Apart from the fact that I don't like the US centric nature of your
geographic sub parts :), I substantially agree. Where I disagree is
that, from a purely practical basis, it is very hard to multiply the
amount of testing like that. You just listed four for the US, and
presumably that is not all you would want. If you went this route we'd
need about 5 for Australia, 3 for Italy, probably 6 for Russia, etc.
Plus of course the natural light is very different in these different
locations, not just temperature, humidity, atmospheric particulates,
etc. Then there are the different types of artificial lighting in use,
plus greatly varying lighting levels.
A better route would be a small number of closely defined typical
climates, such as:
dry, hot
dry, cold
humid, hot
wet, cold
temperate
Air conditioned (perhaps at two different temperature/humidity targets)
Even this, I think is pu****ng the practicality of testing.
But certainly the standard should be published and defined tightly
enough that multiple labs can perform matching tests.
Cheers,
Wayne
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
Alan Browne wrote:
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>> All the manufacturers pay the Wilhelm Research Institute to conduct
>> the tests.
>>
>> This has been a major credibility issue for many people, but then the
>> money has to come from somewhere.
>
> This is why a test standard and method has to be defined, accepted and
> published that can be replicated in separate labs for similar results.
>
> As others point out, it should be "general" purpose and reflect the
> environments that people who buy most of the paper use.
>
> It could have multiple parts (eg: Part A: Archival, Part B: Museum
> display, Part C: home (sub i: North East US, ii: LA, iii: Phoenix, iv:
> Miami, ...), Part D: ...).
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
|
