Digital BW, The Print

Paul Roark wrote:
>>HP Premium Plus Photo Glossy, Satin (formerly Matte) and High Gloss.
>>
>>Those will give the longevity that we all desire, especially when 
>>nput behind glass.
>>
> 
> 
> This caught my eye, and I couldn't resist re-posting part of the fade test I
> did in March.
> 
> After 600 hours in my tester, the 50% patch of the Epson Premium Semigloss
> printed with neutral MIS UT inks then sprayed with PremierArt Print Shield
> and HP paper printed with their B&W inkset had the following starting and
> ending spectrophotometer readings:
> 
> Prem. SG start: C = .58, M = .57, Y = .58, Visual Density = .58
> 
> After 600 Hr:   C = .58, M = .57, Y = .58, Visual Density = .58
> 
> 
> HP start:     C = .80, M = .79, Y = .76, Visual Density = .79
> 
> After 600 Hr: C = .78, M = .76, Y = .72, Visual Density = .77
> 
> So, while the HP B&W dyes may be very good for dyes, and maybe good enough
> for most uses, I don't think they are equal to the good B&W pigments.  How
> all this translates into actual fading in display I don't know.  However, if
> one wants the best B&W digital print resistance to fading, I think the
> predominantly carbon pigment systems are still the way to go.
> 

Dumb question, How does 600 hours in the tester compare to time on the 
wall?  Prints I am planning, are destined for the wall in the home 
office, this room is at roughly 43\ufffd North, and has a north facing 
basement window, so no strong sunlight will hit this wall.  As for HP 
some of the black inks are partly or mostly pigment based, so a BO print 
would be more fast then a colour print.

W