Digital BW, The Print

Thats true, pure daylight and/or toxic fumes are a worst case
scenario. But galleries and museums could and should never suggest
displaying valuable images under these conditions, whether that be in
your "sun room", "living room" or in the back yard or in a public
space. I think it has been poined out many times that ANY art work,
including oil paintings are going to fade in strong daylight also.

The one place that pure daylight is a major consideration for us is
when they are designed for public display. Wilhelm did point out how
Cibachromes faded quickly in permanent display under direct skylights.
He had slides of that to show how a public space that had comissioned
giant Ciba murals were extremely upset to see them deteriorate so fast
under strong uv daylight from skylights. So it's not just inkjet, but
everything. In that case strong lamination or even better, several
coats of a good varnish could be the best solution. A lot more does
need to be done in that area. As far as I know there are no really
good "scientific" tests that have been published about these good new
acrylic/laytex varnishes that we use for canvas work, and how they can
protect prints under very harsh conditions. That Livick guy did do
these kind of tests.

john

 
> I think sunlight testing is the best methode. To me, it represents 
> a "worst case scenario".
> 
> So, if an ink, paper, and varnish combo can give me 6 months in the 
> sunlight without fading, what's that worth in typicle room lighting, 
> say 255 LUX?
> 
> 
> 
> Scott
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... 
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
>