Digital BW, The Print

Bob,

I agree 100% with your post. What Scott fails to understand is that 
the vendor had no Wilhelm-like data from a highly contolled 
enviroment. Such tests can be used to make comparison even when A and 
B are not tested concurrently, precisely because it is highly 
controlled.

If the vendor won't do it, and yet choose to release the product with 
unverfied claims that A is as good as B, my skepticism rears it's 
ugly head; good thing too from my recent experience. I shudder the 
thought of having to revert the 4000 to the UC inks.

While not controlled to the nth degree, my tests put in enough 
controls to reduce the likelihood of whacky data.
I stand by them, they guide my decision until some revelation comes 
about.

Some people must not have read my posts very carefully; I am 
contnuing to use the NanoChrome K ink on the smaller R220 and R2400 
printers because they do not present the same ink change-over hassle 
and expense. The depth of black is addictive.

Shilesh


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bob@f...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
> 
> Fading does not just depend on light, it also depends on airflow 
over the 
> print, and the concentrations of oxygen, ozone, etc, etc in the 
air. So you 
> need to specify all these things for a controlled fading test. And 
for 
> light, you need to specify the wavelenths and amounts of each. Best 
to leave 
> that to people like Wilhelm who have the equipment and facilities 
to measure 
> and control all these variables, and just do simple ABC comparisons 
under 
> the same conditions, as Shilesh did.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "scott_now_coming" <scott_now_coming@y...>
> 
> 
> Shilesh measured the fading, just not the amount of light the test 
was
> exposed to.
> 
> That's what's really needed.
>