Digital BW, The Print

In a post by "yohnnyboy"  chhopk@... the writer brings up an issue that demands 
consideration.  He asserts that the Wilhelm data is misleading.  His point seems well taken:  
since Wilhelm's tests are based on fluorescent lighting, they in no way reflect accurately 
what we can expect for print life for our prints which are exposed to daylight which is 
much stronger lighting.  The old apples and oranges analogy.  He refers readers to http://
www.livick.com/welcome.htm to Stephen Livick's rather detailed and extensive testing of 
print longevity.  I've read much on the Wilhelm site and much on Livrick's site and the 
latter seems to me to make much more sense and is a much more scientific approach than 
Wilhelm's.  I don't question the accuracy of Wilhelm's testing using fluorescent lighting.  
At this point I am convinced that Livrick's testing procedures are eminantly more 
trustworthy than Wilhelm's since they deal with criteria more consistent with the realities 
of fine art exhibiting.  On his site, Livick states:  "…if the fundamental underlying premise 
of your fade testing regime is fatally flawed, that of using impotent fluorescent lighting to 
perform your testing, then it's simply nothing more than phony grossly inflated ratings 
that are being produced and then being hyped by the ink jet manufacturers."  He also 
states, when comparing the true fading factors of Ultrachrome ink, that:  "…a more true 
rating would be just 1/3 of what ever is being stated for Ultrachrome ink on various 
papers when they were tested under fluorescent conditions."  He warns that we are being 
conned and manipulated by commercial interests if we believe them.  Consider, if we cut 
our expectations to 1/3 of what the manufactures states in longevity we fall to a print life 
expectancy of only, in the case of some Epson papers like Premier Lustre to only about 
25-30 years which is roughly about the same as a well-done drug store print life.  This is 
not what a fine art photographer wants to hear.  Have we been conned?  Those on our 
forum might want to express their views on this issue.  I for one feel now somewhat in a 
quandary.  I can't tell someone that a print will last a century when I might outlive the 
print and I'm no young fellow.  So, you folks out there with the knowledge of these 
matters, please share your thoughts.  This is a matter that affects us all.
Joe Davajon