Digital BW, The Print

Quentin,

An interesting site. Thanks for the link. It is always good to get even more
info and see other people testing these inks.

However, I do find some things rather maddening with his methods.
Fundamentally I think that it is very flawed to conclude that "x" number of
hours of intense light is equal to 100 or 200 years of display live. The
intense lights may cause or initiate destruction that would never occur
under normal conditions. Just consider the effect of receiving 1% of your
expected life time exposure to sunlight in a single day!

Other issues I have is that he is not giving any numerical values. No
spectrophotometer readings or even scanner readings.

Most annoying he has not include B&W and color silver prints in his trial.
After all that is our bench mark and if a silver fiber print broke down
under that intense UV exposure, as I think it might, then the point of the
entire test becomes rather moot.

He is certainly not alone in his short comings but I wish someone would
stick a silver print into their trials so that we could have that data
point.

In the meantime I am beta testing away. <G>

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "qdfb" <qdb@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] EAM+Piezotones: Printer beware!


> Paul,
>
> I read some informal test results at
> http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
> that suggest Ultrachromes on PhotoRag (my paper of choice) have
> pretty good lonvgevity, better than Piezo inks.
>
> As I have mentioned, I am using ImagePrint 5 with an Epson 7600, and
> at this early stage, B&W prints look completely free of crossover
> effects.  They look like gallery quality prints.  I don't know how
> prints from a 7600 with the standard Epson driver / gray balancer
> compare with this.  Digital printing is a moving target.
>
> We're all beta testers now.
> --
> Quentin
>
>
(snip)