Digital BW, The Print

I have never read the Wilhelm years as human-years but rather as print-years
(sort of like dog-years). It seems to me that these results are most useful
as relative results, 200 print-years is twice as long as 100 print-years but
neither are meant to be calendar years.

I think that everyone agrees that the conditions for display (note that even
Wilhelm's results vary widely based on glass, no glass or uv glass) effect
longevity and therefore - mileage may vary. Of course all works on paper
should be displayed in relatively low levels of illumination, with constant
humidity, and protected by glass. These are basic rules of conservation and
if they are ignored most artworks, regardless of the medium, will have a
shorter lifespan. We all know that sunlight fades everything except skin,
where too much causes cancer. Too much sun is bad.

Wendel



> 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:  "Šif 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:  "Ša 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