 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / May 2007Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence
Hi All, I've posted a long article in my column on an interview I had earlier today with Henry Wilhelm: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne 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/ Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by the way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on your walls? This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the evironments of the people that will be buying most of these printers, papers and inks and that is the average consumer. =(8) > Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real > world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > =(8) Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what you say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are nevertheless an indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react overtime. This is better than no idea at all. So thanks Wayne. Robert R. >> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real >> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So thanks Wayne. My thanks, also; plan to read this week. "=(8)" sure knows a lot, but won't say who he is. Not impressive. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with >>> real world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > "=(8)" sure knows a lot, but won't say who he is. Not impressive. Oh gosh John, someone on a newsgroup not giving their full name and address, I do however agree with Bill but will say that a little more of the variables could have been added to show the affect, of course all long term testing is still only an indication of what might happen. Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography >>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with >>>> real world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the variables could have been added to show the affect, of course all long > term testing is still only an indication of what might happen. I have not read the Wilhelm article but I will say this. Permanence testing is done using the known processes that affect the majority if not all artwork. The results of this sort of testing are not to be taken literally but used as bench marks to compare different ink/paper combinations and printing processes. If testing results state the a certain ink/paper combination or process have a life of 150 years, I do not think you are to assume that the print will last 150 years; only time can prove that. The results should be used to weigh one product or process against another. With that said, the testing procedures HAVE to remain the same and not be dinked around with over time. Else, you end up with apple to oranges test results that do nothing but create confusion. My two cents… Patrick Ziegler www.imagequest.ifp3.com Hi all, Some of you may not have seen my previous interview with Henry: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=39 Certainly longevity testing is still very much a work in progress. They are now doing ozone tests, do tests at various humidity levels and are now adding the flesh tone tests. The problem is simply one of the number of variables. When you start adding various pollutants, etc to the mix the number of tests goes up exponentially. I know Henry comes in for a lot of flak, and I am and have been critical of some of his test approaches, but I do believe that Henry is making a really genuine attempt to get it right. Henry advocates testing at a higher light intensity than some others do, such as Kodak, for example, to more realistically reflect real situations. But he has to standardise on something. 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/ > Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography >>>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > www.imagequest.ifp3.com > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >> >> www.imagequest.ifp3.com That is all fine and dandy but then they and the printer makers have no business pushing their less than accurate numbers like they are gods gospel. They need to stop with the fine print disclaimers that in the end basically tell you the testing is bullshit and be more up front about things. Hiding it in fine print they know most people never read just shows how greedy and untrustworthy the printer companies are and just how worthless the Willhelm testing is. If they really wanted to do real world testing they would take the prints home and hang them on their walls and do their readings from that as well as provide the information from the controlled labs tests. Until they do real world testing outside of a lab their test results will always be sh.t. As for the printer makers paying them and the money having to come from someplace, that too is sh.t. Consumer reports does just fine without advertising and many from the manufacturers. Now of course consumer reports recommendations suck 99% of the time, but at least they suck because they are clueless and not because of ad money or kickbacks from the manufacturers. =(8) On May 5, 11:09 am, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > =(8) What you are saying is ancient history. Henry Wilhelm admits he screwed up on the 1270 Epson inks. It took Epson a while but they pulled the inks off the market. Funny though we had a 1270 in the studio where I was working and our prints lasted fine it was really a location, pollutant thing. For what it is worth just having a copier or laser printer in a closed room with a photo or inkjet print will greatly decrease the life expectancy. Right now Wilhelm does the best work around, He originally outted Kodak but he also showed that Fuji Crystal Archive paper has a life expectancy of 40 some years not 75 as Fuji says. That is using the same parameters as what gives HP Vivera inks a 200 year life expectancy. When getting up to the 100 and 200 year levels accelerated testing is all that can be done and Wilhelm has become the standard for printing materials. Whether there is a you divide the time by 2.5 as been suggested or just take it as a standard, and know that a 25 year Wilhelm life expectancy will last less than a product with a 100 year Wilhelm lfe expectancy. It isn't crap it is just all we've got to go on. If you sell inkjet prints you will know that this is the first question a serious buyer will ask. If you give them the Wihelm numbers they are generally satisfied. Some folks just can't forgive a mistake. Tom >What you are saying is ancient history. Henry Wilhelm admits he >screwed up on the 1270 Epson inks. It took Epson a while but they >pulled the inks off the market. Wrong! The inks currently available for the 1270 (and the 870, 880, 890 and 1280) are still exactly the same as the original inks and have exactly the same problems. In fact Epson admitted that they could have taken the inks off the market and replaced them with less bleach prone, but otherwise less stable, inks but specifically ruled that option out because it would "change the colour characteristics" of the inks and would require new profiles to be loaded into all of the printers already sold. For customers who were unaware of the problem this would have resulted in an unacceptable loss of quality and fade free life in their prints. >Funny though we had a 1270 in the >studio where I was working and our prints lasted fine it was really a >location, pollutant thing. Wrong again. It was an oxidation thing - specifically oxidation of the cyan ink, with the light cyan ink being much more susceptible to oxidation that the dark ink. *ANY* oxidant that came into contact with the ink in the right conditions (mainly temperature, pressure and continuous replenishment) bleached the cyan ink. Pollution often REDUCES the amount of oxidants, specifically ozone, available at low altitudes. Ozone is a strong oxidant which certainly caused the ink to bleach rapidly under significant concentrations and that is why it was used by Epson to assess how robust their proposed solutions to the problem were. However oxygen itself is quite an aggressive oxidant - if it wasn't you wouldn't be alive - and when exposed to a continuous flow of warm air the cyan ink faded in a matter of days. In still, or fairly stable air, the inks were fairly stable, especially if the temperature was below 35degC. Pollution level actually caused quite a problem in identifying the cause of the Epson orange plague because there were many cases of people living in high pollution environments without fading prints who sent copies to people in low pollution areas which subsequently faded and vice versa. I myself, for example, took sample prints with me on a trip to the Amazon in Brazil, probably the least polluted area of the planet, but they faded faster there than almost anywhere else I tested, and certainly much faster than here at home in the English countryside, a relatively low pollution environment by western standards. >For what it is worth just having a copier >or laser printer in a closed room with a photo or inkjet print will >greatly decrease the life expectancy. No, it doesn't - a guy called Nai-Chi Lee specifically tested this when ozone was first suggested as a cause. The results showed that unless the temperature of the environment was above 28degC then a print could be left INSIDE a laser printer with no effect visible after several months. SignatureKennedy 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) > If they really wanted to do real world testing they would take the > prints home and hang them on their walls and do their readings from that > as well as provide the information from the controlled labs tests. Until > they do real world testing outside of a lab their test results will > always be sh.t. So the prints last 25 years before they start to fade hanging on the wall. So, in 2032 they can release the printer onto the market with validation that prints will last 25 years. Or let's say that the 80 years claim turns out to be true. The we could see the printer on the market in 2087. Accelerated testing methods have their place. Allen Critical to be able to map accelerated test data for image permanence on to real world projections is to know what the real world is like. And the only way to do that is to go out and make systematic measurements in the environment for which you are trying to make predictions. (An office, for example, is quite different from a home which is quite different from a museum.) That takes time, money, and discipline, and to my knowledge only one organization has done this world-wide and published the results in a refereed journal where other photoscientists could critical examine the data before and after publication (it's not Wilhelm Imaging Research). Look up the papers by Dr. Douglas Bugner and colleagues (and before that by Anderson and co-workers), all in the Journal of Imaging Science . They measured light, temperature, humidity, and ozone in homes around the world. They did continuous measurements, not spot readings which can vary by more than a factor of ten over the course of a day. They measured it in different seasons. And they measured the power spectrum of the light in the homes, which is critical to using the right light in testing (you can even get the wrong rank order of dye fade--one product to another--if you use the wrong light spectrum). And then they did what one poster suggested: they hung real prints in real homes and checked over a ten year period--not to see how those particular materials faded, but to calibrate their test methods. Further, work by those authors, as well as yet to be published work by Adam Bush has shown that balancing those four factors in the right proportion is absolutely necessary to even predict that one print product will last longer than another in the real world. To put it bluntly, you will get the wrong answer--not just in years but in relative ranking if you don't use typical real world values. (By the way, look at the data offered by some testing sites on the web: strange how some products tests for, say, ozone are still "in progress" several years after the light tests are published, even though ozone tests are the fastest to do. Remember, manufacturers pay for those tests.) Bottom line: tests run under the wrong conditions--the infamous "window test" is a good example--won't tell you which print material will have the best image permanence in a real world environment-- unless your real world enviroment is mounting in a window. >I have not read the Wilhelm article but I will say this. Permanence testing >is done using the known processes that affect the majority if not all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >last 150 years; only time can prove that. The results should be used to >weigh one product or process against another. Except it doesn't turn out that way in practice. In 1999, several manufacturers offered printers with inks and papers which could be reliably expected to last several months without noticeable fading. Then Epson released their long life printers and, on the basis of Wilhelm's measurements and comparisons with existing inkjet media at the time, claimed a 26 year life when the inks were used with their most expensive paper. Even though that 26 years only applied to a specific set of conditions, your argument suggests the Epson media should have been superior to earlier product - instead, it was MUCH worse! The Wilhelm test means jack sh!t UNLESS you use his EXACT display methods, which are not generic. SignatureKennedy 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) >> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real >> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react overtime. This is >better than no idea at all. I used to think so too - until the Epson 26-year print fiasco. Not so very long ago nobody was making any claims for inkjet print longevity - everyone knew inkjet prints were transient, fine for proofs but totally unsuitable for final prints you would hang on your walls for years. Then, 7 or 8 years ago, Epson introduced their Photo Stylus 870 and 1270 printers with new long life media - new inks and new high gloss papers. They ran a huge advertising campaign highlighting that inkjet prints with their new media not only looked and felt like traditional photos they lasted at least as long. In fact, Epson claimed the prints wouldn't show signs of fading for at least 26 years and this had been verified by an independent laboratory - none other than the renowned Henry Wilhelm himself. The new Epson printers and their output became the talk of Internet forums - had anyone ever seen such photorealism from inkjet prints before? Unfortunately, Epson became the subject of even more talk a few months later when reports started to come in of prints on their new media fading in much less than 26 years, but in weeks, days and in some cases only hours! To be fair, Epson began to look into the problem almost immediately but they handled the situation quite poorly, openly suggesting all sorts of causes - radon gas, pollution etc. They finally stated that they had simulated the effect in their laboratory with controlled exposure to ozone, which in itself created the urban legend that ozone was indeed the cause of the problems experienced by their users. Like all urban legends, there was a core of truth surrounded by exaggeration - Epson only claimed they could recreate the problem in the laboratory using ozone, at no time did they suggest ozone was the primary cause. As it turns out, any oxidising agent caused the problem - even the oxygen in normal air if it was warm enough and was continuously replenished over the surface of the print. Wilhelm's tests focussed on light fading, in fact, light fading is what made Wilhelm's reputation when outed Kodak's poor resistance to it. However he hadn't gone any further than that and had, completely wrongly, assumed that light fading was the dominant cause of the short life of inkjet prints too. His test methods did not consider atmospheric effects - not even a clean atmosphere, let alone common pollutants - and they still don't. Users, and I was amongst the most vocal in the UK, claimed Epson and Wilhelm had misled them and demanded a product recall. An open letter to MacWeek by the late Bruce Fraser, of Photoshop fame, suggested avoiding Epson products until the problem was resolved. Epson ignored us all, but significantly watered down their claims for the products. That remained their position for over a year until they faced the serious prospect of a class action lawsuit being filed in the US. They then realised that the magnitude of the case could break the company and took it seriously, making several options available to affected customers to prevent the issue reaching court. One such step was to bring encapsulated inks to market much sooner in the Photo Stylus 2000P - less gamut and photo realism, but fully protected and stable inks. You will find the Epson / Wilhelm saga all documented on several web sites including http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/ (a good account of the effect but limited in comment because of the NDA Bob signed to get access to Epson experimental media.) http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/ (a bit OTT on the personal involvement, but fairly accurate chronology of events) So it is quite wrong to assume, as I and many others did only a few years ago, that Wilhelm's testing gives any "indication of how the ink/paper will react over time". That is only true IF the mechanism being tested is the dominant mechanism for the media - and with new papers and inks, who can know that for sure? The fact that Wilhelm's test procedures do not account for normal use does, as =(8) said, make them as worthless as dog poo to the average user, and it is quite irresponsible to suggest otherwise. That is not to detract from Wilhelm's work. He did an incredible job standing up to the big yellow god to begin with and bringing their shortcomings to public notice, despite extended legal battles. And his continued work is of value for museums and galleries worldwide, where the conditions of his test chambers are often replicated, thus making his results relevant. However it is completely misleading and downright wrong to use Wilhelm's work to give any indication of print life under average user conditions. It is completely irrelevant to the average user hanging inkjet prints on their walls. SignatureKennedy 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) >>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with >>> real [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > average user conditions. It is completely irrelevant to the average > user hanging inkjet prints on their walls. I disagree with you. As there's no hard data from long term "real" exposure testing available - and there never will be when product development cycles are a year or two but where tens or even hundreds of years display permanence is sought, there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on. Accelerated testing is not a new idea - and mistaken conclusions from accelerated testing of materials are hardly limited to print permanence. But when a mistake is discovered (be it the silicone sealant used to seal the windows in the Sydney opera house, the durability of some ceramic prosthetic hip joints, or gas fading of dye based inkjet prints) then once it's identified it can be allowed for in testing (and will likely force a change in design). Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall. But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an ink/paper combination rated at 10 years. > Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR > from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall. > But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an > ink/paper combination rated at 10 years. And that is where you may be mistaken. As others have pointed out already, that would ONLY be the case IF the dominant mode of failure was under test, or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be so. In fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious. MrT. >> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR >> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be so. In > fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious. Of couse I "may" be mistaken. Did you read the bit in my original post where I said: "there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on" If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you. If not, then you're at risk of being dismissed as a scaremongering conspiracy theorist, or a Luddite. > >> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR > >> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > Of couse I "may" be mistaken. Glad you admit it then. > Did you read the bit in my original post where I said: > "there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on" > If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and > does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you. > If not, then you're at risk of being dismissed as a scaremongering > conspiracy theorist, or a Luddite. Did you read what others have already written? If not then you are at risk of being dismisssed as an "osterich", and unable to read or comprehend there may be other issues besides exposure to light or even heat. And the "Luddite" would be you if you think you already know everything there possibly is to know about archival permanance of inkjet prints! MrT. >>>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year > DPR [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > MrT. Yep - I read it. I'm waiting for you to suggest a possible mechanism for decay of inkjet (or any other form of printed media) that Wilhelm doesn't allow for. In article <1178340486.585243@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes >>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR >>> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and >does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you. He did - as did Epson! As it turned out, if Epson had simply undertaken reasonable consumer tests (not even extending to the "use and abuse" testing required under EU legislation) this problem would have come to light long before the product reached the shelves. Instead, they placed far too much belief in the results of Wilhelm's measurements and ignored the normal consumer testing and feedback approach until the problem reached the mainstream press and lawcourts. As you would see from some of the web pages I listed, Epson had to resort to exactly such consumer testing to significantly reduce the problem with improved product, with the testers signing Non Disclosure Agreements with them. At that point, Wilhelm's test took a back seat and, whilst they still feature on Epson documentation, they no longer make unlimited claims based on Wilhelm data. SignatureKennedy 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) >>Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR >>from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > MrT. I also think Epson do sponsor the Wilhelm tests. rm 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. 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/ >>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year DPR >>> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room wall. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > rm > 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 Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. 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 pushing 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/ >> All the manufacturers pay the Wilhelm Research Institute to conduct >> the tests. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Cheers, > Alan > Apart from the fact that I don't like the US centric nature of your Wayne: as you persist in top-posting, I won't reply. Henry has tried to calibrate his processes as much as possible by seeking out traditional photographic prints of known age and known display conditions (or dark storage conditions) and comparing darks stored and displayed prints prepared at the same time. He actively seeks out, say, portrait photographers in small towns who stored prints for customers and where an identical print was hung in the same place for many years, etc. All this is imperfect, but he is at least trying. Personally I have always been critical of his using a years rating at all, preferring an open-ended numerical scale, but Henry feels otherwise, but often makes the point that it is a relative rather than an absolute year rating. Personally I've always felt that if you mention years then that is how people will take it. Henry and I have agreed to disagree. 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/ >>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test >>>> with real [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than an > ink/paper combination rated at 10 years. In article <1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes >Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year >DPR from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room >wall. But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer >than an ink/paper combination rated at 10 years. Then you have missed the whole point of the article I posted because Wilhelm tested Epson media and others available at the time. Whilst most media had display lives of the order of a few months, Wilhelm assessed the Epson ink and gloss media to have 26 YEARS of life - much better than anything available. Nobody expected to achieve 26 years unless the exact test conditions were used. Many people made exactly the same mistake as you have suggested and expected 26 years to indicate that "it would last much longer than an ink/paper combination rated at" months. They were WRONG, and so are you! The fact is that Epson got into problems with the claims they made based on Wilhelm's testing because the test was meaningless and their prints only lasted days and, in some cases, hours! SignatureKennedy 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) > In article <1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes >> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > on Wilhelm's testing because the test was meaningless and their prints > only lasted days and, in some cases, hours! I don't believe that I've missed the whole point at all. I don't dispute that gas fading caused a big headache, but gas fading is "old news". What's the new equivalent to "gas fading" that's going to mean that users of current inkjet printers will have problems like that? Anyway, users looking for longevity shouldn't IMO be using dye inksets, as even if gas fading isn't the issue it was, the papers are unsuitable for unframed display. Pigment ink printers are available from Canon, HP, Epson, they offer waterproof prints, and gas fading is not an issue with them. In article <1178435144.752989@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes >> In article <1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes >>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >dispute that gas fading caused a big headache, but gas fading is "old >news". 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. SignatureKennedy 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) > In article <1178435144.752989@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes >>> In article <1178322277.137906@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 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. In article <1178485982.927029@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >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 circumstances 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 circumstances 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. SignatureKennedy 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) > In article <1178485982.927029@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@sea.com> writes >>> Whether it is old or new news doesn't make it irrelevant. The fact [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > relative longevity against other similarly tested media, under any other > circumstances 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 circumstances. >>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with >>> real [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > atmospheric effects - not even a clean atmosphere, let alone common > pollutants - and they still don't. Bullshit. I don't doubt that some people (in high ozone areas) had problems, but I still have prints made on my 1270 that look as good as the day I printed them, including one just sitting here in my basement office, which has a dehumidifier only in terms of atmosphere control. What's your experience? -- www.mattclara.com >Bullshit. The only bullshit is your inability to read historical facts. >I don't doubt that some people (in high ozone areas) had >problems, but I still have prints made on my 1270 that look as good as the >day I printed them, including one just sitting here in my basement office, >which has a dehumidifier only in terms of atmosphere control. Big deal, so do I and so do many 1270 users - that doesn't mean the problem was only limited to "high ozone" areas as you suggest, otherwise I would never have experienced the problem in the first place and become active in its partial resolution. That is part the problem - it takes more than one parameter to induce the effect. The combination of those parameters is very common but not universal. Initially the worst cases were limited to the specific paper which Wilhelm rated highest, and which Epson had to subsequently withdraw. It applied to a much lesser extent on most of their media, even though these were rated lower by Wilhelm, a problem made worse by the fact that they were not recommended by Epson for highest archival quality. It is still worst on the paper Epson introduced to replace the withdrawn version, although that is at least an order of magnitude more robust than the original (in terms of time to achieve the same level of fading under identical conditions). So the fact that you have 1270 prints that "look as good as the day I printed them" means absolutely nothing and was, in fact, one of the obfuscation factors in resolving the problem. Search the records and you will find many folks who made exactly the same claims as you - and a majority of those who subsequently changed their views after time and use of the specific media that Epson and Wilhelm made the claims for. If I had a penny for every one of the 870/1270 users who claimed the problem didn't exist yet who, on further investigation, had never even used the long life media that Epson and Wilhelm were making their claims for then I would have no need to earn a living today! > What's your >experience? My experience of the issue is well documented in the archives of this and other forums where the subject was discussed at the time. I was also the first point of contact Epson made within their European customer base when they finally decided to act in resolving the problem instead of ignoring it. Again, all verifiable in the open archives should you require evidence. SignatureKennedy 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) >>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with real >>> world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > average user conditions. It is completely irrelevant to the average > user hanging inkjet prints on their walls. Background: among other things I'm a chemist and have also had an education in parts reliability. Failure rates of parts can be accelerated by testing at temperatures higher than the design temperature range, then corrected for normal use using Arrhenius' Law. The same testing acceleration could be done for temperature interactions with photo prints, then corrected back to "normal" conditions. The average digital photo guy prints his photo on good, not archival paper (is there such a thing as archival paper for inkjets?). The things that fade prints include light, chemical interactions with the paper, and possible chemical interactions with mounting materials or fingerprints. This stuff can all be tested in the short term by increasing temperature or (in the case of light) by using higher intensity light. While Wilhelm did his test with Epson inks versus generic inks, the same could be done with HP ink, Canon ink, toner, and so forth. Personal experience with Epson and HP jet inks is that they both fade in normal room light. I have an HP printer right now, mostly because they seem to last longer than Epson printers. No experience with Canon. SignaturePat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals... > Background: among other things I'm a chemist and have also had an > education in parts reliability. Failure rates of parts can be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that fade prints include light, chemical interactions with the paper, > and possible chemical interactions with mounting materials or fingerprints. There is a lot of high end papers for inkjets, cotton base acid free. > This stuff can all be tested in the short term by increasing temperature > or (in the case of light) by using higher intensity light. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > normal room light. I have an HP printer right now, mostly because they > seem to last longer than Epson printers. No experience with Canon. You haven't used the high end inkjet materials, pigment ink greatly enhances life expectancy, past that of color photos. What you have seen is dye inks, without special swellable emulsion papers (this came from the Epson ink fiasco) dye inks just don't last. Most papers are not swellable, though dye prints will generally list the papers that will work best with their inks. We ahve 4 or 5 years old prints from a dye ink printer on swellable emulsion papers. HPs is HP Premium Photo paper, Epson's used to be called Epson Colorlife paper it wa savailable in gloss and luster finishes. Ilford has Gallerie Classic in gloss and luster for dye inks. Tom >Background: among other things I'm a chemist and have also had an >education in parts reliability. Failure rates of parts can be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The average digital photo guy prints his photo on good, not archival >paper (is there such a thing as archival paper for inkjets?). Indeed there is. Epson had their own version called Epson Archival Matte Paper, however they claimed even better results for Epson Premium Glossy Paper >The things that fade prints include light, chemical interactions with >the paper, and possible chemical interactions with mounting materials >or fingerprints. And chemical interactions with the ink itself - in the Epson case this was the cyan ink, with the light cyan being more susceptible than the dark cyan. >This stuff can all be tested in the short term by increasing >temperature or (in the case of light) by using higher intensity light. As a chemist, you will know that the results obtained by intensification of one parameter bear no relevance to those obtained by accelerated testing of other activating mechanisms. That is precisely the mistake Wilhelm made - he ignored everything but light - because light was the big issue with his Kodak war. SignatureKennedy 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) > I've posted a long article in my column on an interview I had earlier > today with Henry Wilhelm: > http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php The side-by-side comparison is very enlightening, even if one ignores the longevity claims. Unless the tests unfairly exploited a weakness in one product, there's a painfully clear difference in durability. Thanks for sharing. Since you've asked for feedback on the site before, here's two cents more after a new experience... * The opening photo in the article is too wide - this renders the center column blank for 2.5 pages until the right-hand table ends and the photo can fit in the window. (Netscape 7.2) Consider designing for a browser width of 780 to 800 pixels. It's more universal, and just because screens are higher-res doesn't mean the reader wants to surrender all the real estate for a single browser window. * I dislike landing on a generic page when following a link that promotes a specific article. Instead, link directly and provide an obvious navigation path up to the section home page. * For a photo-oriented site, the handful of photos seen this round were distracting. The LensBaby effect in the article seems out of place, as the text is a journalism piece, not art. The photo (of you?) in the section homepage is clearly focused behind the subject; it seems an odd choice for an anchor photo. FWIW, Richard I disagree with with pixel sizing. Use percentages where possible. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : * The opening photo in the article is too wide - this renders the center : column blank for 2.5 pages until the right-hand table ends and the photo : can fit in the window. (Netscape 7.2) : Consider designing for a browser width of 780 to 800 pixels. It's more : universal, and just because screens are higher-res doesn't mean the : reader wants to surrender all the real estate for a single browser window. > I disagree with with pixel sizing. Use percentages where possible. Agreed. More concisely, my point is "don't assume the browser is wider than ~800 pixels". > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Wayne Dang! I would like to have asked him about Epson's new cartridges for the R2400 photo stylus. Epson claims a print life of 200 years. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Wayne I've had a toned Cyanotype print, made from a digital negative, on a sunny window cill at work since April 2006, no sign of it fading. Jem Yes, it is impressive how fade resistant many of the old processes are, which is one reason to keep working with them. Using a digital negative is quite a nice way to work. I did a salt print workshop a few months back: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=911 and loved it. I've done cyanotypes and gum bichromate in the past. It is all good. 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/ >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jem >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've had a toned Cyanotype print, made from a digital negative, on a sunny > window cill at work since April 2006, no sign of it fading. Thanks for bringing this up. From reading Wayne's article how easy is it to print a digital negative on Agfa Copyjet film or similar? Not doubting the print permanence of Cyanotype but as far as the window sill photo goes do you also have a similar print locked away out of the sun? Greg SignatureThe ticketbastard Tax Tracker: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.