Re: Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence

In article <0fednUrBRMH9WqbbnZ2dnUVZ_v6tnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, DBLEXPOSURE 
<celstuff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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)