Digital BW, The Print

john dean wrote:

> I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. 

I also hate that you are always defending Wilhelm ;-)

> But there is a
> lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
> difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the stability
> domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections in his
> projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson Premium
> Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and staining that
> existed apart from the lux level figures and confused everyone. The
> culprit ended up being ozone.

And we might add, Wilhelm missed this completely. Those inks went out to 
the marketplace with his stamp of approval. Hundred year life, I think 
he said.

The culprit here was assumptions. Epson assumed that every print that 
came off their printers would be framed (I mean -- duh). Wilhelm agreed 
to test that way (where was his integrity?). Epson was being arrogant. 
Wilhelm, who knew better (the guy ain't dumb), took their money and said 
"you're the boss."

Whether he knew or didn't, whether he should have or not, he put his 
name and reputation on the 1270 inks. He said they would last. Under 
glass. Knowing that this was contrary to the way people actually use the 
products.

Ever since then, his integrity has been suspect to a great many people. 
This is why you are always having to defend him ;-)

You have to remember - this is the guy who went after Kodak because all 
those color photographs were fading in people's shoe boxes in the back 
of their closets. He knew that this is what people did with prints. He knew.

>
> This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints being
> stored and shown behind glass, started. 

Yes - Epson and Wilhelm trying to CYA. That's how we tested - so that's 
how you should use the product. Sorry if that's not real world 
conditions. Sorry if you can't afford to frame every scrap of paper. 
Sorry if you are putting family photos into scrap books.

> Later the talk about sprays
> doubling or tripling the life of the print.

That was us, trying to recover from having bought equipment, paper, and 
inks based on Wilhelm's OK. Just trying to salvage something from the 
1270 debacle.

>
>
> Now.. how ones tests for these airborne contaminants and subsequently
> publish stability data that takes them into consideration, well that
> is a big one that I'm certainly ignorant about. This is someting we
> all need to know a lot more about.

They are called "environmental chambers." Examples:

http://www.lre.com/test2/docs/menu.htm

>
> My procedure, much to the horror of many of us out here, is to spray
> everything that I need the greatest permanece for. At this point my
> assumption is that airborne substances are even more toxic to inkjet
> prints than uv light.

You are spraying both sides then? Else, you still need to seal the 
print, front and back, in a frame.

>
> But spraying itself is toxic too, to us humans, and everyone has to
> make that decision for himself for the needs of his clients.
> John