----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dyer-BennetRe: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses. : karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: : Who working in accelerated fade testing has been "discredited as often : as not"? Or even "often"? Or "at all"? (What constitutes being : "discredited" anyway?) http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2003/08/07-1.html his simulated aging testing methodology has been criticized as too optimistic, and in one embarrassing instance, Epson Stylus Photo 2000 inkjet photo papers he highly rated for their durability turned out to be very short-lived.. http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm We feel however that everybody should really be running their own personal fade tests, which might be as simple or as complicated as one's thought ingenuity and time frame allows http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2a.htm Now something to keep in mind is that much of the longevity testing that's being done by the manufacturers is being hired out to a firm that specializes in fade testing. However, the issue is this; the hired fade tester with loads of credentials to their credit is still even now, using impotent fluorescent lighting to perform their fade testing. While the official longevity ratings are indeed accurate, the catch is this; they only apply if you always display your prints in a room without windows and under total fluorescent lighting The minute the prints are being displayed under any kind of daylight conditions such as in a house or apartment or daily office, the longevity numbers provided by the manufacturers will not hold true. For example on one type of popular printer the manufacture's longevity rating was thirty years but when the same print was placed under daylight it only survived for two years before one of the primary colours had fade out by 30%. http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2IA.htm Xenon Chamber fade testing is currently touted as the latest and very greatest thing in the print fade arena. We know from our many tests that uncoated Ultrachrome inks fail in roughly 250 hours in the full sun. That means either the Yellow or Cyan inks have faded out by 30%. Each 10 hour day out in the full Sun is more or less just like one year inside when a print is displayed on a 275 Lux averaging wall. So 250 hours or 25 days in the Sun results in a 30% fade in one of Ultrachrome inks primary colours, and is thus our 25 year, 275 Lux longevity rating. Kodak disagrees with him it seems too, and remember we all trusted kodak once - they were gods! of course it could be the harsh words are just sour grapes, but the unkind words I recall spoken of him by others in the past have evaporated once the good reviews started..: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121752,00.asp But WIR and others don't see eye to eye on how to test for light fading. Kodak, for example, says its tests assume the room where the photos will be displayed is much darker than the brightly lit room on which WIR tests are predicated. Kodak and Staples say WIR's methodology places too much weight on fading due to exposure to light. They argue that WIR doesn't sufficiently factor in the importance of an image's resistance to heat, humidity, and ozone pollutants. http://www.twice.com/article/CA514789.html?verticalid=820&industry=Digital+ Imaging&industryid=23114&pubdate=04/04/2005 Doug Bugner, senior laboratory head, Kodak, argued that over 30 years worth of research, and a half a million measurements went into Kodak's testing methodology. What's more, Bugner said, We test for so-called dark factors that Wilhelm has not until very recently. These dark factors, Bugner explained, involved such environmental elements as ozone, humidity and heat that have a big impact on the life of a print. Doug (above) is a member of this lot I think: http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org and given RIT's esteemed photographic history, having the Image Permanence Institute there too seems to add some cred - their image reference: http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/sub_pages/consumerguide.pdf suggests prints over inkjet still . http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/bpg/annual/v17/bp17-14.html well worth a look too, comparing methodologies and materials : : The guy I'm thinking of is the leader in the field, having pretty much : invented it 30 years ago. Henry Wilhelm, of course. As for "not a : lot of standing outside digital photo circle", that's certainly not : the impression I get from looking at reviews of his book and other : work (most of which pre-dates any importance of digital photography; : the book is entirely about conventional photo materials). His : reputation was built pre-digital. thats the bloke. I recall some pretty harsh words spoken about his techniques by other manufacturers, but when they handed there papers over for testing (and the important dollars) the reviews quickly mirrored those of epson - must have been nice for everyone :-) Kodak still haven't caught on though.. : I think I've got some old toothpicks in a cabinet upstairs *I* : wouldn't want to put into my mouth. hahahaha :-) : Are we back in B&W chemistry here? I've certainly had old developer : die. I haven't tried pushing the limits on color materials, because : everybody said they were real. no, blix and CDr are colour, so I might add is the stabilizer, wetting agent and a few others.. Almost any dev formula can be made to last a heck of a lot longer than the manufactured, proprietry mix by keeping the incompatible parts seperate until they're needed. SOme even make it easy by packaging them seperately - a creative mind can work the concentrations needed for the mixes, and then they need only be slopped together prior to use. ..then there's Rodinal :-) I have a 40 year old bottle I'm just itching to try! ;) : Huh, $70 is exactly what I pay for 100 sheets of the Epson gloss -- at : the local computer store, not even finding a good mail-order source. you're talking your dollars - ours are worth less than yours. They are funny colours too and make Americans laugh. Handy though went you're drunk.. Holeeeey... ! I just had a look at Adorama's site at the cost of RA4 paper!! You guys pay a lot more than we do! whodathunkit. : Yep, sounds rather like my darkroom procedures. I don't need to do : test prints much any more, I can see what I need on the monitor. I : can also *do* so much more -- I'm not limited by how many hands I have : for one thing! dammit, you got me there! ;) k
