Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:> Don't hold your breath.  Epson is your 
best shot with this, and you can see
> what we got with the EAM "response" (almost none).


If I had money on the table (which I do), I'd venture a guess that 
these are the most stable (at least on watercolor paper, which 
seems to rule out Nollendorf's dyes, which work well on those 
Ilford papers):

* Piezo B/W
* Piezo Color Pigments
* Epson Pigments in the 10000

Like Tyler says, I think I've gotta stick with color inks, due to the 
nature of my toning. So that rules out PiezoB/W. The pigments in 
the 10000 have supposed "reduced" metamerism. Jon's have 
supposed "no" metamerism. I don't know who to look for to try to 
determine print life; you sure couldn't trust the company who 
makes them to tell you the truth. But I think I'd trust Jon before I'd 
trust Epson.

At this point, I'd even settle for any amount of metamerism, and 
just learn to live with it, and profile for it. 

I'd almost feel better selling a print to someone and telling them 
that the print was made for indoor, subdued tungsten lighting, 
rather than telling them that the print might (read: will) fade. The 
whole subdued lighting thing is commonplace and already 
accepted in the gallery world, so I think I could deal with 
metamerism easier than fading.

The whole approach of upfront-offering them a free replacement 
print just makes me weak in the knees. Somehow I feel like a 
Yugo Dealer; "We build them out of aluminum cans, but we'll fix it 
for free, EVERY single time it breaks!" That really inspires 
confidence, huh...? Makes me wanna go shopping for a cheap 
suit.

-M.Tucker