Digital BW, The Print

Sam A. McCandless wrote:

>My own case of the slows is so advanced that I try never to complain 
>about anyone else.
>

As do I.. Hell, I have publications waiting for product reviews from me 
that are 8 weeks late.  But, he promised the new results two years ago 
Sam. With "soon" prominently displayed on the page back then..

What I am lobbying for is that he at least tell us if the results will 
again be published or NOT.  If he has changed his contractual agreements 
since the orange-shift debacle that is understandable, but don't tell us 
that something is coming "soon" and then have NOTHING new after two years.

Heck, at this point, I would bet dollars to donuts that files are still 
linkable to or ftp-able from his site and that the index page is meant 
to discourage the curious.  I''d bet EPSON, Lyson, et al can get the 
files from his site..  I'm just saying he should probably no longer 
represent his site or reports as consumer-oriented or consumer-driven 
data. If the game has changed that much, they would be product 
development data - plain and simple.

> But I do find it frustrating that he himself 
>apparently hasn't provided access to his previously published 
>reports, which I think are very useful even now.
>
>
>  
>
Agreed 100%

Nice to see we DO agree once in awhile..

I'm guessing that they are no longer available because Wilhelm had to 
come up with new methodologies etc.  Realistically, when the 
orange-shift data hit, EPSON could have sued him for not having a 
sufficiently scientific and rigorous methodology to have found the 
problem (as regards cyan dyes the "Gulf Coast" fade problem had been 
publicly reported on in the dye industry since 1955 - and Henry was 
representing his reports as the industry's gold-standard, yet 
inadvertently he missed the cyan dye problem).  EPSON had campaigned 
that the printers involved were worthy of professional use and that the 
prints would last as long as silver prints.

If his methodologies were flawed and IF people relied upon them AFTER 
Henry knew so, he would expose himself to liability from both 
manufacturers and consumers..  Unfortunately, he probably had no REAL 
choice but to pull the old reports.

Beyond that, he may well have had to make concessions to retain 
contracts after that debacle.  One concession might well have been to 
agree to NOT publish data until the manufacturers had products on sale 
that addressed the flaws that Wilhelm's testing might arguably have been 
expected to disclose.  These companies based product development on 
those reports.  They believed they were rigorous, comprehensive, and 
representative..  It turned out that was not 100% true..

My basic question is simply whether or not Henry is going to again 
publish easily comparable data based upon a repeatable established 
baseline methodology.  

Until that is answered , conjecture about alternative testing etc., is 
IMHO going to remain unfocussed and nebulous.  Nuff said.

Keith



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]