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 PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:463bbc07$0$17253$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:pJ6dnZJkkbEcPKbbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Bill Again wrote:
>>>> "=(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.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
>
|
