"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:463c280f$0$3785$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>>
That is all fine and dandy but then they and the printer makers have no
business pu****ng their less than accurate numbers like they are gods
gospel.
They need to stop with the fine print disclaimers that in the end
basically
tell you the testing is bull**** and be more up front about things. Hiding
it in fine print they know most people never read just shows how greedy
and
untrustworthy the printer companies are and just how worthless the
Willhelm
testing is.
If they really wanted to do real world testing they would take the prints
home and hang them on their walls and do their readings from that as well
as
provide the information from the controlled labs tests. Until they do real
world testing outside of a lab their test results will always be ****.
As for the printer makers paying them and the money having to come from
someplace, that too is ****. Consumer re****ts does just fine without
advertising and many from the manufacturers. Now of course consumer
re****ts
recommendations suck 99% of the time, but at least they suck because they
are clueless and not because of ad money or kickbacks from the
manufacturers.
=(8)
|
