Digital BW, The Print

Longevity tests that state "equivalency in years" can't really be very
reliable. THey are accelerated fade tests and converting those results
to real display years in some sort of standard display or storage
condition may only an informed guess. We already see some of our
preconceptions about "archivally processed" B&W fiber failing. Even
our previous "knowledge" about mounting and framing is under new
scrutiny and will also effect things.
I would never pass on any display year proposition to a client. I
realize this can be disconcerting, but anything we used to pass on
like this was probably never reliable. It seems comparison tests are
really all we have, and many test condition factors can yield results
that disagree. For example, between Fotonic and Epson dyes, change the
humidity and ozone and you will get different winners (I'm told).
Which of those two factors will be more of an issue in a given print's
life?
I would say that someone insisting on a "years of display life" number
from you lacks understanding of the situation and is insisting on
reassurances that can't be given, never could.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> Does anyone have reliable info on the true permanence o UT7 
> pigment inkset by MIS? I mean by someone who is a scientist 
> who doesn't sell their products.  I realize becaue of the quality of 
> the tonal rendering and the price difference with Cone's new 
> inks, it may not bit a big issue with a whole lof of people, 
> possibly no issue at all for a lot of you.
> 
> But for me I still need reliable confirmation in order to sell work 
> for exhibitions and galleries, etc. I know from past experience 
> there is a lot of misinformation out there from Cone's early 
> proclamtions of "carbon pigment the oldest substance known to 
> mankind" when they later addmitted to me they were realisticly 
> rated at 50 years in average daylight .. to the Lyson propaganda 
> that their hextone inks would "outlast most gelatin silver prints" - 
> and their archival inksets were rated about 75 years at the very 
> best without spraying them. 
> 
> So, why does't MIS hire  a reputable testing facility or two? 
> Please don't tell me it cost too much. This is their responsibility 
> and it has to be factored in.
> 
> Bottom line is why should anyone trust their internal tests? In 
> terms of years, what DOES  their internal testing data reveal? 
> And, yes equiveliency in years of permance does matter to my 
> clients.