Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
>
> "john" <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> ...
> > We gotta keep this guy going. It's just now starting to get really good.
> > 
> > Everyone please join and spread the word.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Among other thinks, the comparison of the 1400 Claria Black Only on Canson Baryta (sprayed) with 1800 Cone selenium MPS K7 on Ilford Galerie Gold Fiber Silk (sprayed) is very interesting.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Thanks guys,

The Claria Black-only ink on Canson Baryta samples are indeed intriguing. I played a hunch and took one of the extra targets from the artist's sample submission and coated it with Premier Print Shield in order to test it side-by-side the uncoated version.  I expected a light fastness improvement from the extra coating, but the results are so far exceeding my expectations.  It is yet another example in the AaI&A database that clearly shows one has to do the testing to know for sure. This is also the kind of collaborative effort between me and the artists who've joined the AaI&A program that would never be possible with conventional fee-for-service testing lab models.

To answer the other question posed in this thread, AaI&A members do get automatic notices when their annual subscription is about to end, but it's not a perfect process due to the uncertainty of many email spam filters. I want to thank all of you who have supported the research to date, and for all others, I have potentially good news. The AaI&A site will be switching to a free subscription/donation model in the next few weeks (it would have happened already, but my programmer has been on vacation).  You will still have to create a login and password to access the full test results database, but it will be free for those who can't afford to contribute. 

Existing members, especially those who have only recently joined under the current subscription plan will be "grandfathered" in with respect to prioritization on sample submissions, and AaI&A will continue to test for anyone at no additional charge... funding levels permitting.  Sample submissions by members has been critical to obtaining the diverse kinds of samples we have been able to put into test. I don't want to tinker with that part of the research program at all!

IMHO, neither subscription models nor donation models work very well on the internet. People basically want information online for free. They will pay for entertainment in spades, scholarly knowledge not so much.  Small sites like Aardenburg Imaging really have no other options because we don't have enough visitors to survive on the customary click charge advertising models that larger sites like DpReview, for example, can successfully deploy. Moreover, paid advertising sets up inevitable conflicts when the person getting paid is conducting product tests or writing product reviews.  I fully understood the funding challenge when I started the AaI&A digital print research program, but I had a personal mission to accomplish, so I essentially volunteered a large part of my time over the past few years to make it happen.  The subscription fees plus sample submissions picked up the basic material and equipment costs only.  I volunteered my time willingly because the I* color and tonal accuracy metric I invented was being ignored by my scientific colleagues as were other factors that would have improved the existing testing methods. I had something to prove, and that's always been a huge motivator for me :-). In particular, the various committees working on international print permanence standards were fully aware of this new research, but believed it would take too long to validate and thus opted to continue working on more conventional test methods.  Now that the AaI&A database is over 200 samples strong and an international standard for light fade testing of digital print media is still nowhere in sight, I feel that I've made my case effectively.  Time will tell whether my scientific colleagues come around to my way of thinking, but I"m content because many of you here in this and other printmaking forums already get it.  My test reports are not that difficult to figure out, but  I freely admit one has to work harder to understand the AaI&A results compared to the grossly oversimplified "years on display ratings" published by other labs. The reward for that extra effort is a better understanding of the true fading behavior of materials and processes you may decide to use.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com