Re: Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <1178322277.137906@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, frederick <lost@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>> 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.
> 
> Then you have missed the whole point of the article I posted because 
> Wilhelm tested Epson media and others available at the time.  Whilst 
> most media had display lives of the order of a few months, Wilhelm 
> assessed the Epson ink and gloss media to have 26 YEARS of life - much 
> better than anything available.  Nobody expected to achieve 26 years 
> unless the exact test conditions were used.  Many people made exactly 
> the same mistake as you have suggested and expected 26 years to indicate

> that "it would last much longer than an ink/paper combination rated at" 
> months.  They were WRONG, and so are you!
> 
> The fact is that Epson got into problems with the claims they made based

> on Wilhelm's testing because the test was meaningless and their prints 
> only lasted days and, in some cases, hours!

I don't believe that I've missed the whole point at all.  I don't 
dispute that gas fading caused a big headache, but gas fading is "old
news".
What's the new equivalent to "gas fading" that's going to mean that 
users of current inkjet printers will have problems like that?
Anyway, users looking for longevity shouldn't IMO be using dye inksets, 
as even if gas fading isn't the issue it was, the papers are unsuitable 
for unframed display.  Pigment ink printers are available from Canon, 
HP, Epson, they offer waterproof prints, and gas fading is not an issue 
with them.