🚀 go-pugleaf

Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real 
world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, airborne 
polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by the way plays 
an important part in the life of anything you place on your walls?

This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in invironmental 
factors like those found in average peoples homes their tests will alway be 
a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to duplicate museum like 
environments and more in duplicating the evironments of the people that will 
be buying most of these printers, papers and inks and that is the average 
consumer.

=(8) 

"=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real 
> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, 
> airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by the 
> way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on your 
> walls?
>
> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in 
> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their 
> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to 
> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the evironments 
> of the people that will be buying most of these printers, papers and inks 
> and that is the average consumer.
>
> =(8)

Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what you 
say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are nevertheless an 
indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react overtime. This is 
better than no idea at all.

So thanks Wayne.

Robert R. 

Bill Again wrote:
> "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
> news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real 
>> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, 
>> airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by the 
>> way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on your 
>> walls?
>>
>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in 
>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their 
>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to 
>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the evironments 
>> of the people that will be buying most of these printers, papers and inks 
>> and that is the average consumer.
>>
>> =(8)
> 
> Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what you 
> say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are nevertheless an 
> indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react overtime. This is 
> better than no idea at all.
> 
> So thanks Wayne.

My thanks, also; plan to read this week.

"=(8)" sure knows a lot, but won't say who he is. Not impressive.

-- 
John McWilliams

In article <f1g3r2$5eu$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Bill Again 
<Bill@addcom.de> writes
>
>"=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real
>> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations,
>> airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by the
>> way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on your
>> walls?
>>
>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in
>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their
>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to
>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the evironments
>> of the people that will be buying most of these printers, papers and inks
>> and that is the average consumer.
>>
>> =(8)
>
>Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what you
>say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are nevertheless an
>indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react overtime. This is
>better than no idea at all.
>
I used to think so too - until the Epson 26-year print fiasco.

Not so very long ago nobody was making any claims for inkjet print 
longevity - everyone knew inkjet prints were transient, fine for proofs 
but totally unsuitable for final prints you would hang on your walls for 
years.  Then, 7 or 8 years ago, Epson introduced their Photo Stylus 870 
and 1270 printers with new long life media - new inks and new high gloss 
papers.  They ran a huge advertising campaign highlighting that inkjet 
prints with their new media not only looked and felt like traditional 
photos they lasted at least as long.  In fact, Epson claimed the prints 
wouldn't show signs of fading for at least 26 years and this had been 
verified by an independent laboratory - none other than the renowned 
Henry Wilhelm himself.

The new Epson printers and their output became the talk of Internet 
forums - had anyone ever seen such photorealism from inkjet prints 
before?  Unfortunately, Epson became the subject of even more talk a few 
months later when reports started to come in of prints on their new 
media fading in much less than 26 years, but in weeks, days and in some 
cases only hours!  To be fair, Epson began to look into the problem 
almost immediately but they handled the situation quite poorly, openly 
suggesting all sorts of causes - radon gas, pollution etc.  They finally 
stated that they had simulated the effect in their laboratory with 
controlled exposure to ozone, which in itself created the urban legend 
that ozone was indeed the cause of the problems experienced by their 
users.  Like all urban legends, there was a core of truth surrounded by 
exaggeration - Epson only claimed they could recreate the problem in the 
laboratory using ozone, at no time did they suggest ozone was the 
primary cause.  As it turns out, any oxidising agent caused the problem 
- even the oxygen in normal air if it was warm enough and was 
continuously replenished over the surface of the print.  Wilhelm's tests 
focussed on light fading, in fact, light fading is what made Wilhelm's 
reputation when outed Kodak's poor resistance to it.  However he hadn't 
gone any further than that and had, completely wrongly, assumed that 
light fading was the dominant cause of the short life of inkjet prints 
too.  His test methods did not consider atmospheric effects - not even a 
clean atmosphere, let alone common pollutants - and they still don't.

Users, and I was amongst the most vocal in the UK, claimed Epson and 
Wilhelm had misled them and demanded a product recall.  An open letter 
to MacWeek by the late Bruce Fraser, of Photoshop fame, suggested 
avoiding Epson products until the problem was resolved.  Epson ignored 
us all, but significantly watered down their claims for the products. 
That remained their position for over a year until they faced the 
serious prospect of a class action lawsuit being filed in the US.  They 
then realised that the magnitude of the case could break the company and 
took it seriously, making several options available to affected 
customers to prevent the issue reaching court.  One such step was to 
bring encapsulated inks to market much sooner in the Photo Stylus 2000P 
- less gamut and photo realism, but fully protected and stable inks.

You will find the Epson / Wilhelm saga all documented on several web 
sites including

http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/ (a good account of the effect but 
limited in comment because of the NDA Bob signed to get access to Epson 
experimental media.)
http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/ (a bit OTT on the personal 
involvement, but fairly accurate chronology of events)

So it is quite wrong to assume, as I and many others did only a few 
years ago, that Wilhelm's testing gives any "indication of how the 
ink/paper will react over time".  That is only true IF the mechanism 
being tested is the dominant mechanism for the media - and with new 
papers and inks, who can know that for sure?  The fact that Wilhelm's 
test procedures do not account for normal use does, as =(8) said, make 
them as worthless as dog poo to the average user, and it is quite 
irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

That is not to detract from Wilhelm's work.  He did an incredible job 
standing up to the big yellow god to begin with and bringing their 
shortcomings to public notice, despite extended legal battles.  And his 
continued work is of value for museums and galleries worldwide, where 
the conditions of his test chambers are often replicated, thus making 
his results relevant.  However it is completely misleading and downright 
wrong to use Wilhelm's work to give any indication of print life under 
average user conditions.  It is completely irrelevant to the average 
user hanging inkjet prints on their walls.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:pJ6dnZJkkbEcPKbbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Bill Again wrote:
>> "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
>> news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with 
>>> real world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, 
>>> airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by 
>>> the way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on 
>>> your walls?
>>>
>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in 
>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their 
>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to 
>>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the 
>>> evironments of the people that will be buying most of these printers, 
>>> papers and inks and that is the average consumer.
>>>
>>> =(8)
>>
>> Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what 
>> you say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are 
>> nevertheless an indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react 
>> overtime. This is better than no idea at all.
>>
>> So thanks Wayne.
>
> My thanks, also; plan to read this week.
>
> "=(8)" sure knows a lot, but won't say who he is. Not impressive.
>
> -- 
> John McWilliams

Oh gosh John, someone on a newsgroup not giving their full name and address, 
I do however agree with Bill but will say that a little more of the 
variables could have been added to show the affect, of course all long term 
testing is still only an indication of what might happen. 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <f1g3r2$5eu$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Bill Again 
> <Bill@addcom.de> writes
>>
>> "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with 
>>> real
>>> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations,
>>> airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by 
>>> the
>>> way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on your
>>> walls?
>>>
>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in
>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their
>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to
>>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the 
>>> evironments
>>> of the people that will be buying most of these printers, papers and 
>>> inks
>>> and that is the average consumer.
>>>
>>> =(8)
>>
>> Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of 
>> what you
>> say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are 
>> nevertheless an
>> indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react overtime. This is
>> better than no idea at all.
>>
> I used to think so too - until the Epson 26-year print fiasco.
> 
> Not so very long ago nobody was making any claims for inkjet print 
> longevity - everyone knew inkjet prints were transient, fine for proofs 
> but totally unsuitable for final prints you would hang on your walls for 
> years.  Then, 7 or 8 years ago, Epson introduced their Photo Stylus 870 
> and 1270 printers with new long life media - new inks and new high gloss 
> papers.  They ran a huge advertising campaign highlighting that inkjet 
> prints with their new media not only looked and felt like traditional 
> photos they lasted at least as long.  In fact, Epson claimed the prints 
> wouldn't show signs of fading for at least 26 years and this had been 
> verified by an independent laboratory - none other than the renowned 
> Henry Wilhelm himself.
> 
> The new Epson printers and their output became the talk of Internet 
> forums - had anyone ever seen such photorealism from inkjet prints 
> before?  Unfortunately, Epson became the subject of even more talk a few 
> months later when reports started to come in of prints on their new 
> media fading in much less than 26 years, but in weeks, days and in some 
> cases only hours!  To be fair, Epson began to look into the problem 
> almost immediately but they handled the situation quite poorly, openly 
> suggesting all sorts of causes - radon gas, pollution etc.  They finally 
> stated that they had simulated the effect in their laboratory with 
> controlled exposure to ozone, which in itself created the urban legend 
> that ozone was indeed the cause of the problems experienced by their 
> users.  Like all urban legends, there was a core of truth surrounded by 
> exaggeration - Epson only claimed they could recreate the problem in the 
> laboratory using ozone, at no time did they suggest ozone was the 
> primary cause.  As it turns out, any oxidising agent caused the problem 
> - even the oxygen in normal air if it was warm enough and was 
> continuously replenished over the surface of the print.  Wilhelm's tests 
> focussed on light fading, in fact, light fading is what made Wilhelm's 
> reputation when outed Kodak's poor resistance to it.  However he hadn't 
> gone any further than that and had, completely wrongly, assumed that 
> light fading was the dominant cause of the short life of inkjet prints 
> too.  His test methods did not consider atmospheric effects - not even a 
> clean atmosphere, let alone common pollutants - and they still don't.
> 
> Users, and I was amongst the most vocal in the UK, claimed Epson and 
> Wilhelm had misled them and demanded a product recall.  An open letter 
> to MacWeek by the late Bruce Fraser, of Photoshop fame, suggested 
> avoiding Epson products until the problem was resolved.  Epson ignored 
> us all, but significantly watered down their claims for the products. 
> That remained their position for over a year until they faced the 
> serious prospect of a class action lawsuit being filed in the US.  They 
> then realised that the magnitude of the case could break the company and 
> took it seriously, making several options available to affected 
> customers to prevent the issue reaching court.  One such step was to 
> bring encapsulated inks to market much sooner in the Photo Stylus 2000P 
> - less gamut and photo realism, but fully protected and stable inks.
> 
> You will find the Epson / Wilhelm saga all documented on several web 
> sites including
> 
> http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/ (a good account of the effect but 
> limited in comment because of the NDA Bob signed to get access to Epson 
> experimental media.)
> http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/ (a bit OTT on the personal 
> involvement, but fairly accurate chronology of events)
> 
> So it is quite wrong to assume, as I and many others did only a few 
> years ago, that Wilhelm's testing gives any "indication of how the 
> ink/paper will react over time".  That is only true IF the mechanism 
> being tested is the dominant mechanism for the media - and with new 
> papers and inks, who can know that for sure?  The fact that Wilhelm's 
> test procedures do not account for normal use does, as =(8) said, make 
> them as worthless as dog poo to the average user, and it is quite 
> irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
> 
> That is not to detract from Wilhelm's work.  He did an incredible job 
> standing up to the big yellow god to begin with and bringing their 
> shortcomings to public notice, despite extended legal battles.  And his 
> continued work is of value for museums and galleries worldwide, where 
> the conditions of his test chambers are often replicated, thus making 
> his results relevant.  However it is completely misleading and downright 
> wrong to use Wilhelm's work to give any indication of print life under 
> average user conditions.  It is completely irrelevant to the average 
> user hanging inkjet prints on their walls.


I disagree with you.  As there's no hard data from long term "real" 
exposure testing available - and there never will be when product 
development cycles are a year or two but where tens or even hundreds of 
years display permanence is sought, there's nothing better than 
accelerated testing to go on.  Accelerated testing is not a new idea - 
and mistaken conclusions from accelerated testing of materials are 
hardly limited to print permanence.  But when a mistake is discovered 
(be it the silicone sealant used to seal the windows in the Sydney opera 
house, the durability of some ceramic prosthetic hip joints, or gas 
fading of dye based inkjet prints) then once it's identified it can be 
allowed for in testing (and will likely force a change in design).
Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR 
from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall. 
  But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an 
ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.

Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message 
news:463bbc07$0$17253$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:pJ6dnZJkkbEcPKbbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Bill Again wrote:
>>> "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with 
>>>> real world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold 
>>>> fluxuations, airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? 
>>>> All of why by the way plays an important part in the life of anything 
>>>> you place on your walls?
>>>>
>>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in 
>>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their 
>>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to 
>>>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the 
>>>> evironments of the people that will be buying most of these printers, 
>>>> papers and inks and that is the average consumer.
>>>>
>>>> =(8)
>>>
>>> Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what 
>>> you say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are 
>>> nevertheless an indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react 
>>> overtime. This is better than no idea at all.
>>>
>>> So thanks Wayne.
>>
>> My thanks, also; plan to read this week.
>>
>> "=(8)" sure knows a lot, but won't say who he is. Not impressive.
>>
>> -- 
>> John McWilliams
>
> Oh gosh John, someone on a newsgroup not giving their full name and 
> address, I do however agree with Bill but will say that a little more of 
> the variables could have been added to show the affect, of course all long 
> term testing is still only an indication of what might happen.
>

I have not read the Wilhelm article but I will say this.  Permanence testing 
is done using the known processes that affect the majority if not all 
artwork.  The results of this sort of testing are not to be taken literally 
but used as bench marks to compare different ink/paper combinations and 
printing processes.



If testing results state the a certain ink/paper combination or process have 
a life of 150 years, I do not think you are to assume that the print will 
last 150 years; only time can prove that.  The results should be used to 
weigh one product or process against another.  With that said, the testing 
procedures HAVE to remain the same and not be dinked around with over time. 
Else, you end up with apple to oranges test results that do nothing but 
create confusion.



My two cents�



Patrick Ziegler



www.imagequest.ifp3.com

"frederick" <lost@sea.com> wrote in message
news:1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1...
> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR
> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall.
>   But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an
> ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.

And that is where you may be mistaken. As others have pointed out already,
that would ONLY be the case IF the dominant mode of failure was under test,
or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be so. In
fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious.

MrT.

"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:oUTEMJIqv6OGFwWG@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <f1g3r2$5eu$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Bill Again 
> <Bill@addcom.de> writes
>>
>>"=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with 
>>> real
>>> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations,
>>> airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by 
>>> the
>>> way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on your
>>> walls?
>>>
>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in
>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their
>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to
>>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the 
>>> evironments
>>> of the people that will be buying most of these printers, papers and 
>>> inks
>>> and that is the average consumer.
>>>
>>> =(8)
>>
>>Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what 
>>you
>>say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are nevertheless 
>>an
>>indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react overtime. This is
>>better than no idea at all.
>>
> I used to think so too - until the Epson 26-year print fiasco.
>
> Not so very long ago nobody was making any claims for inkjet print 
> longevity - everyone knew inkjet prints were transient, fine for proofs 
> but totally unsuitable for final prints you would hang on your walls for 
> years.  Then, 7 or 8 years ago, Epson introduced their Photo Stylus 870 
> and 1270 printers with new long life media - new inks and new high gloss 
> papers.  They ran a huge advertising campaign highlighting that inkjet 
> prints with their new media not only looked and felt like traditional 
> photos they lasted at least as long.  In fact, Epson claimed the prints 
> wouldn't show signs of fading for at least 26 years and this had been 
> verified by an independent laboratory - none other than the renowned Henry 
> Wilhelm himself.
>
> The new Epson printers and their output became the talk of Internet 
> forums - had anyone ever seen such photorealism from inkjet prints before? 
> Unfortunately, Epson became the subject of even more talk a few months 
> later when reports started to come in of prints on their new media fading 
> in much less than 26 years, but in weeks, days and in some cases only 
> hours!  To be fair, Epson began to look into the problem almost 
> immediately but they handled the situation quite poorly, openly suggesting 
> all sorts of causes - radon gas, pollution etc.  They finally stated that 
> they had simulated the effect in their laboratory with controlled exposure 
> to ozone, which in itself created the urban legend that ozone was indeed 
> the cause of the problems experienced by their users.  Like all urban 
> legends, there was a core of truth surrounded by exaggeration - Epson only 
> claimed they could recreate the problem in the laboratory using ozone, at 
> no time did they suggest ozone was the primary cause.  As it turns out, 
> any oxidising agent caused the problem - even the oxygen in normal air if 
> it was warm enough and was continuously replenished over the surface of 
> the print.  Wilhelm's tests focussed on light fading, in fact, light 
> fading is what made Wilhelm's reputation when outed Kodak's poor 
> resistance to it.  However he hadn't gone any further than that and had, 
> completely wrongly, assumed that light fading was the dominant cause of 
> the short life of inkjet prints too.  His test methods did not consider 
> atmospheric effects - not even a clean atmosphere, let alone common 
> pollutants - and they still don't.
>

Bullshit.  I don't doubt that some people (in high ozone areas) had 
problems, but I still have prints made on my 1270 that look as good as the 
day I printed them, including one just sitting here in my basement office, 
which has a dehumidifier only in terms of atmosphere control.  What's your 
experience?

--
www.mattclara.com 

Mr.T wrote:
> "frederick" <lost@sea.com> wrote in message
> news:1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1...
>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR
>> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall.
>>   But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an
>> ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
> 
> And that is where you may be mistaken. As others have pointed out already,
> that would ONLY be the case IF the dominant mode of failure was under test,
> or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be so. In
> fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious.
> 
Of couse I "may" be mistaken.
Did you read the bit in my original post where I said:
"there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on"
If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and 
does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.
If not, then you're at risk of being dismissed as a scaremongering 
conspiracy theorist, or a Luddite.

Hi all,

Some of you may not have seen my previous interview with Henry:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=39

Certainly longevity testing is still very much a work in progress. They 
are now doing ozone tests, do tests at various humidity levels and are 
now adding the flesh tone tests. The problem is simply one of the number 
of variables. When you start adding various pollutants, etc to the mix 
the number of tests goes up exponentially. I know Henry comes in for a 
lot of flak, and I am and have been critical of some of his test 
approaches, but I do believe that Henry is making a really genuine 
attempt to get it right. Henry advocates testing at a higher light 
intensity than some others do, such as Kodak, for example, to more 
realistically reflect real situations. But he has to standardise on 
something.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
> Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message 
> news:463bbc07$0$17253$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message 
>> news:pJ6dnZJkkbEcPKbbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Bill Again wrote:
>>>> "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with 
>>>>> real world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold 
>>>>> fluxuations, airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? 
>>>>> All of why by the way plays an important part in the life of anything 
>>>>> you place on your walls?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in 
>>>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their 
>>>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to 
>>>>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the 
>>>>> evironments of the people that will be buying most of these printers, 
>>>>> papers and inks and that is the average consumer.
>>>>>
>>>>> =(8)
>>>> Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what 
>>>> you say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are 
>>>> nevertheless an indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react 
>>>> overtime. This is better than no idea at all.
>>>>
>>>> So thanks Wayne.
>>> My thanks, also; plan to read this week.
>>>
>>> "=(8)" sure knows a lot, but won't say who he is. Not impressive.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> John McWilliams
>> Oh gosh John, someone on a newsgroup not giving their full name and 
>> address, I do however agree with Bill but will say that a little more of 
>> the variables could have been added to show the affect, of course all long 
>> term testing is still only an indication of what might happen.
>>
> 
> I have not read the Wilhelm article but I will say this.  Permanence testing 
> is done using the known processes that affect the majority if not all 
> artwork.  The results of this sort of testing are not to be taken literally 
> but used as bench marks to compare different ink/paper combinations and 
> printing processes.
> 
> 
> 
> If testing results state the a certain ink/paper combination or process have 
> a life of 150 years, I do not think you are to assume that the print will 
> last 150 years; only time can prove that.  The results should be used to 
> weigh one product or process against another.  With that said, the testing 
> procedures HAVE to remain the same and not be dinked around with over time. 
> Else, you end up with apple to oranges test results that do nothing but 
> create confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> My two cents�
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Ziegler
> 
> 
> 
> www.imagequest.ifp3.com
> 
> 

Henry has tried to calibrate his processes as much as possible by 
seeking out traditional photographic prints of known age and known 
display conditions (or dark storage conditions) and comparing darks 
stored and displayed prints prepared at the same time. He actively seeks 
out, say, portrait photographers in small towns who stored prints for 
customers and where an identical print was hung in the same place for 
many years, etc. All this is imperfect, but he is at least trying.

Personally I have always been critical of his using a years rating at 
all, preferring an open-ended numerical scale, but Henry feels 
otherwise, but often makes the point that it is a relative rather than 
an absolute year rating. Personally I've always felt that if you mention 
years then that is how people will take it. Henry and I have agreed to 
disagree.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



frederick wrote:
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <f1g3r2$5eu$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Bill Again 
>> <Bill@addcom.de> writes
>>>
>>> "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test 
>>>> with real
>>>> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations,
>>>> airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why 
>>>> by the
>>>> way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on your
>>>> walls?
>>>>
>>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in
>>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their
>>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to
>>>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the 
>>>> evironments
>>>> of the people that will be buying most of these printers, papers and 
>>>> inks
>>>> and that is the average consumer.
>>>>
>>>> =(8)
>>>
>>> Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of 
>>> what you
>>> say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are 
>>> nevertheless an
>>> indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react overtime. This is
>>> better than no idea at all.
>>>
>> I used to think so too - until the Epson 26-year print fiasco.
>>
>> Not so very long ago nobody was making any claims for inkjet print 
>> longevity - everyone knew inkjet prints were transient, fine for 
>> proofs but totally unsuitable for final prints you would hang on your 
>> walls for years.  Then, 7 or 8 years ago, Epson introduced their Photo 
>> Stylus 870 and 1270 printers with new long life media - new inks and 
>> new high gloss papers.  They ran a huge advertising campaign 
>> highlighting that inkjet prints with their new media not only looked 
>> and felt like traditional photos they lasted at least as long.  In 
>> fact, Epson claimed the prints wouldn't show signs of fading for at 
>> least 26 years and this had been verified by an independent laboratory 
>> - none other than the renowned Henry Wilhelm himself.
>>
>> The new Epson printers and their output became the talk of Internet 
>> forums - had anyone ever seen such photorealism from inkjet prints 
>> before?  Unfortunately, Epson became the subject of even more talk a 
>> few months later when reports started to come in of prints on their 
>> new media fading in much less than 26 years, but in weeks, days and in 
>> some cases only hours!  To be fair, Epson began to look into the 
>> problem almost immediately but they handled the situation quite 
>> poorly, openly suggesting all sorts of causes - radon gas, pollution 
>> etc.  They finally stated that they had simulated the effect in their 
>> laboratory with controlled exposure to ozone, which in itself created 
>> the urban legend that ozone was indeed the cause of the problems 
>> experienced by their users.  Like all urban legends, there was a core 
>> of truth surrounded by exaggeration - Epson only claimed they could 
>> recreate the problem in the laboratory using ozone, at no time did 
>> they suggest ozone was the primary cause.  As it turns out, any 
>> oxidising agent caused the problem - even the oxygen in normal air if 
>> it was warm enough and was continuously replenished over the surface 
>> of the print.  Wilhelm's tests focussed on light fading, in fact, 
>> light fading is what made Wilhelm's reputation when outed Kodak's poor 
>> resistance to it.  However he hadn't gone any further than that and 
>> had, completely wrongly, assumed that light fading was the dominant 
>> cause of the short life of inkjet prints too.  His test methods did 
>> not consider atmospheric effects - not even a clean atmosphere, let 
>> alone common pollutants - and they still don't.
>>
>> Users, and I was amongst the most vocal in the UK, claimed Epson and 
>> Wilhelm had misled them and demanded a product recall.  An open letter 
>> to MacWeek by the late Bruce Fraser, of Photoshop fame, suggested 
>> avoiding Epson products until the problem was resolved.  Epson ignored 
>> us all, but significantly watered down their claims for the products. 
>> That remained their position for over a year until they faced the 
>> serious prospect of a class action lawsuit being filed in the US.  
>> They then realised that the magnitude of the case could break the 
>> company and took it seriously, making several options available to 
>> affected customers to prevent the issue reaching court.  One such step 
>> was to bring encapsulated inks to market much sooner in the Photo 
>> Stylus 2000P - less gamut and photo realism, but fully protected and 
>> stable inks.
>>
>> You will find the Epson / Wilhelm saga all documented on several web 
>> sites including
>>
>> http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/ (a good account of the effect 
>> but limited in comment because of the NDA Bob signed to get access to 
>> Epson experimental media.)
>> http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/ (a bit OTT on the personal 
>> involvement, but fairly accurate chronology of events)
>>
>> So it is quite wrong to assume, as I and many others did only a few 
>> years ago, that Wilhelm's testing gives any "indication of how the 
>> ink/paper will react over time".  That is only true IF the mechanism 
>> being tested is the dominant mechanism for the media - and with new 
>> papers and inks, who can know that for sure?  The fact that Wilhelm's 
>> test procedures do not account for normal use does, as =(8) said, make 
>> them as worthless as dog poo to the average user, and it is quite 
>> irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
>>
>> That is not to detract from Wilhelm's work.  He did an incredible job 
>> standing up to the big yellow god to begin with and bringing their 
>> shortcomings to public notice, despite extended legal battles.  And 
>> his continued work is of value for museums and galleries worldwide, 
>> where the conditions of his test chambers are often replicated, thus 
>> making his results relevant.  However it is completely misleading and 
>> downright wrong to use Wilhelm's work to give any indication of print 
>> life under average user conditions.  It is completely irrelevant to 
>> the average user hanging inkjet prints on their walls.
> 
> 
> I disagree with you.  As there's no hard data from long term "real" 
> exposure testing available - and there never will be when product 
> development cycles are a year or two but where tens or even hundreds of 
> years display permanence is sought, there's nothing better than 
> accelerated testing to go on.  Accelerated testing is not a new idea - 
> and mistaken conclusions from accelerated testing of materials are 
> hardly limited to print permanence.  But when a mistake is discovered 
> (be it the silicone sealant used to seal the windows in the Sydney opera 
> house, the durability of some ceramic prosthetic hip joints, or gas 
> fading of dye based inkjet prints) then once it's identified it can be 
> allowed for in testing (and will likely force a change in design).
> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR 
> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall. 
>  But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an 
> ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.

"frederick" <lost@sea.com> wrote in message
news:1178340486.585243@ftpsrv1...
> >> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year
DPR
> >> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room
wall.
> >>   But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an
> >> ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
> >
> > And that is where you may be mistaken. As others have pointed out
already,
> > that would ONLY be the case IF the dominant mode of failure was under
test,
> > or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be
so. In
> > fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious.
> >
> Of couse I "may" be mistaken.

Glad you admit it then.

> Did you read the bit in my original post where I said:
> "there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on"
> If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and
> does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.
> If not, then you're at risk of being dismissed as a scaremongering
> conspiracy theorist, or a Luddite.

Did you read what others have already written? If not then you are at risk
of being dismisssed as an "osterich", and unable to read or comprehend there
may be other issues besides exposure to light or even heat.
And the "Luddite" would be you if you think you already know everything
there possibly is to know about archival permanance of inkjet prints!

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:
> "frederick" <lost@sea.com> wrote in message
> news:1178340486.585243@ftpsrv1...
>>>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year
> DPR
>>>> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room
> wall.
>>>>   But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an
>>>> ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
>>> And that is where you may be mistaken. As others have pointed out
> already,
>>> that would ONLY be the case IF the dominant mode of failure was under
> test,
>>> or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be
> so. In
>>> fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious.
>>>
>> Of couse I "may" be mistaken.
> 
> Glad you admit it then.
> 
>> Did you read the bit in my original post where I said:
>> "there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on"
>> If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and
>> does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.
>> If not, then you're at risk of being dismissed as a scaremongering
>> conspiracy theorist, or a Luddite.
> 
> Did you read what others have already written? If not then you are at risk
> of being dismisssed as an "osterich", and unable to read or comprehend there
> may be other issues besides exposure to light or even heat.
> And the "Luddite" would be you if you think you already know everything
> there possibly is to know about archival permanance of inkjet prints!
> 
> MrT.
> 
Yep - I read it.
I'm waiting for you to suggest a possible mechanism for decay of inkjet 
(or any other form of printed media) that Wilhelm doesn't allow for.

In article <0fednUrBRMH9WqbbnZ2dnUVZ_v6tnZ2d@giganews.com>, DBLEXPOSURE 
<celstuff@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>I have not read the Wilhelm article but I will say this.  Permanence testing
>is done using the known processes that affect the majority if not all
>artwork.  The results of this sort of testing are not to be taken literally
>but used as bench marks to compare different ink/paper combinations and
>printing processes.
>
>
>
>If testing results state the a certain ink/paper combination or process have
>a life of 150 years, I do not think you are to assume that the print will
>last 150 years; only time can prove that.  The results should be used to
>weigh one product or process against another.

Except it doesn't turn out that way in practice.  In 1999, several 
manufacturers offered printers with inks and papers which could be 
reliably expected to last several months without noticeable fading. Then 
Epson released their long life printers and, on the basis of Wilhelm's 
measurements and comparisons with existing inkjet media at the time, 
claimed a 26 year life when the inks were used with their most expensive 
paper.  Even though that 26 years only applied to a specific set of 
conditions, your argument suggests the Epson media should have been 
superior to earlier product - instead, it was MUCH worse!
The Wilhelm test means jack sh!t UNLESS you use his EXACT display 
methods, which are not generic.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article <1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes
>Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year 
>DPR from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room 
>wall.  But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer 
>than an ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.

Then you have missed the whole point of the article I posted because 
Wilhelm tested Epson media and others available at the time.  Whilst 
most media had display lives of the order of a few months, Wilhelm 
assessed the Epson ink and gloss media to have 26 YEARS of life - much 
better than anything available.  Nobody expected to achieve 26 years 
unless the exact test conditions were used.  Many people made exactly 
the same mistake as you have suggested and expected 26 years to indicate 
that "it would last much longer than an ink/paper combination rated at" 
months.  They were WRONG, and so are you!

The fact is that Epson got into problems with the claims they made based 
on Wilhelm's testing because the test was meaningless and their prints 
only lasted days and, in some cases, hours!
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article <1178340486.585243@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes
>Mr.T wrote:
>> "frederick" <lost@sea.com> wrote in message
>> news:1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1...
>>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR
>>> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall.
>>>   But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an
>>> ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
>>  And that is where you may be mistaken. As others have pointed out 
>>already,
>> that would ONLY be the case IF the dominant mode of failure was under test,
>> or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be so. In
>> fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious.
>>
>Of couse I "may" be mistaken.
>Did you read the bit in my original post where I said:
>"there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on"
>If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and 
>does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.

He did - as did Epson!

As it turned out, if Epson had simply undertaken reasonable consumer 
tests (not even extending to the "use and abuse" testing required under 
EU legislation) this problem would have come to light long before the 
product reached the shelves.  Instead, they placed far too much belief 
in the results of Wilhelm's measurements and ignored the normal consumer 
testing and feedback approach until the problem reached the mainstream 
press and lawcourts.  As you would see from some of the web pages I 
listed, Epson had to resort to exactly such consumer testing to 
significantly reduce the problem with improved product, with the testers 
signing Non Disclosure Agreements with them.  At that point, Wilhelm's 
test took a back seat and, whilst they still feature on Epson 
documentation, they no longer make unlimited claims based on Wilhelm 
data.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article <Sd6dnToL1NLuRqbbnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Matt Clara 
<hey.wood.y@buzz.off> writes
>
>Bullshit.

The only bullshit is your inability to read historical facts.

>I don't doubt that some people (in high ozone areas) had
>problems, but I still have prints made on my 1270 that look as good as the
>day I printed them, including one just sitting here in my basement office,
>which has a dehumidifier only in terms of atmosphere control.

Big deal, so do I and so do many 1270 users - that doesn't mean the 
problem was only limited to "high ozone" areas as you suggest, otherwise 
I would never have experienced the problem in the first place and become 
active in its partial resolution.

That is part the problem - it takes more than one parameter to induce 
the effect.  The combination of those parameters is very common but not 
universal.  Initially the worst cases were limited to the specific paper 
which Wilhelm rated highest, and which Epson had to subsequently 
withdraw.  It applied to a much lesser extent on most of their media, 
even though these were rated lower by Wilhelm, a problem made worse by 
the fact that they were not recommended by Epson for highest archival 
quality.  It is still worst on the paper Epson introduced to replace the 
withdrawn version, although that is at least an order of magnitude more 
robust than the original (in terms of time to achieve the same level of 
fading under identical conditions).

So the fact that you have 1270 prints that "look as good as the day I 
printed them" means absolutely nothing and was, in fact, one of the 
obfuscation factors in resolving the problem.  Search the records and 
you will find many folks who made exactly the same claims as you - and a 
majority of those who subsequently changed their views after time and 
use of the specific media that Epson and Wilhelm made the claims for.

If I had a penny for every one of the 870/1270 users who claimed the 
problem didn't exist yet who, on further investigation, had never even 
used the long life media that Epson and Wilhelm were making their claims 
for then I would have no need to earn a living today!

>  What's your
>experience?
>
My experience of the issue is well documented in the archives of this 
and other forums where the subject was discussed at the time.  I was 
also the first point of contact Epson made within their European 
customer base when they finally decided to act in resolving the problem 
instead of ignoring it.  Again, all verifiable in the open archives 
should you require evidence.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
news:463c280f$0$3785$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi all,
>
> Some of you may not have seen my previous interview with Henry:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=39
>
> Certainly longevity testing is still very much a work in progress. They 
> are now doing ozone tests, do tests at various humidity levels and are now 
> adding the flesh tone tests. The problem is simply one of the number of 
> variables. When you start adding various pollutants, etc to the mix the 
> number of tests goes up exponentially. I know Henry comes in for a lot of 
> flak, and I am and have been critical of some of his test approaches, but 
> I do believe that Henry is making a really genuine attempt to get it 
> right. Henry advocates testing at a higher light intensity than some 
> others do, such as Kodak, for example, to more realistically reflect real 
> situations. But he has to standardise on something.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
> http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
>
>
>
> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>> Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
>> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message 
>> news:463bbc07$0$17253$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:pJ6dnZJkkbEcPKbbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Bill Again wrote:
>>>>> "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with 
>>>>>> real world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold 
>>>>>> fluxuations, airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? 
>>>>>> All of why by the way plays an important part in the life of anything 
>>>>>> you place on your walls?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in 
>>>>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their 
>>>>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying 
>>>>>> to duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the 
>>>>>> evironments of the people that will be buying most of these printers, 
>>>>>> papers and inks and that is the average consumer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =(8)
>>>>> Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of 
>>>>> what you say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are 
>>>>> nevertheless an indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react 
>>>>> overtime. This is better than no idea at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> So thanks Wayne.
>>>> My thanks, also; plan to read this week.
>>>>
>>>> "=(8)" sure knows a lot, but won't say who he is. Not impressive.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> John McWilliams
>>> Oh gosh John, someone on a newsgroup not giving their full name and 
>>> address, I do however agree with Bill but will say that a little more of 
>>> the variables could have been added to show the affect, of course all 
>>> long term testing is still only an indication of what might happen.
>>>
>>
>> I have not read the Wilhelm article but I will say this.  Permanence 
>> testing is done using the known processes that affect the majority if not 
>> all artwork.  The results of this sort of testing are not to be taken 
>> literally but used as bench marks to compare different ink/paper 
>> combinations and printing processes.
>>
>>
>>
>> If testing results state the a certain ink/paper combination or process 
>> have a life of 150 years, I do not think you are to assume that the print 
>> will last 150 years; only time can prove that.  The results should be 
>> used to weigh one product or process against another.  With that said, 
>> the testing procedures HAVE to remain the same and not be dinked around 
>> with over time. Else, you end up with apple to oranges test results that 
>> do nothing but create confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> My two cents�
>>
>>
>>
>> Patrick Ziegler
>>
>>
>>
>> www.imagequest.ifp3.com
>>

That is all fine and dandy but then they and the printer makers have no 
business pushing their less than accurate numbers like they are gods gospel. 
They need to stop with the fine print disclaimers that in the end basically 
tell you the testing is bullshit and be more up front about things. Hiding 
it in fine print they know most people never read just shows how greedy and 
untrustworthy the printer companies are and just how worthless the Willhelm 
testing is.

If they really wanted to do real world testing they would take the prints 
home and hang them on their walls and do their readings from that as well as 
provide the information from the controlled labs tests. Until they do real 
world testing outside of a lab their test results will always be shit.

As for the printer makers paying them and the money having to come from 
someplace, that too is shit. Consumer reports does just fine without 
advertising and many from the manufacturers. Now of course consumer reports 
recommendations suck 99% of the time, but at least they suck because they 
are clueless and not because of ad money or kickbacks from the 
manufacturers.

=(8) 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <f1g3r2$5eu$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Bill Again 
> <Bill@addcom.de> writes
>>
>>"=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real
>>> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations,
>>> airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by the
>>> way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on your
>>> walls?
>>>
>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in
>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their
>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to
>>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the evironments
>>> of the people that will be buying most of these printers, papers and inks
>>> and that is the average consumer.
>>>
>>> =(8)
>>
>>Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what you
>>say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are nevertheless an
>>indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react overtime. This is
>>better than no idea at all.
>>
> I used to think so too - until the Epson 26-year print fiasco.
> 
> Not so very long ago nobody was making any claims for inkjet print 
> longevity - everyone knew inkjet prints were transient, fine for proofs 
> but totally unsuitable for final prints you would hang on your walls for 
> years.  Then, 7 or 8 years ago, Epson introduced their Photo Stylus 870 
> and 1270 printers with new long life media - new inks and new high gloss 
> papers.  They ran a huge advertising campaign highlighting that inkjet 
> prints with their new media not only looked and felt like traditional 
> photos they lasted at least as long.  In fact, Epson claimed the prints 
> wouldn't show signs of fading for at least 26 years and this had been 
> verified by an independent laboratory - none other than the renowned 
> Henry Wilhelm himself.
> 
>...[snip--the prints didn't do all that well]
> 
> You will find the Epson / Wilhelm saga all documented on several web 
> sites including
> 
> http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/ (a good account of the effect but 
> limited in comment because of the NDA Bob signed to get access to Epson 
> experimental media.)
> http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/ (a bit OTT on the personal 
> involvement, but fairly accurate chronology of events)
> 
> So it is quite wrong to assume, as I and many others did only a few 
> years ago, that Wilhelm's testing gives any "indication of how the 
> ink/paper will react over time".  That is only true IF the mechanism 
> being tested is the dominant mechanism for the media - and with new 
> papers and inks, who can know that for sure?  The fact that Wilhelm's 
> test procedures do not account for normal use does, as =(8) said, make 
> them as worthless as dog poo to the average user, and it is quite 
> irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
> 
> That is not to detract from Wilhelm's work.  He did an incredible job 
> standing up to the big yellow god to begin with and bringing their 
> shortcomings to public notice, despite extended legal battles.  And his 
> continued work is of value for museums and galleries worldwide, where 
> the conditions of his test chambers are often replicated, thus making 
> his results relevant.  However it is completely misleading and downright 
> wrong to use Wilhelm's work to give any indication of print life under 
> average user conditions.  It is completely irrelevant to the average 
> user hanging inkjet prints on their walls.

Background: among other things I'm a chemist and have also had an 
education in parts reliability. Failure rates of parts can be 
accelerated by testing at temperatures higher than the design 
temperature range, then corrected for normal use using Arrhenius' Law. 
The same testing acceleration could be done for temperature interactions 
with photo prints, then corrected back to "normal" conditions.

The average digital photo guy prints his photo on good, not archival 
paper (is there such a thing as archival paper for inkjets?). The things 
that fade prints include light, chemical interactions with the paper, 
and possible chemical interactions with mounting materials or fingerprints.

This stuff can all be tested in the short term by increasing temperature 
or (in the case of light) by using higher intensity light.

While Wilhelm did his test with Epson inks versus generic inks, the same 
could be done with HP ink, Canon ink, toner, and so forth.

Personal experience with Epson and HP jet inks is that they both fade in 
normal room light.  I have an HP printer right now, mostly because they 
seem to last longer than Epson printers. No experience with Canon.
-- 
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

On May 5, 11:09 am, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote in messagenews:463c280f$0$3785$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > Some of you may not have seen my previous interview with Henry:
> >http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=39
>
> > Certainly longevity testing is still very much a work in progress. They
> > are now doing ozone tests, do tests at various humidity levels and are now
> > adding the flesh tone tests. The problem is simply one of the number of
> > variables. When you start adding various pollutants, etc to the mix the
> > number of tests goes up exponentially. I know Henry comes in for a lot of
> > flak, and I am and have been critical of some of his test approaches, but
> > I do believe that Henry is making a really genuine attempt to get it
> > right. Henry advocates testing at a higher light intensity than some
> > others do, such as Kodak, for example, to more realistically reflect real
> > situations. But he has to standardise on something.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Wayne
>
> > Wayne J. Cosshall
> > Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> > Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> > Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
> >http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> > Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
>
> > DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
> >> Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
> >> "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> >>news:463bbc07$0$17253$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>> "John McWilliams" <j...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:pJ6dnZJkkbEcPKbbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>>> Bill Again wrote:
> >>>>> "=(8)" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >>>>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with
> >>>>>> real world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold
> >>>>>> fluxuations, airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances?
> >>>>>> All of why by the way plays an important part in the life of anything
> >>>>>> you place on your walls?
>
> >>>>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in
> >>>>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their
> >>>>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying
> >>>>>> to duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the
> >>>>>> evironments of the people that will be buying most of these printers,
> >>>>>> papers and inks and that is the average consumer.
>
> >>>>>> =(8)
> >>>>> Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of
> >>>>> what you say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are
> >>>>> nevertheless an indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react
> >>>>> overtime. This is better than no idea at all.
>
> >>>>> So thanks Wayne.
> >>>> My thanks, also; plan to read this week.
>
> >>>> "=(8)" sure knows a lot, but won't say who he is. Not impressive.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> John McWilliams
> >>> Oh gosh John, someone on a newsgroup not giving their full name and
> >>> address, I do however agree with Bill but will say that a little more of
> >>> the variables could have been added to show the affect, of course all
> >>> long term testing is still only an indication of what might happen.
>
> >> I have not read the Wilhelm article but I will say this.  Permanence
> >> testing is done using the known processes that affect the majority if not
> >> all artwork.  The results of this sort of testing are not to be taken
> >> literally but used as bench marks to compare different ink/paper
> >> combinations and printing processes.
>
> >> If testing results state the a certain ink/paper combination or process
> >> have a life of 150 years, I do not think you are to assume that the print
> >> will last 150 years; only time can prove that.  The results should be
> >> used to weigh one product or process against another.  With that said,
> >> the testing procedures HAVE to remain the same and not be dinked around
> >> with over time. Else, you end up with apple to oranges test results that
> >> do nothing but create confusion.
>
> >> My two cents...
>
> >> Patrick Ziegler
>
> >>www.imagequest.ifp3.com
>
> That is all fine and dandy but then they and the printer makers have no
> business pushing their less than accurate numbers like they are gods gospel.
> They need to stop with the fine print disclaimers that in the end basically
> tell you the testing is bullshit and be more up front about things. Hiding
> it in fine print they know most people never read just shows how greedy and
> untrustworthy the printer companies are and just how worthless the Willhelm
> testing is.
>
> If they really wanted to do real world testing they would take the prints
> home and hang them on their walls and do their readings from that as well as
> provide the information from the controlled labs tests. Until they do real
> world testing outside of a lab their test results will always be shit.
>
> As for the printer makers paying them and the money having to come from
> someplace, that too is shit. Consumer reports does just fine without
> advertising and many from the manufacturers. Now of course consumer reports
> recommendations suck 99% of the time, but at least they suck because they
> are clueless and not because of ad money or kickbacks from the
> manufacturers.
>
> =(8)


What you are saying is ancient history. Henry Wilhelm admits he
screwed up on the 1270 Epson inks. It took Epson a while but they
pulled the inks off the market. Funny though we had a 1270 in the
studio where I was working and our prints lasted fine it was really a
location, pollutant thing. For what it is worth just having a copier
or laser printer in a closed room with a photo or inkjet print will
greatly decrease the life expectancy. Right now Wilhelm does the best
work around, He originally outted Kodak but he also showed that Fuji
Crystal Archive paper has a life expectancy of 40 some years not 75 as
Fuji says. That is using the same parameters as what gives HP Vivera
inks a 200 year life expectancy. When getting up to the 100 and 200
year levels accelerated testing is all that can be done and Wilhelm
has become the standard for printing materials. Whether there is a you
divide the time by 2.5 as been suggested or just take it as a
standard, and know that a 25 year Wilhelm life expectancy will last
less than a product with a 100 year Wilhelm lfe expectancy. It isn't
crap it is just all we've got to go on. If you sell inkjet prints you
will know that this is the first question a serious buyer will ask. If
you give them the Wihelm numbers they are generally satisfied.
Some folks just can't forgive a mistake.

Tom

>
> Background: among other things I'm a chemist and have also had an
> education in parts reliability. Failure rates of parts can be
> accelerated by testing at temperatures higher than the design
> temperature range, then corrected for normal use using Arrhenius' Law.
> The same testing acceleration could be done for temperature interactions
> with photo prints, then corrected back to "normal" conditions.
>
> The average digital photo guy prints his photo on good, not archival
> paper (is there such a thing as archival paper for inkjets?). The things
> that fade prints include light, chemical interactions with the paper,
> and possible chemical interactions with mounting materials or fingerprints.

There is a lot of high end papers for inkjets, cotton base acid free.

>
> This stuff can all be tested in the short term by increasing temperature
> or (in the case of light) by using higher intensity light.
>
> While Wilhelm did his test with Epson inks versus generic inks, the same
> could be done with HP ink, Canon ink, toner, and so forth.
>
> Personal experience with Epson and HP jet inks is that they both fade in
> normal room light.  I have an HP printer right now, mostly because they
> seem to last longer than Epson printers. No experience with Canon.

You haven't used the high end inkjet materials, pigment ink greatly
enhances life expectancy, past that of color photos. What you have
seen is dye inks, without special swellable emulsion papers (this came
from the Epson ink fiasco) dye inks just don't last. Most papers are
not swellable, though dye prints will generally list the papers that
will work best with their inks. We ahve 4 or 5 years old prints from a
dye ink printer on swellable emulsion papers. HPs is HP Premium Photo
paper, Epson's used to be called Epson Colorlife paper it wa
savailable in gloss and luster finishes. Ilford has Gallerie Classic
in gloss and luster for dye inks.

Tom

=(8) wrote:
>
> If they really wanted to do real world testing they would take the 
> prints home and hang them on their walls and do their readings from that 
> as well as provide the information from the controlled labs tests. Until 
> they do real world testing outside of a lab their test results will 
> always be shit.

So the prints last 25 years before they start to fade hanging on the 
wall. So, in 2032 they can release the printer onto the market with 
validation that prints will last 25 years. Or let's say that the 80 
years claim turns out to be true. The we could see the printer on the 
market in 2087. Accelerated testing methods have their place.
Allen

Critical to be able to map accelerated test data for image permanence
on to real world projections is to know what the real world is like.
And the only way to do that is to go out and make systematic
measurements in the environment for which you are trying to make
predictions. (An office, for example, is quite different from a home
which is quite different from a museum.)

That takes time, money, and discipline, and to my knowledge only one
organization has done this world-wide and published the results in a
refereed journal where other photoscientists could critical examine
the data before and after publication (it's not Wilhelm Imaging
Research).

Look up the papers by Dr. Douglas Bugner and colleagues (and before
that by Anderson and co-workers), all in the Journal of Imaging
Science . They measured light, temperature, humidity, and ozone in
homes around the world. They did continuous measurements, not spot
readings which can vary by more than a factor of ten over the course
of a day. They measured it in different seasons. And they measured the
power spectrum of the light in the homes, which is critical to using
the right light in testing (you can even get the wrong rank order of
dye fade--one product to another--if you use the wrong light
spectrum).

And then they did what one poster suggested: they hung real prints in
real homes and checked over a ten year period--not to see how those
particular materials faded, but   to calibrate their test methods.

Further, work by those authors, as well as yet to be published work by
Adam Bush has shown that balancing those four factors in the right
proportion is absolutely necessary to even predict that one print
product will last longer than another in the real world. To put it
bluntly, you will get the wrong answer--not just in years but in
relative ranking if you don't use typical real world values.

(By the way, look at the data offered by some testing sites on the
web: strange how some products tests for, say, ozone are still "in
progress" several years after the light tests are published, even
though ozone tests are the fastest to do. Remember, manufacturers pay
for those tests.)

Bottom line: tests run under the wrong conditions--the infamous
"window test" is a good example--won't tell you which print material
will have the best image permanence in a real world environment--
unless your real world enviroment is mounting in a window.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes
>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year 
>> DPR from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room 
>> wall.  But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer 
>> than an ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
> 
> Then you have missed the whole point of the article I posted because 
> Wilhelm tested Epson media and others available at the time.  Whilst 
> most media had display lives of the order of a few months, Wilhelm 
> assessed the Epson ink and gloss media to have 26 YEARS of life - much 
> better than anything available.  Nobody expected to achieve 26 years 
> unless the exact test conditions were used.  Many people made exactly 
> the same mistake as you have suggested and expected 26 years to indicate 
> that "it would last much longer than an ink/paper combination rated at" 
> months.  They were WRONG, and so are you!
> 
> The fact is that Epson got into problems with the claims they made based 
> on Wilhelm's testing because the test was meaningless and their prints 
> only lasted days and, in some cases, hours!

I don't believe that I've missed the whole point at all.  I don't 
dispute that gas fading caused a big headache, but gas fading is "old news".
What's the new equivalent to "gas fading" that's going to mean that 
users of current inkjet printers will have problems like that?
Anyway, users looking for longevity shouldn't IMO be using dye inksets, 
as even if gas fading isn't the issue it was, the papers are unsuitable 
for unframed display.  Pigment ink printers are available from Canon, 
HP, Epson, they offer waterproof prints, and gas fading is not an issue 
with them.

In article <z4adnWjjnaYnJKHbnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@comcast.com>, Pat O'Connell 
<gypkap@comcast.net> writes
>
>Background: among other things I'm a chemist and have also had an 
>education in parts reliability. Failure rates of parts can be 
>accelerated by testing at temperatures higher than the design 
>temperature range, then corrected for normal use using Arrhenius' Law. 
>The same testing acceleration could be done for temperature 
>interactions with photo prints, then corrected back to "normal" conditions.
>
>The average digital photo guy prints his photo on good, not archival 
>paper (is there such a thing as archival paper for inkjets?).

Indeed there is.  Epson had their own version called Epson Archival 
Matte Paper, however they claimed even better results for Epson Premium 
Glossy Paper

>The things that fade prints include light, chemical interactions with 
>the paper, and possible chemical interactions with mounting materials 
>or fingerprints.
>
And chemical interactions with the ink itself - in the Epson case this 
was the cyan ink, with the light cyan being more susceptible than the 
dark cyan.

>This stuff can all be tested in the short term by increasing 
>temperature or (in the case of light) by using higher intensity light.
>
As a chemist, you will know that the results obtained by intensification 
of one parameter bear no relevance to those obtained by accelerated 
testing of other activating mechanisms.  That is precisely the mistake 
Wilhelm made - he ignored everything but light - because light was the 
big issue with his Kodak war.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article <1178435144.752989@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes
>>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year 
>>>DPR from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining 
>>>room  wall.  But you can be highly confident that it will last much 
>>>longer  than an ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
>>  Then you have missed the whole point of the article I posted because 
>>Wilhelm tested Epson media and others available at the time.  Whilst 
>>most media had display lives of the order of a few months, Wilhelm 
>>assessed the Epson ink and gloss media to have 26 YEARS of life - much 
>>better than anything available.  Nobody expected to achieve 26 years 
>>unless the exact test conditions were used.  Many people made exactly 
>>the same mistake as you have suggested and expected 26 years to 
>>indicate  that "it would last much longer than an ink/paper 
>>combination rated at"  months.  They were WRONG, and so are you!
>>  The fact is that Epson got into problems with the claims they made 
>>based  on Wilhelm's testing because the test was meaningless and their 
>>prints  only lasted days and, in some cases, hours!
>
>I don't believe that I've missed the whole point at all.  I don't 
>dispute that gas fading caused a big headache, but gas fading is "old 
>news".

Whether it is old or new news doesn't make it irrelevant.  The fact is 
that you cannot draw any conclusions from the Wilhelm testing that are 
relevant to the real world or any conditions other than those he tests 
under.  Not knowing what the next unexpected cause of premature print 
aging only makes that more obvious.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article <1178389738.867158.178660@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, 
tomm42 <tmonego@wildblue.net> writes
>
>
>What you are saying is ancient history. Henry Wilhelm admits he
>screwed up on the 1270 Epson inks. It took Epson a while but they
>pulled the inks off the market.

Wrong!  The inks currently available for the 1270 (and the 870, 880, 890 
and 1280) are still exactly the same as the original inks and have 
exactly the same problems.  In fact Epson admitted that they could have 
taken the inks off the market and replaced them with less bleach prone, 
but otherwise less stable, inks but specifically ruled that option out 
because it would "change the colour characteristics" of the inks and 
would require new profiles to be loaded into all of the printers already 
sold.  For customers who were unaware of the problem this would have 
resulted in an unacceptable loss of quality and fade free life in their 
prints.

>Funny though we had a 1270 in the
>studio where I was working and our prints lasted fine it was really a
>location, pollutant thing.

Wrong again.  It was an oxidation thing - specifically oxidation of the 
cyan ink, with the light cyan ink being much more susceptible to 
oxidation that the dark ink.  *ANY* oxidant that came into contact with 
the ink in the right conditions (mainly temperature, pressure and 
continuous replenishment) bleached the cyan ink.  Pollution often 
REDUCES the amount of oxidants, specifically ozone, available at low 
altitudes.

Ozone is a strong oxidant which certainly caused the ink to bleach 
rapidly under significant concentrations and that is why it was used by 
Epson to assess how robust their proposed solutions to the problem were. 
However oxygen itself is quite an aggressive oxidant - if it wasn't you 
wouldn't be alive - and when exposed to a continuous flow of warm air 
the cyan ink faded in a matter of days.  In still, or fairly stable air, 
the inks were fairly stable, especially if the temperature was below 
35degC.

Pollution level actually caused quite a problem in identifying the cause 
of the Epson orange plague because there were many cases of people 
living in high pollution environments without fading prints who sent 
copies to people in low pollution areas which subsequently faded and 
vice versa.  I myself, for example, took sample prints with me on a trip 
to the Amazon in Brazil, probably the least polluted area of the planet, 
but they faded faster there than almost anywhere else I tested, and 
certainly much faster than here at home in the English countryside, a 
relatively low pollution environment by western standards.

>For what it is worth just having a copier
>or laser printer in a closed room with a photo or inkjet print will
>greatly decrease the life expectancy.

No, it doesn't - a guy called Nai-Chi Lee specifically tested this when 
ozone was first suggested as a cause.  The results showed that unless 
the temperature of the environment was above 28degC then a print could 
be left INSIDE a laser printer with no effect visible after several 
months.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <1178435144.752989@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>> In article <1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes
>>>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year 
>>>> DPR from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining 
>>>> room  wall.  But you can be highly confident that it will last much 
>>>> longer  than an ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
>>>  Then you have missed the whole point of the article I posted because 
>>> Wilhelm tested Epson media and others available at the time.  Whilst 
>>> most media had display lives of the order of a few months, Wilhelm 
>>> assessed the Epson ink and gloss media to have 26 YEARS of life - 
>>> much better than anything available.  Nobody expected to achieve 26 
>>> years unless the exact test conditions were used.  Many people made 
>>> exactly the same mistake as you have suggested and expected 26 years 
>>> to indicate  that "it would last much longer than an ink/paper 
>>> combination rated at"  months.  They were WRONG, and so are you!
>>>  The fact is that Epson got into problems with the claims they made 
>>> based  on Wilhelm's testing because the test was meaningless and 
>>> their prints  only lasted days and, in some cases, hours!
>>
>> I don't believe that I've missed the whole point at all.  I don't 
>> dispute that gas fading caused a big headache, but gas fading is "old 
>> news".
> 
> Whether it is old or new news doesn't make it irrelevant.  The fact is 
> that you cannot draw any conclusions from the Wilhelm testing that are 
> relevant to the real world or any conditions other than those he tests 
> under.  Not knowing what the next unexpected cause of premature print 
> aging only makes that more obvious.
Then exactly the same criticism must apply to any process.  Perhaps the 
only close to 100% safe method for colour is to archive digital files - 
but then another can of worms is opened.  YMMV and we can only go on the 
best information that is available.

In article <1178485982.927029@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>  Whether it is old or new news doesn't make it irrelevant.  The fact 
>>is  that you cannot draw any conclusions from the Wilhelm testing that 
>>are  relevant to the real world or any conditions other than those he 
>>tests  under.  Not knowing what the next unexpected cause of premature 
>>print  aging only makes that more obvious.
>Then exactly the same criticism must apply to any process.  Perhaps the 
>only close to 100% safe method for colour is to archive digital files - 
>but then another can of worms is opened.  YMMV and we can only go on 
>the best information that is available.

Not at all - you can always archive according to the exact same 
conditions that Wilhelm tests under - that is precisely what his tests 
are for.  However, if you use his results to imply longevity, even 
relative longevity against other similarly tested media, under any other 
circumstances then all bets are off.

That is exactly what =(8) said in his original post in this thread and I 
am pleased to see that someone has at last understood what he meant, 
because those who continue to tout Wilhelm's results as relevant under 
any other circumstances do no service to Wilhelm, inkjet print 
manufacturers or typical users.

To make it plain and simple, Wilhelm attempts to keep all but one 
variable stable in his tests.  Museums and galleries can do the same, 
which is where the value of his work actually lies.   Unless you, the 
average user, do the same then the results of his tests are worthless. 
Obviously they cannot be relied on absolutely, but they cannot even be 
relied on relatively either.  History has borne this out.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <1178485982.927029@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>>  Whether it is old or new news doesn't make it irrelevant.  The fact 
>>> is  that you cannot draw any conclusions from the Wilhelm testing 
>>> that are  relevant to the real world or any conditions other than 
>>> those he tests  under.  Not knowing what the next unexpected cause of 
>>> premature print  aging only makes that more obvious.
>> Then exactly the same criticism must apply to any process.  Perhaps 
>> the only close to 100% safe method for colour is to archive digital 
>> files - but then another can of worms is opened.  YMMV and we can only 
>> go on the best information that is available.
> 
> Not at all - you can always archive according to the exact same 
> conditions that Wilhelm tests under - that is precisely what his tests 
> are for.  However, if you use his results to imply longevity, even 
> relative longevity against other similarly tested media, under any other 
> circumstances then all bets are off.
> 
My comment was based on a more practical expectation.  There isn't 
another colour photographic print reproduction method available to 
"normal people" that doesn't have the same limitation (lack of "real 
world" testing vs accelerated laboratory testing), so you do the best 
that you can do under the circumstances.

On 2007-05-04 06:19:38 -0700, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> said:

> Hi All,
> 
> I've posted a long article in my column on an interview I had earlier 
> today with Henry Wilhelm:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wayne

Dang! I would like to have asked him about Epson's new cartridges for 
the R2400 photo stylus. Epson claims a print life of 200 years.
-- 
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
news:463b32eb$0$27780$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi All,
>
> I've posted a long article in my column on an interview I had earlier 
> today with Henry Wilhelm:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> -- 
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
> http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/

I've had a toned Cyanotype print, made from a digital negative, on a sunny 
window cill at work since April 2006, no sign of it fading.

Jem 

Yes, it is impressive how fade resistant many of the old processes are, 
which is one reason to keep working with them. Using a digital negative 
is quite a nice way to work. I did a salt print workshop a few months back:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=911
and loved it. I've done cyanotypes and gum bichromate in the past. It is 
all good.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Jem Raid wrote:
> "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
> news:463b32eb$0$27780$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've posted a long article in my column on an interview I had earlier 
>> today with Henry Wilhelm:
>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> -- 
>> Wayne J. Cosshall
>> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
>> http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>> Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
> 
> I've had a toned Cyanotype print, made from a digital negative, on a sunny 
> window cill at work since April 2006, no sign of it fading.
> 
> Jem 
> 
> 

Jem Raid wrote:
> "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
> news:463b32eb$0$27780$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've posted a long article in my column on an interview I had earlier 
>> today with Henry Wilhelm:
>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> -- 
>> Wayne J. Cosshall
>> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
>> http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>> Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
> 
> I've had a toned Cyanotype print, made from a digital negative, on a sunny 
> window cill at work since April 2006, no sign of it fading.
> 

Thanks for bringing this up.  From reading Wayne's article how easy is 
it to print a digital negative on Agfa Copyjet film or similar?

Not doubting the print permanence of Cyanotype but as far as the window 
sill photo goes do you also have a similar print locked away out of the sun?

Greg
-- 
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky