Digital BW, The Print

I feel so too Todd, and feel so based on this same chain of 
reasoning. But while this persuades us, I don't think it's useful 
promo. In fact, I'm afraid that some people's eyes would glaze over 
and they would be reminded of the last car or computer sales person 
who talked too fast about technicalities they didn't understand. 
Especially if they heard from the Iris printer that actually the 
paper in the 100-year test wasn't Hahnemuhle at all and was coated 
with a different coating and here's a web site to prove it. We could 
try to explain that away, if we got a chance, but once you get in a 
position of having to explain things away, I think you've lost. So I 
wouldn't say what you and Julian say, not because I don't believe 
it's true, but because I think it's better to say too little than too 
much. What I do think we should say to IJM (and other vendors) is 
that we need test results at RIT or Wilhelm to which we can point.

Sam


>I do as Julian does. Unfortunately I don't see independent tests for the
>carbon quads, but I take these factors into account and do the best I can
>with making something meaningful from them:
>
>Enhanced Generations on Hahnemuhle paper is at 100 Wilhelm years and
>counting, and they use a less stable black than the Piezo or MIS VM black.
>
>100 W. years is longer than most color photographs are rated by W.
>
>I base my claim on using carbon pigments on H. papers.
>
>Color pigments are likely to be less stable than black carbon pigments, thus
>carbon quads are likely to last longer than color pigs, which already test
>longer than most color photographic materials (Perhaps dye transfer lasts
>longer).
>
>I know (know? well no I don't know) these prints won't last as long as
>silver BW prints because I'm told conditions which fade these guys
>appreciably don't budge silver prints.
>
>So all told I feel Julian is about right in a ball park sense. At least it
>shows it's in there among other collected mediums...
>
>Todd