Digital BW, The Print

Scott,

Well yes, there wasn't a TOTAL LUX amount for this given test. To me, 
regardless of whatever the total LUX was in this test, what the fade 
results were for the inks that were tested don't bode well for the 
NanoChrome inks.
I cannot find any test parameters that explain how the 6+ BLUE WOOL 
results were attained or who did the test for the NanoChrome inks 
touted on the web site. Shilesh at least did give some outcome numbers 
and background on his fade test he did.

Larry

On Jan 29, 2006, at 9:09 AM, scott_now_coming wrote:

> " Let's all remember: "data is king."
>
> Funny you should be the one to say that.
>
> After all, you posted meaningless "statistics" on your Nanochrome (so
> called) test.
>
> You print out some bands of ink on a paper. You hang them in a
> window for 18 days and then take some measurements and then tell us
> that Nanochromes are no good.
>
> But what you failed to do was even TRY to measure the amount of LUX
> your prints recieved. That's what's most important: How much TOTAL
> LUX the inks (and papers, coatings...) can recieve before fading (or
> yellowing, or cracking...).
>
> When a few reputable people have come up with a standard (whether you
> agree or disagree with their method)you should have attemped to use
> the same method yourself.
>
>
> At least Wilhelm and Livick have measures the total about of LUX
> their samples have recieved. You can agree or disagree on which light
> source should be used for testing, but at least these two are using
> a "scientific" method for measurement. Adn at what fade % is
> acceptable to you. Wilhelm uses a 30% fade rate.
> Livick used 30% as well, and even gave numbers form as little as a 5%
> fade rate.
>
> 18 days of south facing light below the Mason-Dixion is probably
> better than it sounds. That maybe 8 million LUX which could be equal
> to over 100 years in a room without direct sunlight shining on it,
> and the room reciveing about 200 LUX per day.
>
> After using a good coating, that could really increase the fade
> resistance of those inks to a staggering degree.
>
> Sadly, "sheep" will take that Nanochrome post of yours and go on
> believing that these inks are no good and never give Nanochrome the
> benefit of the doubt.
>
>  That is truly the sad part of your (un) scientific test.
>
> Yes, "data is king".