Digital BW, The Print

Scott,

I don't know how I missed this post of yours today.

A preamble: You are not doing NanChrome any favors, I hope you know 
that. Why? Because these inks are touted in their press release as:

"NanoChrome™ Hybrid Resin Technology has met the strict challenges of 
fade resistance tests conducted by independent laboratories and 
industry specialists. Test results are available at 
www.inkvillage.com and conclude that fade resistance is comparable or 
better than major archival inks currently on the market while 
maintaining more vivid and dense colors."

So I called InkVillage and asked them for the data, and was told it 
is not available yet. Hmm, I thought, should I risk putting them on 
my 4000 strictly on their word. No way, absolutely not. Hence my own 
test. 

TO-DATE, THERE IS NOT ONE, NADA, ZILCH PIECE OF FADE INFORMATION ON 
THESE INKS AVAILABLE TO THE BUYING PUBLIC RELEASED BY INKVILLAGE. 
Hell, you should be bitching at them for making these outrageous 
public claims without data from a reputable source; for crying out 
loud they could even be from a disreputable source. I have no beef 
against them, as I wrote, I was going into this eyes-wide open. But 
YOU have taken on an interesting role.

So let's see what data you have. Please, please point me to it.

Now, here I am going into my teaching mode:

My test had (1) my subject (the NanChrome inks), (2) a negative 
control (Epson UC), and (3) a positive control (Epson Dye).

Let me explain. UC inks have a reputation backed by user experience, 
and fade data from Wilhelm and others. It is a "fairly" good inkset 
for fade resistance. The Epson dye inks also have a reputation, also 
backed by exprience and data. It is not considered good for fade 
resistance.

Did you notice the wide variety of common papers I used? I was making 
sure that I did not unduly bias my tests through paper selection. I 
have no interest in RC papers, yet I went to the local CompUsa to get 
EPG and EPSG for the test.

So now, we have a variety of papers, an inkset known for "fairly 
good" fade resistance, an inset known for "fairly poor" fade 
resistance, and my test inkset NanoChrome. If I had tested the 
NanoChrome alone, I should be justly criticised, it would have been 
shoddy on my part.

And guess what, my test showed NanoChromes I received from InkVillage 
are no better than Epson dye inks. Now for some people that is OK, 
and I have no argument with them. But to claim as InkVillage did in 
their press release is BLATANTLY WRONG.

Scott, do you get my drift here buddy. You are not doing NanoChrome 
any favors, because now, I am exposing to a wider public the 
shortcomings in their press release, i.e., VERY IMPRESSIVE CLAIMS 
WITH NO DATA. And, when they do get the data, they decide to redo 
everthing. What's up with that? I really think you should take that 
up with them.

You signed-off "Yes, data is king." Now run along and ask InkVillage 
to give you some data.

Shilesh

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> 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".
> 
> Scott
> 
>  
> 
> -- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
> <shileshjani@b...> wrote:
> >
> > Tyler wrote:
> > 
> > > The point to me was it's not the numbers... it's the visual 
> impact.
> > > It's not a big number black, it's a gorgeous velvety black you 
can
> > > fall into.
> > 
> > Sounds like religion; "get-by on faith, my faith" and so on. You 
> can 
> > fall a lot deeper into a Dmax 2.0 hole than a Dmax 1.7 hole - oh, 
> don't 
> > belive the numbers, just trust me because my head has a bigger 
bump 
> > falling in the former.
> > 
> > I don't mean to be impudent, but what is the point to the 
original 
> post 
> > unless you give the readers some point of objective reference, 
> i.e., 
> > measured density. Bill Atkinson is proabably a great guy, but I 
> hazard 
> > a guess that his reputation is built not by "Bill-Speak" but with 
> real 
> > data - his printer profiles. Let's all remember: "data is king."
> > 
> > Regards.
> > 
> > Shilesh
> >
>