Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
snip...
> ...in the accelerated fading tests the
> lighter tones absorb less energy and are at a slightly lower
temperature
> than the darker areas.

There is heat involved in your tests?

snip...
> > So the RIT results really may have
> >nothing to do with how long an MIS quad print will last,
> 
> I think that these ratings have merit when compared to similar
claims by
> others.  So, the comparisons may prove very useful.

Only if the exact same tests on the same paper (hopefully several)
are done with the different inksets.
> 
> >and different coatings, which are evolving, can make a difference
of
> >decades (i.e. Liege vrs Royal Plush).
> 
> The paper used is clearly very important.

So when you state that one ink lasts longer than another, is that
consistant on several papers? Coated and uncoated?

> 
> >Equally useful :), we get occassional reports from the Piezography
> >people about their window tests.
> 
> Again, these types of tests may be useful if they are used in a
comparison
> context.  For my fade tests, I compare test strips that were in the
fader at
> the same time so that most of the other variables are the same.  If
window
> tests are done at different times and in different locations, I
think I
> would agree with your view that they show very little.

I don't necessarily think they show very little, I'm just sceptical.
If the same prints were tested at different times in 
different areas, it could be useful, I think that's what helped
reveal the ozone/Epson 1270 problem. Or if variables weren't 
as carefully eliminated as yours, yet the results were still
consistant, I'd feel comfortable drawing some conclusions.
> 
snip...

> However, we can't just fly blind and hope.  So, rather than give
up, I'm
> trying to do what I can to find what works and what doesn't.  It
may turn
> out that my tests (even RIT's) were totally flawed, but at least I
tried.

As do we all, and I apreciate it as does everyone. I certainly don't
mean to make light of your efforts. It's a slippery slope 
out there making longevity statements, the mighty have fallen doing
just that. At the very least, perhaps you could mention 
the paper used.
See? You don't really want to get into all this without a rear guard
do you? :)
One more point, dip and dunk methods for comparing density mentioned
elsewhere on the list may not be very telling. 
Paper certainly takes the ink very differently when put down by a
printer on the coated side, even at 100%, rather than 
absorbed clear through.
Tyler