"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:oUTEMJIqv6OGFwWG@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
Bull****. 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
|
