Digital BW, The Print

On 9/1/02 4:30 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> Robert,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>> Forgive me if you have already answered this before...but what are the
>> wavelength characteristics of the light source in your fader?  I'm a little
>> confused as to why the Xenon lightsource fades that RIT are doing of these
>> same inks are not showing this same pattern of results.
> 
> I use fluorescent light.  I'm aware that it has some spikes in the spectrum,
> but I have not seen anything very convincing that these make a significant
> difference.  Also, the light level I use is much less intense than some of
> the Xenon light sources that are used to accelerate fading.  As such, I
> think my procedure may suffer from less of the reciprocity effects.
> 
> At any rate, none of these fade tests is perfect, but I'm convinced they are
> better than nothing.  I note that Wilhelm still appears to use a fluorescent
> light source.

I don't know what Henry uses, but I know that Xenon is absolutely the
standard in the field.

> Have you seen any RIT results with the PiezoTone inksets?

Yes, but they are the same ones that we have all seen posted on the
piezo3000 list at 100 hours.  In speaking to Jon, I know that he is having
the full RIT testing done...and that the results are well out beyond 300
hours using their Xenon source and that the inks set hasn't failed yet...but
RIT standards.

> I'd like to see
> what they look like.  When I compare the graphs of the fading I get with my
> fluorescent light source, they look similar to the RIT graphs of the MIS
> Archival color inks that MIS has published on its website.
> 
Me too.

Robert