Digital BW, The Print

I am impressed with the breadth of interest here in light values, 
cumulative lux and effects on fading.
Back in the old silver days there was that little bit at the bottom of a 
Density/Exposure curve where the toe didn't quite meet up with the 
Density axis. Silver halides had to get a kick of photons before 
additional exposure became evenly translated into density of solid silver.

Here's the thing. Do pigments and dyes act in the same way on exposure 
to light? Does anyone know if there is a linear relationship between 
accumulated lux and fading, or is there a toe on the curve whereby light 
energy has to achieve a threshold level before fading begins?. Just 
curious....

Whilst we want to nail down all the variables in our longevity quests, 
because we live in different climates, different airborne pollutants 
etc., there is now way that any lab controlled test can have meaning 
apart from providing poor relative guidelines. How can Wilhelm data 
generated in Europe have any meaning to me in New Zealand?. I sit in a 
humid, ozone depleted atmosphere with little pollution. 100 miles away, 
photographers live in a sulpher dioxide laden atmosphere in our 
geothermal zones. Common sense tells me that Wilhem tests only have 
meaning in their lab and it is false assumption to extrapolate that data 
into our individual environments and conditions. Data might be king, but 
only in the room that its sitting in when it comes to this discussion.

I managed to see some of Livicks work methodology before he removed it. 
That guy worked really hard to make sense of his own environmental 
conditions and make materials judgements based on his findings. More 
power to HIS elbow and less to those who threatened him for sharing 
those results with the rest of the community. Similarly its up to each 
of us to draw conclusions from our experience. The windowsill test is a 
good start - what's more its free to everyone! The problem with much 
discussion on this list is that at least someone always wants to be 
absolutely right, absolutely sure.

John Malcolm
Love the Light

The great thing about Livick's and Bill Waterson's (who actually 
conducted the test in California) testing is they had the prints set 
up on boards that could constantly be moved to always be pointing 
directly at the sun.

Bill would take a reading every hour on the hour and then adjust the 
prints so they would continue to be directly facing the sun.

Using the sunlight in this method is, in my opinion, the "torture 
test" for ink fading.

Is there a more, for all practicle purposes, a worse scenario than 
direct sunshine?

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, John Malcolm 
<johnmalcolm@f...> wrote:
>
> I am impressed with the breadth of interest here in light values, 
> cumulative lux and effects on fading.
> Back in the old silver days there was that little bit at the bottom 
of a 
> Density/Exposure curve where the toe didn't quite meet up with the 
> Density axis. Silver halides had to get a kick of photons before 
> additional exposure became evenly translated into density of solid 
silver.
> 
> Here's the thing. Do pigments and dyes act in the same way on 
exposure 
> to light? Does anyone know if there is a linear relationship 
between 
> accumulated lux and fading, or is there a toe on the curve whereby 
light 
> energy has to achieve a threshold level before fading begins?. Just 
> curious....
> 
> Whilst we want to nail down all the variables in our longevity 
quests, 
> because we live in different climates, different airborne 
pollutants 
> etc., there is now way that any lab controlled test can have 
meaning 
> apart from providing poor relative guidelines. How can Wilhelm data 
> generated in Europe have any meaning to me in New Zealand?. I sit 
in a 
> humid, ozone depleted atmosphere with little pollution. 100 miles 
away, 
> photographers live in a sulpher dioxide laden atmosphere in our 
> geothermal zones. Common sense tells me that Wilhem tests only have 
> meaning in their lab and it is false assumption to extrapolate that 
data 
> into our individual environments and conditions. Data might be 
king, but 
> only in the room that its sitting in when it comes to this 
discussion.
> 
> I managed to see some of Livicks work methodology before he removed 
it. 
> That guy worked really hard to make sense of his own environmental 
> conditions and make materials judgements based on his findings. 
More 
> power to HIS elbow and less to those who threatened him for sharing 
> those results with the rest of the community. Similarly its up to 
each 
> of us to draw conclusions from our experience. The windowsill test 
is a 
> good start - what's more its free to everyone! The problem with 
much 

> discussion on this list is that at least someone always wants to be 
> absolutely right, absolutely sure.
> 
> John Malcolm
> Love the Light
>

I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. But there is a
lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the stability
domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections in his
projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson Premium
Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and staining that
existed apart from the lux level figures and confused everyone. The
culprit ended up being ozone.

This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints being
stored and shown behind glass, started. Later the talk about sprays
doubling or tripling the life of the print. 

Now.. how ones tests for these airborne contaminants and subsequently
publish stability data that takes them into consideration, well that
is a big one that I'm certainly ignorant about. This is someting we
all need to know a lot more about. 

My procedure, much to the horror of many of us out here, is to spray
everything that I need the greatest permanece for. At this point my
assumption is that airborne substances are even more toxic to inkjet
prints than uv light.

But spraying itself is toxic too, to us humans, and everyone has to
make that decision for himself for the needs of his clients. 
John

Air borne pollutants.

> From: scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@...>

> 
> Is there a more, for all practicle purposes, a worse scenario than
> direct sunshine?
> 
> Scott

john dean wrote:

> I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. 

I also hate that you are always defending Wilhelm ;-)

> But there is a
> lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
> difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the stability
> domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections in his
> projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson Premium
> Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and staining that
> existed apart from the lux level figures and confused everyone. The
> culprit ended up being ozone.

And we might add, Wilhelm missed this completely. Those inks went out to 
the marketplace with his stamp of approval. Hundred year life, I think 
he said.

The culprit here was assumptions. Epson assumed that every print that 
came off their printers would be framed (I mean -- duh). Wilhelm agreed 
to test that way (where was his integrity?). Epson was being arrogant. 
Wilhelm, who knew better (the guy ain't dumb), took their money and said 
"you're the boss."

Whether he knew or didn't, whether he should have or not, he put his 
name and reputation on the 1270 inks. He said they would last. Under 
glass. Knowing that this was contrary to the way people actually use the 
products.

Ever since then, his integrity has been suspect to a great many people. 
This is why you are always having to defend him ;-)

You have to remember - this is the guy who went after Kodak because all 
those color photographs were fading in people's shoe boxes in the back 
of their closets. He knew that this is what people did with prints. He knew.

>
> This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints being
> stored and shown behind glass, started. 

Yes - Epson and Wilhelm trying to CYA. That's how we tested - so that's 
how you should use the product. Sorry if that's not real world 
conditions. Sorry if you can't afford to frame every scrap of paper. 
Sorry if you are putting family photos into scrap books.

> Later the talk about sprays
> doubling or tripling the life of the print.

That was us, trying to recover from having bought equipment, paper, and 
inks based on Wilhelm's OK. Just trying to salvage something from the 
1270 debacle.

>
>
> Now.. how ones tests for these airborne contaminants and subsequently
> publish stability data that takes them into consideration, well that
> is a big one that I'm certainly ignorant about. This is someting we
> all need to know a lot more about.

They are called "environmental chambers." Examples:

http://www.lre.com/test2/docs/menu.htm

>
> My procedure, much to the horror of many of us out here, is to spray
> everything that I need the greatest permanece for. At this point my
> assumption is that airborne substances are even more toxic to inkjet
> prints than uv light.

You are spraying both sides then? Else, you still need to seal the 
print, front and back, in a frame.

>
> But spraying itself is toxic too, to us humans, and everyone has to
> make that decision for himself for the needs of his clients.
> John

> Is there a more, for all practicle purposes, a worse scenario than
> direct sunshine?

One problem with direct sun is that it might not be representative of indoor
display.  Even window glass filters out the worst (shortest wavelength) UV,
and that UV may have qualitatively different effects on some dyes and
pigments than visible & indoor light.  It also exaggerates the usefulness of
UV sprays for indoor display. 

I think one has to look at all of these tests and just use good judgment as
to how much to draw from each.  The more tests the better.  No accelerated
fade test is going to be totally valid for any display condition, but it's
nice when we see relative performances that are similar across a range of
different tests and are consistent with our general understanding of the
processes that are going on.  

Keep those informal south window tests coming.  

Note that even the selenium toned silver print is not holding up all that
well.  Nothing is forever.  It turns out the selenium toning most of us were
doing was only a partial tone.  They are fading, and the non-buffered paper
is becoming acidic.  As for me, I'll stick to my "carbon on cotton" mantra.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> 
> And we might add, Wilhelm missed this completely. Those inks went
out to 
> the marketplace with his stamp of approval. Hundred year life, I think 
> he said.


I belive that is wrong. Wil wasn't working closely with Epson at that
time. Those were the days when he was testing everything, Lyson, Media
Street, Iris, anything. A lot of Epson's papers he gave horrible
ratings to at that time, and the dye inks like the 1200. His figures
for the 1270 inks on Premium Glossy was 29 years I belive which is the
figure for 450 lux illumination with those dye/hybred inks. Yes, he
missed the ozone problem from airconditioners but look, he started out
testing silver materials and this was something that didn't suffer
from it. None of us knew either until we either experience it or read
his comments. If we want to blame somebody for that we blame Epson. It
was their baby at that point.  I have to give credit to Lyson though.
They started selling their print protective spray in the very
beginning even with the papers they were repackaging from Hahnemuhle.
I think they must have known more about the airborne contaminants.

The Premium Glossy type paper was new then. The inksets were new then.
Everything was new then. No one knew anything, especially Epson. It
wasn't in use for very long before this was revealed, I think less
than a year. I remeber becasue I stared with the Epson 700, then the
1200, the the 1270, the 10K, etc. The inks were changing even faster
then. I'll tell you though compared to the other junk on the market
even now with innovative sounding names, those inks perform
wonderfully for certain purposes. And HP still doen't have an answer
to anything that versatile, ozone or not. 
John

It turns out the selenium toning most of us were
> doing was only a partial tone.  They are fading, and the
non-buffered paper
> is becoming acidic.  As for me, I'll stick to my "carbon on cotton"
mantra.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com


That is absolutely true and blue chip galleries still fail to admit
that. So was Ansel Adams lying to use then in order to sell more of
his books and zone sysem paraphanalia? No. He just wasn't perfect, but
he was serious about learning.

john
>

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

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

Other than that, I think his work is great.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>
> I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. But there is a
> lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
> difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the stability
> domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections in his
> projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson Premium
> Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and staining that
> existed apart from the lux level figures and confused everyone. The
> culprit ended up being ozone.
> 
> This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints being
> stored and shown behind glass, started. Later the talk about sprays
> doubling or tripling the life of the print. 
> 
> Now.. how ones tests for these airborne contaminants and 
subsequently

> publish stability data that takes them into consideration, well that
> is a big one that I'm certainly ignorant about. This is someting we
> all need to know a lot more about. 
> 
> My procedure, much to the horror of many of us out here, is to spray
> everything that I need the greatest permanece for. At this point my
> assumption is that airborne substances are even more toxic to inkjet
> prints than uv light.
> 
> But spraying itself is toxic too, to us humans, and everyone has to
> make that decision for himself for the needs of his clients. 
> John
>

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


Not a "practicle concern " for indoor display. Smoke, yes, but most 
prints will be behind glass , or, have a few coatings of varnish 
(canvas). 

Air pollutants aren't a big concern to be.

Smoking is an "outdated concept", and is being banned in most public 
places and businesses.

Again, if you want outdoor display, buy a Roland and solvent inks. 
They will give you 1 or 2 years of display life without "coating".

Scott

> 
> > From: scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@y...>
> 
> > 
> > Is there a more, for all practicle purposes, a worse scenario than
> > direct sunshine?
> > 
> > Scott
>

With all due respect to Epson and Wilhelm:

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

And Wilhelm states that he uses fuoresecent lighting for testing.

One has to keep these two things in mind.

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

What's RESONABLE?

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

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



Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... 
wrote:
>
> john dean wrote:
> 
> > I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. 
> 
> I also hate that you are always defending Wilhelm ;-)
> 
> > But there is a
> > lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
> > difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the stability
> > domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections in 
his
> > projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson 
Premium
> > Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and staining 
that
> > existed apart from the lux level figures and confused everyone. 
The
> > culprit ended up being ozone.
> 
> And we might add, Wilhelm missed this completely. Those inks went 
out to 
> the marketplace with his stamp of approval. Hundred year life, I 
think 
> he said.
> 
> The culprit here was assumptions. Epson assumed that every print 
that 
> came off their printers would be framed (I mean -- duh). Wilhelm 
agreed 
> to test that way (where was his integrity?). Epson was being 
arrogant. 
> Wilhelm, who knew better (the guy ain't dumb), took their money and 
said 
> "you're the boss."
> 
> Whether he knew or didn't, whether he should have or not, he put 
his 
> name and reputation on the 1270 inks. He said they would last. 
Under 
> glass. Knowing that this was contrary to the way people actually 
use the 
> products.
> 
> Ever since then, his integrity has been suspect to a great many 
people. 
> This is why you are always having to defend him ;-)
> 
> You have to remember - this is the guy who went after Kodak because 
all 
> those color photographs were fading in people's shoe boxes in the 
back 
> of their closets. He knew that this is what people did with prints. 
He knew.
> 
> >
> > This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints being
> > stored and shown behind glass, started. 
> 
> Yes - Epson and Wilhelm trying to CYA. That's how we tested - so 
that's 
> how you should use the product. Sorry if that's not real world 
> conditions. Sorry if you can't afford to frame every scrap of 
paper. 
> Sorry if you are putting family photos into scrap books.
> 
> > Later the talk about sprays
> > doubling or tripling the life of the print.
> 
> That was us, trying to recover from having bought equipment, paper, 
and 
> inks based on Wilhelm's OK. Just trying to salvage something from 
the 
> 1270 debacle.
> 
> >
> >
> > Now.. how ones tests for these airborne contaminants and 
subsequently
> > publish stability data that takes them into consideration, well 
that
> > is a big one that I'm certainly ignorant about. This is someting 
we
> > all need to know a lot more about.
> 
> They are called "environmental chambers." Examples:
> 
> http://www.lre.com/test2/docs/menu.htm
> 
> >
> > My procedure, much to the horror of many of us out here, is to 
spray
> > everything that I need the greatest permanece for. At this point 
my
> > assumption is that airborne substances are even more toxic to 
inkjet
> > prints than uv light.
> 
> You are spraying both sides then? Else, you still need to seal the 
> print, front and back, in a frame.
> 
> >
> > But spraying itself is toxic too, to us humans, and everyone has 
to

> > make that decision for himself for the needs of his clients.
> > John
>

Thats true, pure daylight and/or toxic fumes are a worst case
scenario. But galleries and museums could and should never suggest
displaying valuable images under these conditions, whether that be in
your "sun room", "living room" or in the back yard or in a public
space. I think it has been poined out many times that ANY art work,
including oil paintings are going to fade in strong daylight also.

The one place that pure daylight is a major consideration for us is
when they are designed for public display. Wilhelm did point out how
Cibachromes faded quickly in permanent display under direct skylights.
He had slides of that to show how a public space that had comissioned
giant Ciba murals were extremely upset to see them deteriorate so fast
under strong uv daylight from skylights. So it's not just inkjet, but
everything. In that case strong lamination or even better, several
coats of a good varnish could be the best solution. A lot more does
need to be done in that area. As far as I know there are no really
good "scientific" tests that have been published about these good new
acrylic/laytex varnishes that we use for canvas work, and how they can
protect prints under very harsh conditions. That Livick guy did do
these kind of tests.

john

> I think sunlight testing is the best methode. To me, it represents 
> a "worst case scenario".
> 
> So, if an ink, paper, and varnish combo can give me 6 months in the 
> sunlight without fading, what's that worth in typicle room lighting, 
> say 255 LUX?
> 
> 
> 
> Scott
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... 
> wrote:
> >
> > john dean wrote:
> > 
> > > I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. 
> > 
> > I also hate that you are always defending Wilhelm ;-)
> > 
> > > But there is a
> > > lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
> > > difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the stability
> > > domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections in 
> his
> > > projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson 
> Premium
> > > Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and staining 
> that
> > > existed apart from the lux level figures and confused everyone. 
> The
> > > culprit ended up being ozone.
> > 
> > And we might add, Wilhelm missed this completely. Those inks went 
> out to 
> > the marketplace with his stamp of approval. Hundred year life, I 
> think 
> > he said.
> > 
> > The culprit here was assumptions. Epson assumed that every print 
> that 
> > came off their printers would be framed (I mean -- duh). Wilhelm 
> agreed 
> > to test that way (where was his integrity?). Epson was being 
> arrogant. 
> > Wilhelm, who knew better (the guy ain't dumb), took their money and 
> said 
> > "you're the boss."
> > 
> > Whether he knew or didn't, whether he should have or not, he put 
> his 
> > name and reputation on the 1270 inks. He said they would last. 
> Under 
> > glass. Knowing that this was contrary to the way people actually 
> use the 
> > products.
> > 
> > Ever since then, his integrity has been suspect to a great many 
> people. 
> > This is why you are always having to defend him ;-)
> > 
> > You have to remember - this is the guy who went after Kodak because 
> all 
> > those color photographs were fading in people's shoe boxes in the 
> back 
> > of their closets. He knew that this is what people did with prints. 
> He knew.
> > 
> > >
> > > This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints being
> > > stored and shown behind glass, started. 
> > 
> > Yes - Epson and Wilhelm trying to CYA. That's how we tested - so 
> that's 
> > how you should use the product. Sorry if that's not real world 
> > conditions. Sorry if you can't afford to frame every scrap of 
> paper. 
> > Sorry if you are putting family photos into scrap books.
> > 
> > > Later the talk about sprays
> > > doubling or tripling the life of the print.
> > 
> > That was us, trying to recover from having bought equipment, paper, 
> and 
> > inks based on Wilhelm's OK. Just trying to salvage something from 
> the 
> > 1270 debacle.
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > Now.. how ones tests for these airborne contaminants and 
> subsequently
> > > publish stability data that takes them into consideration, well 
> that
> > > is a big one that I'm certainly ignorant about. This is someting 
> we
> > > all need to know a lot more about.
> > 
> > They are called "environmental chambers." Examples:
> > 
> > http://www.lre.com/test2/docs/menu.htm
> > 
> > >
> > > My procedure, much to the horror of many of us out here, is to 
> spray
> > > everything that I need the greatest permanece for. At this point 
> my
> > > assumption is that airborne substances are even more toxic to 
> inkjet
> > > prints than uv light.
> > 
> > You are spraying both sides then? Else, you still need to seal the 
> > print, front and back, in a frame.
> > 
> > >
> > > But spraying itself is toxic too, to us humans, and everyone has 
> to
> > > make that decision for himself for the needs of his clients.
> > > John
> >
>

I think you'd be very surprised.

> From: scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:25:25 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Lux and Fading
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> 
>> Air borne pollutants.
> 
> 
> Not a "practicle concern " for indoor display. Smoke, yes, but most
> prints will be behind glass , or, have a few coatings of varnish
> (canvas). 
> 
> Air pollutants aren't a big concern to be.
> 
> Smoking is an "outdated concept", and is being banned in most public
> places and businesses.
> 
> Again, if you want outdoor display, buy a Roland and solvent inks.
> They will give you 1 or 2 years of display life without "coating".
> 
> Scott

Varnishes look great on canvas, and I've even had great success using 
varnish on textured 100% cotton matte paper.

But anything else, and the varnish looks terrible. You can always see 
brush strokes or whatever. Just nor smooth enough.

Solvent-based varnishes sprayed on probably would look great, but who 
wants to spend the money on the proper equipment, and I mean an 
actual "useful" spraybooth?

I'd rather put that money towards a PhaseOne P45 "back".

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>
> Thats true, pure daylight and/or toxic fumes are a worst case
> scenario. But galleries and museums could and should never suggest
> displaying valuable images under these conditions, whether that be 
in
> your "sun room", "living room" or in the back yard or in a public
> space. I think it has been poined out many times that ANY art work,
> including oil paintings are going to fade in strong daylight also.
> 
> The one place that pure daylight is a major consideration for us is
> when they are designed for public display. Wilhelm did point out how
> Cibachromes faded quickly in permanent display under direct 
skylights.
> He had slides of that to show how a public space that had 
comissioned
> giant Ciba murals were extremely upset to see them deteriorate so 
fast
> under strong uv daylight from skylights. So it's not just inkjet, 
but
> everything. In that case strong lamination or even better, several
> coats of a good varnish could be the best solution. A lot more does
> need to be done in that area. As far as I know there are no really
> good "scientific" tests that have been published about these good 
new
> acrylic/laytex varnishes that we use for canvas work, and how they 
can
> protect prints under very harsh conditions. That Livick guy did do
> these kind of tests.
> 
> john
> 
>  
> > I think sunlight testing is the best methode. To me, it 
represents 
> > a "worst case scenario".
> > 
> > So, if an ink, paper, and varnish combo can give me 6 months in 
the 
> > sunlight without fading, what's that worth in typicle room 
lighting, 
> > say 255 LUX?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > john dean wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. 
> > > 
> > > I also hate that you are always defending Wilhelm ;-)
> > > 
> > > > But there is a
> > > > lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
> > > > difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the 
stability
> > > > domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections 
in 
> > his
> > > > projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson 
> > Premium
> > > > Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and 
staining 
> > that
> > > > existed apart from the lux level figures and confused 
everyone. 
> > The
> > > > culprit ended up being ozone.
> > > 
> > > And we might add, Wilhelm missed this completely. Those inks 
went 
> > out to 
> > > the marketplace with his stamp of approval. Hundred year life, 
I 
> > think 
> > > he said.
> > > 
> > > The culprit here was assumptions. Epson assumed that every 
print 
> > that 
> > > came off their printers would be framed (I mean -- duh). 
Wilhelm 
> > agreed 
> > > to test that way (where was his integrity?). Epson was being 
> > arrogant. 
> > > Wilhelm, who knew better (the guy ain't dumb), took their money 
and 
> > said 
> > > "you're the boss."
> > > 
> > > Whether he knew or didn't, whether he should have or not, he 
put 
> > his 
> > > name and reputation on the 1270 inks. He said they would last. 
> > Under 
> > > glass. Knowing that this was contrary to the way people 
actually 
> > use the 
> > > products.
> > > 
> > > Ever since then, his integrity has been suspect to a great many 
> > people. 
> > > This is why you are always having to defend him ;-)
> > > 
> > > You have to remember - this is the guy who went after Kodak 
because 
> > all 
> > > those color photographs were fading in people's shoe boxes in 
the 
> > back 
> > > of their closets. He knew that this is what people did with 
prints. 
> > He knew.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints 
being
> > > > stored and shown behind glass, started. 
> > > 
> > > Yes - Epson and Wilhelm trying to CYA. That's how we tested - 
so 
> > that's 
> > > how you should use the product. Sorry if that's not real world 
> > > conditions. Sorry if you can't afford to frame every scrap of 
> > paper. 
> > > Sorry if you are putting family photos into scrap books.
> > > 
> > > > Later the talk about sprays
> > > > doubling or tripling the life of the print.
> > > 
> > > That was us, trying to recover from having bought equipment, 
paper, 
> > and 
> > > inks based on Wilhelm's OK. Just trying to salvage something 
from 
> > the 
> > > 1270 debacle.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now.. how ones tests for these airborne contaminants and 
> > subsequently
> > > > publish stability data that takes them into consideration, 
well 
> > that
> > > > is a big one that I'm certainly ignorant about. This is 
someting 
> > we
> > > > all need to know a lot more about.
> > > 
> > > They are called "environmental chambers." Examples:
> > > 
> > > http://www.lre.com/test2/docs/menu.htm
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > My procedure, much to the horror of many of us out here, is 
to 
> > spray
> > > > everything that I need the greatest permanece for. At this 
point 
> > my
> > > > assumption is that airborne substances are even more toxic to 
> > inkjet
> > > > prints than uv light.
> > > 
> > > You are spraying both sides then? Else, you still need to seal 
the 
> > > print, front and back, in a frame.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > But spraying itself is toxic too, to us humans, and everyone 
has 

> > to
> > > > make that decision for himself for the needs of his clients.
> > > > John
> > >
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> I think you'd be very surprised.


No really.

The only other thing that may concern me would be having my 
photographs displayed in a display "booth" enclosed with  glass and 
fluorescent lights.

The ozone level is extremely high and will fade un-coated prints 
fairly fast.

But my photos never spend more that 3 weeks in this condition, so I'm 
not concerned.

These prints are of a commercial nature and go into the trash after 
the 3 weeks or so.

Scott
> 
> > From: scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@y...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:25:25 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Lux and Fading
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> > <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Air borne pollutants.
> > 
> > 
> > Not a "practicle concern " for indoor display. Smoke, yes, but 
most
> > prints will be behind glass , or, have a few coatings of varnish
> > (canvas). 
> > 
> > Air pollutants aren't a big concern to be.
> > 
> > Smoking is an "outdated concept", and is being banned in most 
public

> > places and businesses.
> > 
> > Again, if you want outdoor display, buy a Roland and solvent inks.
> > They will give you 1 or 2 years of display life without "coating".
> > 
> > Scott
>

Scott,

> 
> Solvent-based varnishes sprayed on probably would look great, but who 
> wants to spend the money on the proper equipment, and I mean an 
> actual "useful" spraybooth?

FWIW, the equipment required wouldn't be that expensive, however 
spraying is a PITA. Water based products are almost easier to used.


Don Bryant

Scott, 
> But my photos never spend more that 3 weeks in this condition, so I'm 
> not concerned.
> 
> These prints are of a commercial nature and go into the trash after 
> the 3 weeks or so.

So why are you griping about testing, LUX meters, etc. etc.?

Don Bryant

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
SNIP
. So it's not just inkjet, but
> everything. In that case strong lamination or even better, several
> coats of a good varnish could be the best solution. A lot more does
> need to be done in that area. As far as I know there are no really
> good "scientific" tests that have been published about these good new
> acrylic/laytex varnishes that we use for canvas work, and how they can
> protect prints under very harsh conditions. That Livick guy did do
> these kind of tests.
> 
> john
SNIP

John:
If you read Wilhelms site closely, he has investigated laminates and sprays over the years. 
Basically he has found little value in such products relative to UV fading.

He has found that products such as Print Guard are effective on microporous papers. This 
is probably due to sealing the pigments against oxidation effects.

John Nollendorfs

I have coated banners and laminated signage that has been outdoors for 18 months now and are still in very good condition. Oh yeah, they were printed on an Epson 7600 using MIS pigment inks.

Walt


Again, if you want outdoor display, buy a Roland and solvent inks. 
They will give you 1 or 2 years of display life without "coating".

Scott

John,

I think this is a very good case of where it is worth reading Livick's 
results rather than Wilhelm's.

Here's a short quote from a piece I wrote about him: "his coating of 
choice is Clearshield Original although some may prefer the thinner 
Clearshield LL. Although he found the widely available Lascaux's 
'Fixativ' to provide little benefit on its own, it both reduces the 
drying time needed before coating with Clearshield and gives some 
additional protection."

And yes, it does appear to give very considerable protection from his 
tests. Of course you many not want your prints to last 300 years. I 
certainly can't be bothered with it.

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...    
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......


sinar001 wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
><deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>SNIP
>. So it's not just inkjet, but
>  
>
>>everything. In that case strong lamination or even better, several
>>coats of a good varnish could be the best solution. A lot more does
>>need to be done in that area. As far as I know there are no really
>>good "scientific" tests that have been published about these good new
>>acrylic/laytex varnishes that we use for canvas work, and how they can
>>protect prints under very harsh conditions. That Livick guy did do
>>these kind of tests.
>>
>>john
>>    
>>
>SNIP
>
>John:
>If you read Wilhelms site closely, he has investigated laminates and sprays over the years. 
>Basically he has found little value in such products relative to UV fading.
>
>He has found that products such as Print Guard are effective on microporous papers. This 
>is probably due to sealing the pigments against oxidation effects.
>
>John Nollendorfs
>
>
>
>
>
>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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

That's a small portion of the work I do.

The rest are portriats that need the longevity. Especially the one that 
are printed on canvas.

My main interest in test at this point, is test various canvas, which 
Livick never test any as far as I know.

Also, to test other "coatings" that I haven't seen testing on.

I'm pretty convinced that if one uses Ultrachrome (or UCk3), 100% 
cotton, and a couple of coatings of a good varnish with UV light 
stabilizers, then you should have great longevity. But I need to 
satisfy MYSELF.

I feel that combo will give great longevity, no matter what 100%, acid-
free cotton you use, or what UV coating is applied.

I bet even ol' "off the shelf" Krylon UV spray will increase longrvity 
significantly.


Scott
















--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "donbga" 
<dstevenbryant@m...> wrote:
>
> Scott, 
> > But my photos never spend more that 3 weeks in this condition, so 
I'm 

> > not concerned.
> > 
> > These prints are of a commercial nature and go into the trash after 
> > the 3 weeks or so.
> 
> So why are you griping about testing, LUX meters, etc. etc.?
> 
> Don Bryant
>

Have you used a water-based brushed on coating on semi-matte, semi-
gloss, or gloss prints?

I have, and they looked terrible.

These coatings I've used have looked great on canvas.

Scott
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "donbga" 
<dstevenbryant@m...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
> 
> > 
> > Solvent-based varnishes sprayed on probably would look great, but 
who 

> > wants to spend the money on the proper equipment, and I mean an 
> > actual "useful" spraybooth?
> 
> FWIW, the equipment required wouldn't be that expensive, however 
> spraying is a PITA. Water based products are almost easier to used.
> 
> 
> Don Bryant
>

Good for you Walt.

You should be very satisfied. I guess you've found the "holy grail".

No testing for you.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha" 
<wkm@k...> wrote:
>
> I have coated banners and laminated signage that has been outdoors 
for 18 months now and are still in very good condition. Oh yeah, they 
were printed on an Epson 7600 using MIS pigment inks.

> 
> Walt
> 
> 
> Again, if you want outdoor display, buy a Roland and solvent inks. 
> They will give you 1 or 2 years of display life without "coating".
> 
> Scott
>

Sorry I dumped on you Wheaties kid. Juat pointing out that you don't need a Roland to do outdoor stuff.

Walt

-----Original Message-----
From: scott_now_coming [mailto:scott_now_coming@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 03:13 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Lux and Fading

Good for you Walt.

You should be very satisfied. I guess you've found the "holy grail".

No testing for you.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha" 
<wkm@k...> wrote:
>
> I have coated banners and laminated signage that has been outdoors 
for 18 months now and are still in very good condition. Oh yeah, they 
were printed on an Epson 7600 using MIS pigment inks.
> 
> Walt
> 
> 
> Again, if you want outdoor display, buy a Roland and solvent inks. 
> They will give you 1 or 2 years of display life without "coating".
> 
> Scott
>






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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha" 
<wkm@k...> wrote:
>
> Sorry I dumped on you Wheaties kid. Juat pointing out that you don't 
need a Roland to do outdoor stuff.
> 
> Walt
> 


I would probably chose a Mimaki with eco solvent inks for that type of 
work, if that's what most of my output was for.

Scott,
> Also, to test other "coatings" that I haven't seen testing on.
> 
> I'm pretty convinced that if one uses Ultrachrome (or UCk3), 100% 
> cotton, and a couple of coatings of a good varnish with UV light 
> stabilizers, then you should have great longevity. But I need to 
> satisfy MYSELF.

Have you tried Hydrocoat Polyurethane? It works very well. 

Don Bryant

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall 
<petermarshall@c...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> I think this is a very good case of where it is worth reading Livick's 
> results rather than Wilhelm's.
> 
> Here's a short quote from a piece I wrote about him: "his coating of 
> choice is Clearshield Original although some may prefer the thinner 
> Clearshield LL. Although he found the widely available Lascaux's 
> 'Fixativ' to provide little benefit on its own, it both reduces the 
> drying time needed before coating with Clearshield and gives some 
> additional protection."
> 
> And yes, it does appear to give very considerable protection from his 
> tests. Of course you many not want your prints to last 300 years. I 
> certainly can't be bothered with it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@c...    
SNIP
Wilhelms early results were relative to trying to extend the life of photographic prints. His 
later tests on microporous papers, however, I believe show extended life. Again, I believe 
due to reducing atmospheric oxidation effects. Microporous papers greatly increase the 
surface area of the inks, thereby increasing the possibility the inks will degrade due to 
oxidation. 

One of the problems with coating/laminating early on, was the lack of stability of these  
coating materials. Therefore many people did not recomend these solutions for other than 
temporary environmental solutions. Coatings and laminates have greatly improved over 
the last 10 years, and requirements for sealing microporous papers have been revealed. 

John Nollendorfs

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sinar001" 
<jnolly@a...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall 
> <petermarshall@c...> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > 
> > I think this is a very good case of where it is worth reading 
Livick's 
> > results rather than Wilhelm's.

Unfortunately one can only read a short synopsis of Livick's work, 
not the details.

Check this out:

http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm

What a drag.

Jules

No, I haven't. Got a link?

I used Golden because I could buy it locally.

I sent an e-mail to Clearstar with a question about the pricing of 
their Clearshield, never never got a reply. So, I didn't bother with 
them.

Also, Clearshield does, as I understand, yellow a bit over time, 
where as the Golden products I'm using do not.

Clearshield may have been re-fourmulated since the test I'm referring 
to, and maybe the "yellowing" problem is fixed. But, I don't know. 
It's just a possilbity.

Scott

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

>
> Scott,
> > Also, to test other "coatings" that I haven't seen testing on.
> > 
> > I'm pretty convinced that if one uses Ultrachrome (or UCk3), 100% 
> > cotton, and a couple of coatings of a good varnish with UV light 
> > stabilizers, then you should have great longevity. But I need to 
> > satisfy MYSELF.
> 
> Have you tried Hydrocoat Polyurethane? It works very well. 
> 
> Don Bryant
>

Jules, 

Go here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/post?
act=reply&messageNum=73507

You may want to save these to your harddrive, as I'm sure these will 
only be availible for a certain amount of time.

Get it before it's gone!

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lulalake_1999" 
<lulalake_1999@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sinar001" 
> <jnolly@a...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter 
Marshall 

> > <petermarshall@c...> wrote:
> > >
> > > John,
> > > 
> > > I think this is a very good case of where it is worth reading 
> Livick's 
> > > results rather than Wilhelm's.
> 
> Unfortunately one can only read a short synopsis of Livick's work, 
> not the details.
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
> 
> What a drag.
> 
> Jules
>

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
>
> Jules, 
> 
> Go here:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/post?
> act=reply&messageNum=73507
> 
> You may want to save these to your harddrive, as I'm sure these 
will 
> only be availible for a certain amount of time.
> 
> Get it before it's gone!
> 
> Scott

Thanks Scott but the URL that you sent is the one of my message??

Cheers

Jules

Here, go to this message and click on the link. This is how I get to 
the page when I need to.

It was working this afternoon, but sometimes it's down. Keep trying, 
though.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/718
34

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lulalake_1999" 
<lulalake_1999@...> wrote:

>
> --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> <scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Jules, 
> > 
> > Go here:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/post?
> > act=reply&messageNum=73507
> > 
> > You may want to save these to your harddrive, as I'm sure these 
> will 
> > only be availible for a certain amount of time.
> > 
> > Get it before it's gone!
> > 
> > Scott
> 
> Thanks Scott but the URL that you sent is the one of my message??
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jules
>

I'm thinking about getting a CIS for my epson R220. I have been looking at 
inkrepublic, mediastreet and ebay. What is the difference between these 
models? eby is around $50 compared to $200 for the others. Are they all 
coming from china or some are better built?
Are the cheaper one from ebay leaking ink in the printer?
Thanks for any input. I'd rather pay more to get better quality but it has 
to be justified.
Sincerely,
PO

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@...> wrote:
>
> Here, go to this message and click on the link. This is how I get to 
> the page when I need to.
> 
> It was working this afternoon, but sometimes it's down. Keep trying, 
> though.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/718
> 34
> 


Scott, whew! Thanks so very much bro.

Jules

You're welcome, Jules. :>)

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lulalake_1999" 
<lulalake_1999@...> wrote:
>
> --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> <scott_now_coming@> wrote:
> >
> > Here, go to this message and click on the link. This is how I get 
to 
> > the page when I need to.
> > 
> > It was working this afternoon, but sometimes it's down. Keep 
trying, 
> > though.
> > 
> > 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/718

> > 34
> > 
> 
> 
> Scott, whew! Thanks so very much bro.
> 
> Jules
>

Hogarth,

Wilhelm might have been correct! I have 1270 prints that have never shown 
the dreaded orange effect. People only a block apart in the States had or 
did not have the effect. It wasn't a world-wide effect that everyone got. 
Some did and some didn't, depending, apparently, on their local ozone 
levels, though I don't think anyone has really got to the bottom of this.

So perhaps Wilhelm's lab was in an area that did not get the orange effect; 
there were plenty of them. Ok, those who did get it made a lot of noise and, 
as a result, some thought it was a universal effect. It wasn't.

Testing can only go so far. New cars, for example, are tested by specialist 
drivers who subject them to all sorts of severe treatment before release, 
but once all the people in the world are let loose on those cars, all sorts 
of other things will show up that the testers never thought of, or wouldn't 
dream of subjecting the cars to, or couldn't subject them to (you can't test 
them in every location in the world).

You say the culprit is 'assumptions'; fair enough, but the 'sunshine test' 
favoured by many on this list only tests one thing - what will happen to 
your print if you expose it to sunshine. No more, no less. You can't assume 
that because it withstands sunshine, it will withstand anything, or vice 
versa, that if it doesn't withstand sunshine, that it won't withstand normal 
lighting conditions, or chemical pollutants.

And what are 'normal lighting conditions'? You ought to test under 
incandescent lamps, fluororescent lamps, halogen lamps, etc, (and 
combinations of them?) all at various lighting intensities, all with and 
without various levels of air movement, various ozone levels, various other 
pollutants, etc, etc, etc.

No wonder no one has leapt at the idea of setting up a 'users testing lab'. 
The costs would be huge, once you look at all the possible variables - inks, 
papers, lights, temperature, humidity, airflow, pollutants, etc, etc., that 
would have to be tested for (duplicated in different parts of the world, to 
take account of unknown and unforseen factors).

In about 50 yrs or so, we will have a better idea of what chemical qualities 
are necessary in our inks and papers, not just for longevity, but for color 
as well. Until then, we have to make do with what our current scientists can 
do, with the limited funds and time at their disposal. Even with NASA's 
colossal funding, things still go wrong.

Anyone can criticise; few will advance the subject in the way that Wilhelm 
has, IMHO.

Time for me to fade away.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <hogarth@...>

I also hate that you are always defending Wilhelm ;-)

> But there is a
> lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
> difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the stability
> domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections in his
> projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson Premium
> Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and staining that
> existed apart from the lux level figures and confused everyone. The
> culprit ended up being ozone.

And we might add, Wilhelm missed this completely. Those inks went out to
the marketplace with his stamp of approval. Hundred year life, I think
he said.