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 important 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.
>
>...[snip--the prints didn't do all that well]
>
> 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.
Background: among other things I'm a chemist and have also had an
education in parts reliability. Failure rates of parts can be
accelerated by testing at temperatures higher than the design
temperature range, then corrected for normal use using Arrhenius' Law.
The same testing acceleration could be done for temperature interactions
with photo prints, then corrected back to "normal" conditions.
The average digital photo guy prints his photo on good, not archival
paper (is there such a thing as archival paper for inkjets?). The things
that fade prints include light, chemical interactions with the paper,
and possible chemical interactions with mounting materials or
fingerprints.
This stuff can all be tested in the short term by increasing temperature
or (in the case of light) by using higher intensity light.
While Wilhelm did his test with Epson inks versus generic inks, the same
could be done with HP ink, Canon ink, toner, and so forth.
Personal experience with Epson and HP jet inks is that they both fade in
normal room light. I have an HP printer right now, mostly because they
seem to last longer than Epson printers. No experience with Canon.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
|
