Digital BW, The Print

"He didn't know exactly
how much light hit each print either."

Not "exactly", no, because he took readings every hour and added them 
together. And if I remember correctly, he only ran the test 
on "sunny" days.

What I would like is a LUX meter that could be left on to give 
an "accumulative" measurement.

In other words, if I leave the mater on for 72 hours, the meter would 
give a reading of the total amount of light that it's sensor has 
recieved in that 72 hour period.

That would make testing a lot easier, as one wouldn't have to take 
hourly readings or worry about clouds rolling in during your testing 
period.

Actually, cloudy days would matter, other than the fact that it may 
slow down ones testing.

A quick search on GOOGLE didn't return any such meter. Though, there 
was a lot of LUX meters availible.

Scott




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> <scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Shilesh measured the fading, just not the amount of light the 
test 
> was 
> > exposed to.
> > 
> > That's what's really needed.
> > 
> 
> 
> As I said, I won't get into this anymore at this time. When I get 
the 
> prints, I'll spit out the numbers, and maybe some graphs. I'm not 
> going to get into the logic behind this test. You can draw your own 
> conclusions from what I'll give you.
> 
> 
> And as I said, if Mr. Livick received this much grief for each of 
his 
> tests, I can understand why he pulled all the results and killed 
all 
> the email accounts that went with his site. He didn't know exactly 
> how much light hit each print either.
>