Digital BW, The Print

Bill,

You wrote:

>... Cone at PhotoPlus, he repeatedly emphasized his findings
>with EAM- that it yellows significantly in a short time.  Since
>this is somewhat contrary to yours and other's findings, both
>in tests and anecdotally, I wonder if these lamps are doing
>something different than would be experienced in real life.

Yes, I'm wondering if intense UV isn't giving some results that are not very
representative of how these prints will behave when normally displayed.

I don't doubt that the acidity of EAM ultimately yellows it, but Wilhelm is
saying that happens in 30-40 years.  I also hope we eventually get some test
results from Preservation Technologies that will tell us whether a simple
spray of Bookkeeper buffer on the back takes care of it.  (Although the
inkjet coating itself may well fail in 60 years from causes aside from
acid.)

What I see in my tests is just the "burning out" of the optical brighteners.
This happens with almost all of the papers, and it stabilizes.  EAM is not
the worst by a long shot (LPM is).

I also think that very hot test conditions accelerate the black fade more
than the midtone fade.  These pigments need to dissipate the heat.

At any rate, I'm happy to see fade test information being published.  I
think Cone has some potentially interesting inks.  I hope for him and the
users that the problems are solved.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

__________________________________________

on 11/7/02 12:04 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

>
> It is good to see some data.  I've always liked the fact that MIS
published
> its RIT test results for the MIS Archival inks.
>
> I'm also not sure about note 3 on the "Test Condition."  It says,
> "Lightfastness: Irradiation UV (Xe) 10,000 Kj/m2/200 hours."
>
> If the lamp was strong UV, then I wonder if the results correlate well
with
> actual lighting.  Most of us are oriented to indoor display, where the UV
> from fluorescent lights or window-filtered (thus no deep UV) light is the
> main problem.  Unlike the outdoor signage market, I don't think we have
that
> much of a UV problem with our prints.
>