karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Okay, we're talking about the same guy at least. I agree the people at the institute in Rochester have standing to debate with him. But I'll also point out that they're his competitors in a small marketplace that he's the leader in, and some of the discussion has to be understood in those terms. And of course, because he's the person actually doing it, most of the detected mistakes have been made by him, so there's fodder for criticism. > 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.. I've never heard the 2000 materials are very short-lived, and your link gives no source for that information. > 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 Running personal tets is a *really bad* idea; it's much harder than it looks. It's completely uncertain, without a lot of data from slower testing to back it up, what fading in the sun actually means. Accelerated testing is black art, Wilhelm is working with protocols developed over three decades comparing more- and less-accelerated tests, something we don't have access to ourselves. > 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%. First I've heard of this, too, and I have no reason to take it seriously. Why do they think daylight is more damaging? And what do they think testing should be under, incandescent maybe (with no UV)? > 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. Yes, those are clearly important, and Wilhelm is using them too as more understanding of them has come around. > 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 . Um, did you look at your own reference? Here's what it says about relative permanence: When properly stored, dyebased inkjet and dye diffusion thermal transfer prints have stability comparable to that of traditional photographic prints. Pigment-based inkjet and color electrophotographic prints are even more stable. That hardly seems to be saying regular prints are supported over inkjet to me. > http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/bpg/annual/v17/bp17-14.html > well worth a look too, comparing methodologies and materials Thanks. > : 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.. Yeah, the people he rated less well have had things to say. And of course there was the disaster with the Epson 1270 materials. Then again, nobody else found or predicted it either, and he's learned from that and gone on. > : 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! ;) Maybe the packaging options have changed, then, that wasn't really an option as I remember it. I tried Rodinal a bit less than 40 years ago, and never could see the point. Grainiest negs I ever saw, and my whole life has been something of a fight against grain. > : 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. Interesing. > : 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! > ;) Layer masks on adjustment layers. It's just *marvelous*. (Of course the print can still be made on conventional paper if that's what you want; or printed as a neg on transparency material to make a platinum print for that matter.) -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
