Re: Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence

In article <1178435144.752989@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, frederick <lost@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>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 
>>*****sed 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".

Whether it is old or new news doesn't make it irrelevant.  The fact is 
that you cannot draw any conclusions from the Wilhelm testing that are 
relevant to the real world or any conditions other than those he tests 
under.  Not knowing what the next unexpected cause of premature print 
aging only makes that more obvious.
-- 
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)