In article <f1g3r2$5eu$01$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bill Again
<Bill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>
>"=(8)" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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 im****tant 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 re****ts 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 do***ented 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)
|
