Digital BW, The Print

> Ultrachrome "pigments" are different from dyes because they are
> "encapsulated" and in "suspension," not "dissolved" in a "solvent". By
> contrast, dyes and inks ARE in their solvent, which is usually water.
> This is said to explain Epson's arguably more archival characteristic,
> and it probably explains bronzing.
------------------ 
Sure a pigment is only as good as the quality of its components.
Forgeting Epson and encapsulation for  a minute, MIS, Media Street, and 
Lyson "pigments" out perform dyes also in their stability, but also show 
"bronzing" on rc media. The many fine monochrome pigments like MIS and 
Piezzotone also show some bronzing if I am not mistaken, thought Paul 
seems to have done something to reduce this with his inkset.

Then there are the other colors for art mediums other than photography. It has 
always been my assumption that fine watercolors and oils like Windsor 
Newton have higher quality and more pure "pigments" than some of the 
cheaper brands that combine pigments and dyes for greater intensity as well 
as lower prices, such as Sekura. Someone once asked Wilhelm at one of 
those seminars that I attended that "well aren't Iris prints using their original 
inkset just as pernanent as waterolors, and thus should qualify as permanent 
art prints? He said there are as many kinds of watercolor and oil mediums as 
there are inks for photography and they range from the extremely stable 
pigments of Windsor Newton, to very unstable products ,so you can't group 
them all together as one thing. I have also heard that offset lithography shops 
used to use inks that had a high pigment content and were much more 
permanent in the past than these inks are now, which use  more unstable 
dyes primarily as a colorant - and that this is an issue with offset limited 
edition prints of paintings, etc..

John