Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Life was Epson 2200,1280 and quad tone
options


> >Sam,
> >
> >I generally agree with you. I think that the various inks will hold
> >up just fine although I would bet on the pigments to go a much
> >longer distance than the dyes.
>
> So would I, but the longer they both go the less I think it matters,
> and on some papers the longer-lasting pigments and dyes alike are now
> beyond 100 Wilhelm years and still counting. And Wilhelm-year
> predictions seem to me to tend to under-predict because he uses 450
> lux for 12 hours a day. That's why I try to never just say "years"
> but rather "Wilhelm years" (or "Wyrs" for short).

The problem is I really don't have any feel for what a Wilhelm's year of
display life means in real life. Everything just seems really vague and the
connection to real prints unknowable.

>
> >(By the way, I thought Wilhelm's estimate on the Lysonic E was 50 to
> >55 years which is the number I picked up at the inkjetart.com site.)
>
> It was 50+ (and counting) Wilhelm years for the Neutral ink set on
> Lyson's Standard Fine Art paper by whatever cutoff made it into
> Wilhelm's 6/9/99 report, which is still available on InkJetArt.com.
> (It was also 50+ and counting for Epson's (improved) Photo Paper but
> 75+ and counting for Somerset Velvet.) But by whatever cutoff made it
> into Wilhelm's 6/20/2000 report, LSFA and SV were both at 100+ (and
> still counting) Wilhelm years and Epson's Photo Paper had died at 80
> - 90 Wilhelm years.

Well I have to say I am confused as different values seem to be posted in
multiple places.
>
>
> >The problem really is a marketing issue. I think photographers are
> >going to have a hard time selling fine B&W prints from the Epson
> >2200 to galleries and collectors when Epson advertises the materials
> >to have a life of less than 100 years.
>
> That seems likely to me too. But I'm not clear on whether their life
> spans are predicted at less than 100 Wyrs period, or whether they are
> predicted at less than 100 Wyrs and still counting? My impression is
> that Epson might have started the pre-release publicity before the
> testing was completed.

Then of course I have to wonder how their interpretation of Wilhelm's
results translates to ad copy. <G>
>
>
> >There is the impression that archivally processed silver fiber
> >prints will last forever or for several centuries. This is probably
> >not true and we really don't know, but this is what you have to
> >match. All
> >ridiculous but that seems to be the name of the game.
>
> I agree. But I think we should at least remind ourselves that Wilhelm
> was testing at 450 lux for each of 12 hours a day. And ask how that
> compares even to the survivors sample of the old silver prints we
> think have done well. To say nothing of those that didn't survive.

Was he testing at 450 lux for 12 hours a day or was that what his test was
supposed to be equivalent too? As in 50 years of display 12 hours per day
with 450 lux of illumination. If you are doing a test why would you turn the
lights off for half of the 24 hour day and double the testing time?

I had a bit of a hard time grasping how much light 450 lux represents but a
little digging says that a lux is equivalent to a lumen per square meter.
Well checking a package of GE Softwhite 100W light bulbs they are rated at
1585 lumens. So Wilhelm is saying the materials he tested would withstand
exposure to a 28W light bulb 1 meter from the print? That's not a lot of
light. We really need to know the type of light too, especially the UV
content that is most damaging.
>
>
> >Unfortunately Wilhelm has not bothered, as far as I know, to do the
> >obvious and to comparison test these new materials against standard
> >photographic materials.
>
> "Bothered" might not be the right word, because I don't know that he
> wasn't paid to do it - I expect he was - but Wilhelm's 1/30/2000
> report includes life-span predictions in Wilhelm years for: Fujicolor
> Crystal Archive (60 Wilhelm years), Kodak Ektacolor Edge 7 and Royal
> VII (18 Wyrs), Kodak DuraLife Paper, 1999 type (18 Wyrs), Kodak
> Ektacolor Portra III Professional (14 Wyrs), Konica Color QA Type A7
> (14 Wyrs), and Agfacolor Type 11 (13 Wyrs). Wilhelm's 5/1/2000 report
> added Ilford Ilfrochrome Silver Dye-Bleach (29 Wyrs, both Classic
> Deluxe Polyester Base and RC-Base).

All color materials with not a silver fiber print in the bunch. I suspect
that under his conditions a silver fiber print might not show any
deterioration which would make everything else look bad.
>
>
> >His "years" are a matter of mathematical extrapolation and I believe
> >that his "print life" is not with the image at 100% but rather at
> >the point where it drops below some percentage of the original
> >image. 80% or 90% I believe. Maybe lower. The RIT test is to 65%
> >color retention.
>
> I don't know what the figures are either. But I haven't heard it said
> that Wilhelm's standards are too low. And I guess it doesn't matter
> if we use the outcomes only to compare one ink-and-paper combination
> to another?

As long as everything was done the same for each test then yes.
>
> >Wilhelm's research would be much more meaningful if the "life" was
> >expressed in comparison to a silver print. Did the Lysonic E or
> >whatever fade at the same rate as a silver print in the same test?
> >That seems like a pretty easy thing to measure and the fact that it
> >has not been reported makes me skeptical.
>
> But it seems to me that it has been reported as far as his client
> base allows, and we just haven't been making the comparisons.

It would appear that his major focus is on color materials and his clients
also. Not much done on B&W materials. This is not surprising as this is
where the biggest interest and income is. I suspect that a B&W print done
with
one of the color mediums he tested would start showing signs of trouble way
before a full color print would. Since the CMYK colors don't fade at equal
rates a neutral print would have noticeable color shift.
>
> >Besides Wilhelm has been missing in action for two years now.
>
> But still issuing bulletins from behind enemy lines? I downloaded
> only the few with something which interested me:
>        (1) on 7/4/01, that Gen4 on Royal Plush was at 50+ Wyrs and
> counting. The same bulletin noted that the Kodak Ektacolor Edge 8
> prediction had come in at 22 Wyrs.
>        (2) on 7/31/01, that Gen4 on Royal Plush was at 75+ Wyrs and
counting.
>        (3) on 11/1/01, that 5500 prints on a variety of Epson papers
> were predicted to last 100+ Wyrs, and that Gen4 on Royal Plush was up
> to 100+ Wyrs and still counting.
>
>
> >If Wilhelm ran all of his trials and calculated "print life" the
> >same way each time,
>
> I thought he did?

I don't know. I have not read a description of his methods or calculations,
just results.
>
>
> > then the real value of his results is in comparing one medium to
another.
>
> This seems to be an emerging consensus, and I'm not trying to challenge
it.
>
>
> >I really don't think you can take his published year values and
> >compare them to what you personally might get.
>
> Nor do I.
>
>
> >Could be less or it could be more. There are far too many variables.
> >Only our descendants will know for sure.
>
> Yes, but I think we know a lot more than we are working with when we
> discuss these subjects. My impression is that if everything we know
> were pulled together, our ink jet prints would look more promising
> than generally perceived and that traditional prints would look less
> promising than generally thought.

Absolutely true. At the moment though we are working under the bum rap of
the guy who prints out a picture of his kid with general purpose dye inks on
ordinary bond paper, hangs it up under fluorescent light and/or sunlight and

watches it fade out in very short order. This is the common inkjet
experience that we have to labor against in convincing people the prints we
are making are going to hold up.

I think we each have to make a decision that depends upon what we want to
accomplish artistically balanced against how much time and money we have to
work with and an idea of how long we would like our works to last. The
artistic esthetic has to come first. If you don't like the look of what you
are printing then why bother.

At this point I think it is quite reasonable to trade some print life for a
more pleasing look. At this point the most bullet proof grayscale
system tested would seem to be MIS-FS Neutral on EAM. Unfortunately, I find
it to be too blue for my tastes. I find the prints I get from the MIS-VM and
the PiezoTones to be more to my liking and I am willing to accept that they
may not be as stable as the FS Neutral. Everyone has to go through the same
set
of choices and pick a path.

What I really am looking forward to is a set of wedges from the 2200 in
Paul's fader along with wedges of MIS-FS, MIS-VM and PiezoTone! Whoever gets
their hands on a 2200 first please get in touch will Paul and send him some
wedges.

Martin