Digital BW, The Print

Paul could be more specific about this, but from what I sensed from
wilhelm-research.com is, Kodak cooks the books in their longevity
testing as they have for at least 30 years. When I used to discuss
this with their tech reps they were always so arrogant and dismissive.
The had half a century to improve the stability of their c prints but
they didn't set it as a priority, and as a result millions of family
albums  and other historic material don't exit anymore.

Apparently, according to sir Wilhelm, they use much dimmer
illumination to test their own materials. ( to achive the results they
set out to achieve?.) It does seem a little self serving that they end
up with exactly 100 years. How convinient. It just happens to end up
at one century, which sounds so impressive doesn't it? 

I think this paper is certainly worth using and permanency is but one
factor to consider, but personally I wouldn't trust any of their
internal tests. They are probably not worth the white paper they are
written on. 

John





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steveh0607"
<steveh060758@m...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Wolf"
<dwphoto@a...> 
> wrote:
> >Kodak claims over 100 years. I read their White Paper on how they
test; basically, (I think) 
> they said they use the accepted method for testing silver prints.
Rather than trying to 
> remember their methodology and reasoning you can go to their web
site and read it for 
> yourself. But I suspect the longevity is good. Their White Paper
made sense to me, but I'm 
> not a professional in this area.
> 
> I can speak to what I see in the paper though. I don't have
measuring devices, just my 
> eyes. The blacks were deeper than the Epson SG and the cloud detail
in the photo was 
> much more natural; the clouds in the Epson print were warmer. And
the Kodak overall had 
> better midtones. The Epson mistones looked flat. To my eyes the
Kodak print looks better.
> 
> I showed the print to other people whose opinion I respect and they
felt the same way I 
> did.
> 
> Someone else on the list thought the Kodak printed cooler. This
person saw blueish tones. 
> I didn't, but then everyone eyes are different.
> 
> I used the 2200 with Epson inks and printed both using the
Black-Only method at 2880 
> dpi; Gamma 1.8. I also printed both using QTR set for ESG and
MCeramicLuster (for Kodak) 
> at a 50-50 blend. Same result.
> 
> If you have a gift certificate you can't go wrong trying it. A box
of 50 sheets costs $34 at 
> my CompUSA store, or you can order from B&H and it'll cost $31 for
50 sheets, including 
> shipping.
> 
> > Steve -
> > 
> > Thanks for the info - I may give it a try - I've got a $50 store
> > credit at compUSA, need something to spend it on...
> > 
> > What's your sense of longevity with this paper - I know Wilhelm and
> > Kodak disagree fairly vehemently on stability testing.
> > 
> > Another question - what printing method are you using?  I use the UT7
> > inks with QTR for most things - what sort of profile and workflow are
> > you using for the Kodak paper?
> > 
> > Thanks -
> > 
> > Doug
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steveh0607"
> > <steveh060758@m...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> > <paul.roark@v...> 
> > > wrote:
> > > >Hello,
> > > 
> > > Try Kodak Professional Inkjet Lustre. It prints very neutral with
> > good tone separation and 
> > > contrast. I've compared the same print using the Kodak and Epson
> > Semi-Gloss and the 
> > > Epson prints warmer with a flatter contrast.
> > > 
> > > Steve
> >
>