Digital BW, The Print

Scott, 

Ouch, I feel neutered; I am a he, not a she. But that's tough to 
fugure out with aname like mine. I once reminded a coworker, "my name 
is Shilesh, not Celeste" His response: "OK Celeste".

Please read my last posting. I reiterate, NanoChrome inks I tested 
are no better than Epson Dye, nothing less, nothing more. I am not 
stating in years or any such thing. And, NanoChrome FADE FASTER than 
UltraChrome, nothing less, nothing more.

No one said anything about coatings. By your arguments, you could use 
the relatively inexpensive Dye insk from a whole buch of places 
(much, much cheaper than NanoChrome) and they would perform just as 
well, if coated. So why bother with NanoChrome.

Again, Scott you are doing a lot of harm to NanoChrome and InkVillage 
with your posts. Remember they have ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLIC DATA. Should 
I say it again? They may fix the issue, if any, with the ink, but 
they will have to contend with this idiocy nonetheless.

Do InkVillage a favor, and quit digging a deeper hole for them.

Shilesh

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
>
> "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".
> >
>