Digital BW, The Print

Yea, I wondered about that rip element too since I'm doing that. It seems these rating are 
for the two black channels primarily with a little of the cyan or magenta added to 
neutralize the mix. The reason I say that is that they are so different from the color 
longevity data.

Paul, I think the research into coatings has just started. It could be in a  couple of years we 
will be in a whole new ball game of photo art permanence. Hope our society lasts as long.

As to the data about combining UV glass with UV spray for such extreme improvements, it 
could very well have more to do with stopping more of the humidity and atmospheric 
contamination from reaching the coating. But why UV glass and not standard glass? Henry 
has a lot of explaining to do. I'm sure he will. It could be that the patronage from Epson is 
actually bearing fruit, I hope so.

John

> 
> What is interesting about the B&W ratings is that this is with the standard full UC's used.  
I 
> wonder if one is using something like QTR and using just the two blacks(non of the 
colors 
> which one would guess were used in the ratings), we would be seeing really astonishing 
> longevity ratings.  Anyone care to guess?  At least double?
> 
> Tariq
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
> wrote:
> > As John mentioned, the new Wilhelm data has some good news for B&W.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep9600_2005_02_14.pdf
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In the "Black and White" section UltraSmooth under UV glass is at 300 years.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Somerset Velvet for Epson under UV glass is at 168, but when sprayed with
> > PremierArt it goes to >300 years.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > It surprises me that even under UV glass the spray would add that much.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In the color section, PremierArt Canvas for Epson is rated bare bulb at 46
> > years, but goes to 60 years with PremierArt spray and goes to >100 years
> > with their Eco (water borne) coating.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > So, the water-borne coating seems to be more effective.  It goes on thicker,
> > which is probably the variable.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > With numbers like these, maybe Livick's 681 year rating for a 1280 MIS UT1
> > (old magenta) print isn't so off-the-wall as it might have otherwise seemed.
> > He appears to have coated it first with a solvent based spray with UV
> > blockers (Sennelier), and then with a water-borne UV coating (Clearstar).
> > See http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d2.htm
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I found when I was trying the water-borne coatings that an initial spray
> > with Lascaux (no UV blockers) helped the water-borne coating adhere.  I'm
> > going to try the Sennelier + water-borne combination one of these days.  The
> > water-borne coatings do seem to go on thick enough to give better physical
> > protection.  I just need a better way to apply them.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]