Re: Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> 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.
> 
My comment was based on a more practical expectation.  There isn't 
another colour photographic print reproduction method available to 
"normal people" that doesn't have the same limitation (lack of "real 
world" testing vs accelerated laboratory testing), so you do the best 
that you can do under the cir***stances.