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, ****trait 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@[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 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.
|
