Digital BW, The Print

"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."

How can you reasonably say that?

11 hours of sunshine is equal to about 1 million lux.

Shilesh, I believe stated, that her test print didn't recieve total 
sunshine all day, everyday, but most days. 

Everyday, all day would be about 18 million LUX. So, let's say it 
recieved 45% sunshine for those 18 days. That would give us about 8.1 
million LUX.

Under an interior setting that recieves about 255 LUX per day, would 
not fade for about 87 years. And this is an "UNCOATED" print!

And, I think her fading was , what, between 10 and 16%?

That's not even going for a 30% fade rate!

I think people that discounted the Nanochrome inks because of 
Shilesh's test, should re-think their position.

Because if Shilesh's testing is what it appears to me, those 
Nanochrome inks are a lot more stable than Shilesh's post leads 
people to believe.

Remember, a good varnish like Golden or Clear Shield will increase 
the fade protection 1000% (10 times compared to an "un-protected" 
print).

Scott




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Larry Wangelin 
<lwangelin@h...> wrote:
>
> 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".
>