Re: Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence

In article <1178485982.927029@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, frederick <lost@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>  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.
>Then exactly the same criticism must apply to any process.  Perhaps the 
>only close to 100% safe method for colour is to archive digital files - 
>but then another can of worms is opened.  YMMV and we can only go on 
>the best information that is available.

Not at all - you can always archive according to the exact same 
conditions that Wilhelm tests under - that is precisely what his tests 
are for.  However, if you use his results to imply longevity, even 
relative longevity against other similarly tested media, under any other 
cir***stances then all bets are off.

That is exactly what =(8) said in his original post in this thread and I 
am pleased to see that someone has at last understood what he meant, 
because those who continue to tout Wilhelm's results as relevant under 
any other cir***stances do no service to Wilhelm, inkjet print 
manufacturers or typical users.

To make it plain and simple, Wilhelm attempts to keep all but one 
variable stable in his tests.  Museums and galleries can do the same, 
which is where the value of his work actually lies.   Unless you, the 
average user, do the same then the results of his tests are worthless. 
Obviously they cannot be relied on absolutely, but they cannot even be 
relied on relatively either.  History has borne this out.
-- 
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)