Digital BW, The Print

Hogarth,

Wilhelm might have been correct! I have 1270 prints that have never shown 
the dreaded orange effect. People only a block apart in the States had or 
did not have the effect. It wasn't a world-wide effect that everyone got. 
Some did and some didn't, depending, apparently, on their local ozone 
levels, though I don't think anyone has really got to the bottom of this.

So perhaps Wilhelm's lab was in an area that did not get the orange effect; 
there were plenty of them. Ok, those who did get it made a lot of noise and, 
as a result, some thought it was a universal effect. It wasn't.

Testing can only go so far. New cars, for example, are tested by specialist 
drivers who subject them to all sorts of severe treatment before release, 
but once all the people in the world are let loose on those cars, all sorts 
of other things will show up that the testers never thought of, or wouldn't 
dream of subjecting the cars to, or couldn't subject them to (you can't test 
them in every location in the world).

You say the culprit is 'assumptions'; fair enough, but the 'sunshine test' 
favoured by many on this list only tests one thing - what will happen to 
your print if you expose it to sunshine. No more, no less. You can't assume 
that because it withstands sunshine, it will withstand anything, or vice 
versa, that if it doesn't withstand sunshine, that it won't withstand normal 
lighting conditions, or chemical pollutants.

And what are 'normal lighting conditions'? You ought to test under 
incandescent lamps, fluororescent lamps, halogen lamps, etc, (and 
combinations of them?) all at various lighting intensities, all with and 
without various levels of air movement, various ozone levels, various other 
pollutants, etc, etc, etc.

No wonder no one has leapt at the idea of setting up a 'users testing lab'. 
The costs would be huge, once you look at all the possible variables - inks, 
papers, lights, temperature, humidity, airflow, pollutants, etc, etc., that 
would have to be tested for (duplicated in different parts of the world, to 
take account of unknown and unforseen factors).

In about 50 yrs or so, we will have a better idea of what chemical qualities 
are necessary in our inks and papers, not just for longevity, but for color 
as well. Until then, we have to make do with what our current scientists can 
do, with the limited funds and time at their disposal. Even with NASA's 
colossal funding, things still go wrong.

Anyone can criticise; few will advance the subject in the way that Wilhelm 
has, IMHO.

Time for me to fade away.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <hogarth@...>

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.