexes.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>


I think we should all chip in and buy Clayton a spectrophotometer so that he
can express the results of his considerable testing in a more informative
manner.

Hello Steve,

>Clayton who seems to abhor things technical...

I don't abhor things technical, I just keep them in a perspective that
is appropriate for the way I like to work.  


>...makes an effort to express densities in ratings that allow 
>him to express what he sees, 

That I agree with.


>...although it's a pity those ratings aren't of a scale that's
>more broadly meaningful.

What is a pity is that you miss the point.  The scale is appropriate
for the purpose of the review, which is clearly stated:

 "This is not a scientific study, but merely my own observations 
 and impressions, so please don't treat this as the final truth.  
 It is just a general guide to provide some idea of what these 
 papers are like."

The purpose of the review's dmax ratings is not to tell what the dmax
of a paper is.  It is to tell that it is more or less than some other
paper (with a particular ink and technique, Eboni BO in this case). 
And the same for the ink and paper color ratings.  

Because K3 gets better dmax on VFA than Eboni, the review is already
somewhat irrelevent to a K3 user.  The only way the review would be
truly scientifically accurate would be to test every ink on every
paper, in which case a spectro would be appropriate.  But that is not
the purpose here.  It is inherent in the nature of the review that it
deals in generalities.  It's only purpose is as stated: a general
guide to provide some idea of what these papers are like.



>I think we should all chip in and buy Clayton a spectrophotometer 

Completely unnecessary and unwanted - I hope nobody takes this
seriously.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Scott,

> Though, there 
> was a lot of LUX meters availible.

So which meter do you use or reccomend?

Don Bryant

Well I actually meant it very seriously in the sense that he does such a
large amount of testing which would be even more useful if accompanied by
quantitative (and therefore more readily communicable) measurements. I'll
happily chip in.  An individual's subjective description of what they see is
very difficult to communicate in an objective manner.  Imagine ordering
shoes over the Internet when you described your shoe size using your own
scale of 1 through 5.  How many would fit?

> From: Bob Frost <bob@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:48:10 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news
> 
> Steve,
> 
> That's a bit unfair isn't it? After all what matters in the end is how that
> marvellous optical device - the eye -assesses an image. You can quote as
> many Dmaxs, lux, etc, etc, as you like, but the only test that really
> matters is what the person with the image can see, over a long period of
> time. Leave the other equipment to the ink chemists who have to work out the
> dynamics of the chemical reactions that go on in ink/paper complexes.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
> 
> 
> I think we should all chip in and buy Clayton a spectrophotometer so that he
> can express the results of his considerable testing in a more informative
> manner.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>

> 
> What is a pity is that you miss the point.  The scale is appropriate
> for the purpose of the review, which is clearly stated:
> 
>  "This is not a scientific study, but merely my own observations
>  and impressions, so please don't treat this as the final truth.
>  It is just a general guide to provide some idea of what these
>  papers are like."
> 
> The purpose of the review's dmax ratings is not to tell what the dmax
> of a paper is.  It is to tell that it is more or less than some other
> paper (with a particular ink and technique, Eboni BO in this case).
> And the same for the ink and paper color ratings.

I said nothing with regard to your specific article.  I merely said that
your tests (of which there have been many) would be that much more useful if
accompanied by objective measurements that communicate well.

> 
> Because K3 gets better dmax on VFA than Eboni, the review is already
> somewhat irrelevent to a K3 user.  The only way the review would be
> truly scientifically accurate would be to test every ink on every
> paper, in which case a spectro would be appropriate.  But that is not
> the purpose here.  It is inherent in the nature of the review that it
> deals in generalities.  It's only purpose is as stated: a general
> guide to provide some idea of what these papers are like.

But requires one to have at least one of the combinations in hand.  To
compare X with Y purely in unquantified qualitative terms requires the
reader to have an understanding of either X or Y as a basis for the
comparison. 

> 
> 
> 
>> I think we should all chip in and buy Clayton a spectrophotometer
> 
> Completely unnecessary and unwanted - I hope nobody takes this
> seriously.  
> 
>
I was deadly serious.  I think it would make a lot of sense for us to chip
in so you can add quantitative measurements to your extensive testing.  You
give a lot of time and it would be great if the results could be enhanced
considerably.  I take it, though, that you're not interested which of course
is fine.

Hello Bob,

>I don't think you should use the word 'archival' in the same sentence 
>as windowsill fading. Archives of prints etc are usually kept in the 
>dark, where totally different things are responsible for fading!!

I understand what you're saying, but given the context of the
discussion I think it's splitting hairs, or getting too semantic (or
something).  However I take your point and will try to be more
accurate next time, but it really wasn't about the definition of
'archival'.

The point is, if you are deciding what ink to use and are interested
in fade resistance, given the windowsill test results would you choose
Septone, even though you know your prints will never be on a windowsill?


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Steve,

You've simplified that far too much, I think. Have a look at

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/is_t/WIR_ISTpaper_2002_02_HW.pdf

and you will see that the current WIR 'endpoint' is based on about 17 
different endpoints that are considered visually equal and easily 
noticeable. These range from 12% differences in colors that we are very 
sensitive to, up to  35% changes in colors that we are not so sensitive to. 
It's quite a good article, pointing out some of the variables that most 
people never think about. For instance, how you dry a print and for how long 
before exposing it to light can have a very big effect on fading! And 
different densities of ink react differently to light fading.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>


And who would be happy with a Wilhelm stop value of a fade of 30%?  I'd
consider a print to have "faded" well before then.

Yeah you're right...

> From: Bob Frost <bob@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:06:27 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news
> 
> Steve,
> 
> You've simplified that far too much, I think.

Hello Steve,

>>It's only purpose is as stated: a general guide to provide 
>>some idea of what these papers are like.

>But requires one to have at least one of the combinations in hand.  
>To compare X with Y purely in unquantified qualitative terms...

My terms are not unquantified.  They are clearly explained: 

 "The test prints can be distinctly sorted by paper color into 
 seven shades of white, by ink color into seven shades of black, 
 and by Dmax into six grades of intensity."

This is followed by an explanation of the meaning of the output of the
measuring device (my eyes and personal impressions):

 Dmax - A Dmax value range from 1 to 6:
D1 - Poor
D2 - Fair
D3 - Good
D4 - Excellent
D5 - Excellent +
D6 - Mt Everest

This is all that is needed to interpret the results in the general
manner for which the article was intended.  

I will state it again: It is (specifically and intentionally) NOT the
purpose of the review to measure and tell what the dmax of the papers
is.  (if you didn't understand that, please read it again).  It IS the
purpose to make a relative comparison among the papers reviewed, using
a particular ink and technique (A is darker than B with Eboni BO).  It
is not a scientific study and is only meant as a general and relative
body of information for whatever it's worth to the reader.


>...requires the reader to have an understanding of either X or Y 
>as a basis for the comparison. 

True, and exactly the same can be said for a spectro reading.  I give
Eboni BO on PR a rating of 5.0, you give it 1.66.  The only way any
reader could have an impression of what either of those numbers means
is to have seen an Eboni BO PR print (or in the case of the review, an
Eboni BO print on one of the listed papers).  Once having done that
they have a point of reference.  



>I take it, though, that you're not interested 

Yes, you are correct on that.

If I was doing a scientific study a spectro would be necessary, and to
be truly scientific and useful one would have to test all inks on all
papers. But that's not what I want to do.  I am interested in helping
and encouraging beginners within the framework of my own range of
interests and experience.  I am simply offering the results of that,
FWIW, and have no desire to be an all-inclusive complete shopping mall
source of information.  I have no interest in owning or using a
spectro.  I'm trying to un-clutter my life, not add more.  

I spent years learning and internalizing the technical.  It is the
intuitive and artistic side of photography in which I am now pursuing
more deeply.  Getting into a scientific testing mode would be a
terrible distraction. 


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> wrote:
>
>> I spent years learning and internalizing the technical.  It is the
> intuitive and artistic side of photography in which I am now pursuing
> more deeply.  Getting into a scientific testing mode would be a
> terrible distraction. 
> 
>

As a retired engineer, I share your pursuit without the burden of numbers.  I have bought 
some your recommended papers and samples for my Epson 2400 and your rating system is 
pretty dead on target.

 I do have one non paper question;  why do the color to b&w conversion (channel mixer) in  
"image>channel mixer" instead of in "layers?"

Martin

I've been using my Sekonic L-508 in the incident mode to take 
ballpark LUX readings of light in my home.

I'm now sitting in  my livingroom under medium level fluorescent 
lighting.

The meter reading is about 25 LUX, so according to Wilhelm, my un-
protected Epson 4800 UK3 prints won't fade for 500 yrs.

Why varnish?

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "donbga" 
<dstevenbryant@m...> wrote:

>
> Scott,
> 
> > Though, there 
> > was a lot of LUX meters availible.
> 
> So which meter do you use or reccomend?
> 
> Don Bryant
>

This is probably a good one:

http://www.stanleysupplyservices.com/product-group.aspx?id=2711

You can purchase additional software to run that meter on Windows.

Though, from the limited details, I can't tell if that meter will 
take cummulative readings. If so, that would be a big plus for 
someone want to do some "testing".

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "donbga" 
<dstevenbryant@m...> wrote:

>
> Scott,
> 
> > Though, there 
> > was a lot of LUX meters availible.
> 
> So which meter do you use or reccomend?
> 
> Don Bryant
>

Hello Martin,

>As a retired engineer, I share your pursuit without the burden of
>numbers.  I have bought some your recommended papers and samples 
>for my Epson 2400 and your rating system is pretty dead on target.

Thanks for the good feedback.


>I do have one non paper question;  why do the color to b&w 
>conversion (channel mixer) in  "image>channel mixer" instead 
>of in "layers?"

You must be referring to the quickie version in the 2400 article. 
That's a method that produces generally better results than just a
straight grayscale mode conversion, but is still quick and easy. 
There is a more detailed version of it the the FAQ article #7 that
uses Hue/Sat and ChMx layers and allows a lot more control.  Perhaps I
should mention that and add a link to it.  In fact, I've been thinking
about fleshing it out with more details and making it a complete new
article of its own.  Maybe it's time to do this.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
>
> This is probably a good one:
> 
> http://www.stanleysupplyservices.com/product-group.aspx?id=2711
> 
> You can purchase additional software to run that meter on Windows.
> 


I saw three or four with a search today. Except for the fact that all 
of them looked cheesey. I would expect to pay somewhere around $1000-
$1200 starting price for something that was decent, even though I 
know it is simply an analog voltage sampled to a digital value. Just 
seems like you wouldn't be able to get something decent for the $150+ 
that I saw for the cheapest one with a connection to a computer. What 
would be real nice is one with multiple sensors so that you could 
make sure the print is getting even lighting the whole time.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> wrote:
>
> > You must be referring to the quickie version in the 2400 article. 
> That's a method that produces generally better results than just a
> straight grayscale mode conversion, but is still quick and easy. 

OK, I understand that was just a quick method of converting to color.  I read article 7, that is 
pretty much what I have been using.

However,I dont do much color conversion with my digital camera (Canon Pro 1).  I like using 
my Bronica 645 Rangefinder with Delta 400 or Delta 100 B&W film much more.  I like the 
level of detail you get with medium format film.  But, I should bought the 100 mm lens when 
Robert White of the UK was offering it.

Again thanks for the web site, it has really helped.

Martin

Hello Steve,

>>But requires one to have at least one of the combinations in hand.  
>>To compare X with Y purely in unquantified qualitative terms...
> 
>My terms are not unquantified.  They are clearly explained: 

Just got back awhile ago (had to go to a funeral- a sad one, a 25 year
old kid killed in a motorcycle wreck) and reread this and realize it
was a bad choice of words.  I misinterpreted your meaning and missed
your desperate desire to have hard numbers.  I should have said
something like "It doesn't matter that there are no hard numbers. For
the purposes of this review...etc, etc"

I DO understand your argument and reasoning that a uniform system of
communication is desirable, and don't really disagree.  It's a worthy
goal in your area of endeavor.  But what I hope you can come to
understand is that I'm not playing in the same game.  

You imply that the paper review could be "improved" if only I would
use a spectro so the results could be "communicated" better.  I know
this makes perfect sense to you and you are probably shaking your head
in wonder how I could not understand something so obvious.  Please try
to grasp that I do understand what you're saying, but that I do not
agree the communication would be improved by doing that.  Our goals
are not the same.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Greg,

If you have a link, please post it, or e-mail it to me.

If I was going to do any serious testing, I'd have to have a way of 
doing a cummulative reading, since I don't get the type of sunny days 
that  Southern California gets. :>)  Plus, I don't have the time to 
take "hourly" readings.

Thanks,

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> <scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
> >
> > This is probably a good one:
> > 
> > http://www.stanleysupplyservices.com/product-group.aspx?id=2711
> > 
> > You can purchase additional software to run that meter on Windows.
> > 
> 
> 
> I saw three or four with a search today. Except for the fact that 
all 
> of them looked cheesey. I would expect to pay somewhere around 
$1000-
> $1200 starting price for something that was decent, even though I 
> know it is simply an analog voltage sampled to a digital value. 
Just 
> seems like you wouldn't be able to get something decent for the 
$150+ 
> that I saw for the cheapest one with a connection to a computer. 
What 

> would be real nice is one with multiple sensors so that you could 
> make sure the print is getting even lighting the whole time.
>

Martin,

>However,I dont do much color conversion with my digital camera 
>(Canon Pro 1).  

Ah, I have a Pro-1 also.  Great camera, and quite amazing given a
sensor the size of a fingernail.  Wouldn't be much without the good lens. 


>...Bronica 645 Rangefinder with Delta 400 or Delta 100...I like the
>level of detail you get with medium format film.  

Very true.  I shot mostly 6x7 for years.  Lots of nice real estate on
a 120 neg.  But a lot of water goes under the bridge during 50 years
of photography, and things change periodically, through different
phases or stages.  I can look back and see distinct periods in my
photographic life.  A few years ago I underwent a paradigm shift and
decided to completely abandon film and darkroom and fully embrace
digital.  I think I was just worn out on film and chemicals and my
creative flame was more like a pilot light.

It's definitely a sacrifice to give up the resolution of large film,
but priorities can change and other things become more important as
you get older I guess.  I want to explore digital and see what kind of
artistry can be fashioned within its limitations.  I'm finding that it
is freeing up my creative juices in new ways and I'm able to more
easily break out of the same old motivations and preconceived notions
that lie buried deep.  I'm having a ball and am doing some of my best
work ever, but feel like I'm just getting started.

One thing that was a nice discovery is how different it is to work
with an image that has no film grain.  I began digital printing by
scanning negs, and later got into digicams.  It was a revelation and
it opened up new ways of working with images, at least conceptually. 
It's similar to picking up a nylon string guitar when you're used to a
steel string.  Suddenly different kinds of creative impulses are
released and you find yourself spontaneously trying different kinds of
things.  Hard to explain, but real.

Getting a 2400 was the latest step in this journey, and it has
radically changed my printing life.  I am finally able to get the kind
of results with a hassle free workflow that was barely a dream four
years ago.  Those early struggles are like a dimly remembered old
nightmare now.  I'm closer to a purely creative photographic
experience than ever before, and it keeps getting better.  The flame
is now more like a blowtorch.



Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
>
> Greg,
> 
> If you have a link, please post it, or e-mail it to me.
> 
> If I was going to do any serious testing, I'd have to have a way of 
> doing a cummulative reading, since I don't get the type of sunny 
days 
> that  Southern California gets. :>)  Plus, I don't have the time to 
> take "hourly" readings.
> 


Sorry but didn't save any links. I think the keywords were "light 
meter foot candle" as I needed to see if I could find a decent and 
cheap hand held meter for work, but the good and cheap ones are 
mostly gone. Since students would be using it, the cheap is important 
as I don't expect them to last more than about one semester. Seeing 
that most of them don't even use the lights when they bother to take 
them, I really hate to waste the budget on one more thing to get 
lost/broken.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>

> 
>> ...requires the reader to have an understanding of either X or Y
>> as a basis for the comparison.
> 
> True, and exactly the same can be said for a spectro reading.  I give
> Eboni BO on PR a rating of 5.0, you give it 1.66.  The only way any
> reader could have an impression of what either of those numbers means
> is to have seen an Eboni BO PR print (or in the case of the review, an
> Eboni BO print on one of the listed papers).

Nope.  With a density reading or better yet a full LAB reading one can bring
up a patch in Photoshop on a well calibrated monitor and compare it with
anything you want.  Much more useful.  It's done by people millions of times
every day.  Such goals are the very basis of colour science and colour
management.  Yesterday I had a conversation with a guy sitting miles away in
Canada.  We were chatting about tonality and in particular coolness in a
greyscale ramp.  When I told him the readings I was getting the first thing
he did was to fill a patch in PS with the reading I mentioned.  He could
then visualise with reasonable accuracy what I was seeing.  I say reasonable
because of course neither of us is "the standard observer" and there would
have been many other factors coming into play.  Nonetheless, we were able to
communicate much more effectively than we would have been able to without
the colour science model we used for measurement.

>I spent years learning and internalizing the technical.  It is the
>intuitive and artistic side of photography in which I am now pursuing
>more deeply.

I would say you are caught betwixt and between.  You conduct extensive
testing and even attempt without instrumentation to grade and rate your
results.  (Doing so is an innate human condition.)  Your work would be that
much more informative if you used commonly accepted scales that can be
communicated and replicated elsewhere.  But hey that's up to you.  I simply
suggested we could help you make better use of the time you already commit.

But the broader point I was trying to make is that while I don't agree with
Shilesh's provocative remark that 'the data is King', and frankly when
pushed I think he would agree that he simply said that to be provocative, I
do agree with the point he was making: that using instrumentation to provide
readings with agreed scales so that those qualities can be
replicated/simulated elsewhere is a powerful communication tool when we're
not all in the same room (thank god or randomness).  We can't measure every
sensation and all people are different.  But people should be thankful for
the numbers as they allow us to communicate much more clearly than without
them.

I get ya'.  I was simply defending the broader point Shilesh was making and
getting bashed for.  Have fun. (And thanks for all the effort you put in.)

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:26:20 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dmax Rating System - was more paper news
> 
> Hello Steve,
> 
>>> But requires one to have at least one of the combinations in hand.
>>> To compare X with Y purely in unquantified qualitative terms...
>> 
>> My terms are not unquantified.  They are clearly explained:
> 
> Just got back awhile ago (had to go to a funeral- a sad one, a 25 year
> old kid killed in a motorcycle wreck) and reread this and realize it
> was a bad choice of words.  I misinterpreted your meaning and missed
> your desperate desire to have hard numbers.  I should have said
> something like "It doesn't matter that there are no hard numbers. For
> the purposes of this review...etc, etc"
> 
> I DO understand your argument and reasoning that a uniform system of
> communication is desirable, and don't really disagree.  It's a worthy
> goal in your area of endeavor.  But what I hope you can come to
> understand is that I'm not playing in the same game.
> 
> You imply that the paper review could be "improved" if only I would
> use a spectro so the results could be "communicated" better.  I know
> this makes perfect sense to you and you are probably shaking your head
> in wonder how I could not understand something so obvious.  Please try
> to grasp that I do understand what you're saying, but that I do not
> agree the communication would be improved by doing that.  Our goals
> are not the same.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
>

Scott,

> I've been using my Sekonic L-508 in the incident mode to take 
> ballpark LUX readings of light in my home.
> 
> I'm now sitting in  my livingroom under medium level fluorescent 
> lighting.
> 
> The meter reading is about 25 LUX, so according to Wilhelm, my un-
> protected Epson 4800 UK3 prints won't fade for 500 yrs.

So that meter reads directly in LUX?

Don Bryant

Hello Steve,

>I get ya'.  

I hope so.  You operate in a tightly proscribed world and often lash
out and ridicule things that don't fit the way you think things ought
to work. I hope you will come to understand that there are other ways
to approach photography and will ease up on your criticism of things
that are different.  There is much you don't understand yet.  I am
working in a different "mode" than you are.  It is neither superior
nor inferior than yours, just different.  

I have several goals and purposes that underpin my web site articles.
The Paper Chase article intentionally does not use spectro dmax
values for several reasons.  It very nicely fulfills the purposes for
which it was written, as do the others.  I hope you can understand and
accept that, even if you may not understand or agree with the reasons. 


>I was simply defending the broader point Shilesh was making and
>getting bashed for.  Have fun. (And thanks for all the effort you
put in.)

Understood, thank you.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "donbga" 
<dstevenbryant@m...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
> 
> > I've been using my Sekonic L-508 in the incident mode to take 
> > ballpark LUX readings of light in my home.
> > 
>> 
> So that meter reads directly in LUX?
> 
> Don Bryant
>


No, not the Sekonic L-508.

I use a conversion guide that Livick provided in his testing info.

It's not 100% accurate, but it will get you close enough for all 
practicle purposes.

(There probable are lightmeters with LUX rates, though. I think 
Sekonic amy even make one, probably a "Cine" meter. I'm sure it will 
give "candle power" and then you can make the conversion. I'm not 
sure what the relation is between CP and LUX, if their the same or 
what. I haven't really checked, but there is a relation in some 
respect.)

Scott

Scott

I haven't noticed an answer to this one, so I'll ramble on about it.

The equivalent of lux is foot-candle, also called lumens/ft^2. As lux
is lumens/m^2 the conversion is simple: 1 foot-candle is 10.8 lux,
though most of us just call it 10.

Yes, cine meters, including the cine version of the 508, often measure
in lux. However, it is easy to convert.

With the meter set to EI 100, and used in incident mode, for most meters:

Lux = 2.5 x 2^EV 

Best,
Helen


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
"scott_now_coming" <scott_now_coming@...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "donbga" 
> <dstevenbryant@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Scott,
> > 
> > > I've been using my Sekonic L-508 in the incident mode to take 
> > > ballpark LUX readings of light in my home.
> > > 
> >> 
> > So that meter reads directly in LUX?
> > 
> > Don Bryant
> >
> 
> 
> No, not the Sekonic L-508.
> 
> I use a conversion guide that Livick provided in his testing info.
> 
> It's not 100% accurate, but it will get you close enough for all 
> practicle purposes.
> 
> (There probable are lightmeters with LUX rates, though. I think 
> Sekonic amy even make one, probably a "Cine" meter. I'm sure it will 
> give "candle power" and then you can make the conversion. I'm not 
> sure what the relation is between CP and LUX, if their the same or 
> what. I haven't really checked, but there is a relation in some 
> respect.)
> 
> Scott
> 
> Scott
>

Thanks, Helen. eom

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "helen_bach2003" 
<helenbach@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't noticed an answer to this one, so I'll ramble on about it.
> 
> The equivalent of lux is foot-candle, also called lumens/ft^2. As 
lux
> is lumens/m^2 the conversion is simple: 1 foot-candle is 10.8 lux,
> though most of us just call it 10.
> 
> Yes, cine meters, including the cine version of the 508, often 
measure
> in lux. However, it is easy to convert.
> 
> With the meter set to EI 100, and used in incident mode, for most 
meters:
> 
> Lux = 2.5 x 2^EV 
> 
> Best,
> Helen
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "scott_now_coming" <scott_now_coming@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "donbga" 
> > <dstevenbryant@m...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > > 
> > > > I've been using my Sekonic L-508 in the incident mode to take 
> > > > ballpark LUX readings of light in my home.
> > > > 
> > >> 
> > > So that meter reads directly in LUX?
> > > 
> > > Don Bryant
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > No, not the Sekonic L-508.
> > 
> > I use a conversion guide that Livick provided in his testing info.
> > 
> > It's not 100% accurate, but it will get you close enough for all 
> > practicle purposes.
> > 
> > (There probable are lightmeters with LUX rates, though. I think 
> > Sekonic amy even make one, probably a "Cine" meter. I'm sure it 
will 
> > give "candle power" and then you can make the conversion. I'm not 
> > sure what the relation is between CP and LUX, if their the same 
or 

> > what. I haven't really checked, but there is a relation in some 
> > respect.)
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > Scott
> >
>

Helen - you sinner.  No numbers and complicated formulae!

> From: helen_bach2003 <helenbach@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:29:36 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: more paper news
> 
> I haven't noticed an answer to this one, so I'll ramble on about it.
> 
> The equivalent of lux is foot-candle, also called lumens/ft^2. As lux
> is lumens/m^2 the conversion is simple: 1 foot-candle is 10.8 lux,
> though most of us just call it 10.
> 
> Yes, cine meters, including the cine version of the 508, often measure
> in lux. However, it is easy to convert.
> 
> With the meter set to EI 100, and used in incident mode, for most meters:
> 
> Lux = 2.5 x 2^EV 
> 
> Best,
> Helen
>

Helen,
is easy to convert.
> 
> With the meter set to EI 100, and used in incident mode, for most 
meters:
> 
> Lux = 2.5 x 2^EV 

Seems like this is similar to the procedure used on my Luna-Pro.

Don Bryant