Digital BW, The Print

Tom OConnell wrote:

> I have to admit I don't know much about it, either. But my own 
> experience is that light is much less a factor than exposure to air 
> and heat and not being covered by glass of any type. 

Wilhelm gives quotes for archival quality too. No light
involved then. And far less degrading in time.

> I admire the way that Mr. Wilhelm has created his own little 
> industry, but I would generally rely on Kodak's judgement over his. 

Where Wilhelm made mistakes they were admitted and corrected
in the later tests. So did Epson that had its media tested by
Wilhelm. There are still cases not solved by Kodak that
happened 30 years ago.

> As far as I know, he has never produced a test for a client that they 
> didn't like. 

I do not know whether his sympathy covers his customer base
only and entirely but if you mean that he didn't test for
small companies you are wrong. John Nollendorfs had his
Lincoln Inks tested, Mediastreet had their Generation Enhanced
tested, Lyson had their Fotonic and Lysonic ink tested and the
result wasn't favorable for the biggest of the three. That it
is expensive to have a test done is another matter.

>That's not to say that Kodak has no self interest 
> either, but they have a very long history of great research and 
> integrity.

I will not dispute the great research but for the rest they
did anything that big companies tend to do. Trying to get away
with Polaroid's market, changing film formats every 5 years,
the color print disaster of the 70's, the Hollywood conflict
and now the substandard standard for fade testing.

> FWIW,

Doesn't come near 2 cents I'm afraid.

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )