Digital BW, The Print

While Wilhelm's ratings may be honestly arrived-at, they are *allow*
those numbers to be used for marketing purposes. This means they're
being paid, one way or another, for those numbers, which in turn means
their "results" should be evaluated harshly. 

Using Wilhelm, EEM was designated as "archival" by Epson until last
year (they stopped earlier in the U.S.). When they dropped "archival"
it had nothing to do with ink fade. 

The longer Wilhelm fails to emphasize  the limited meaning of their
numbers (their reliance on "notes"), the more dubious their "test
results." 

Participating as actively as they do in paper marketing, and
tolerating "confusion," they muddy the waters. 

Wilhelm barely begins to address "archival," it only addresses ink
fade. Wonderful people like us know the truth from experience, while
Wilhelm prospers by the "confusion" of the unwashed masses.  

The term "archival" continues to have the larger meaning that it's
long held with silver paper, and Wilhelm barely relates. 
 


 
> asked me why he rated EEM so highly (110 years), it being a non
> archival paper. Here's my take on this, I thought it was worth posting.
> 
 
> 
> The problem with EEM is that it turns a dingy shade of yellow in a
> short amount of time, due to acid or lignen or whatever, so it's not
> considered archival.  But that has nothing to do with ink fading.