Digital BW, The Print

Clayton, The point that comes out of your analysis to me is simple. If you
have an ink that you want tested, let W use EEM because we don't care about
the paper we just want a good rating and EEM has proven to be a paper that
provides a good to excellent bond to prevent fading. And did EEM come out of
the Epson product line just to do this? Give W a substrate to use that could
hold Epson inks without fading? Or does it show a flaw in his testing
methods? 

 

Inks exist for the most part before our eyes as images ON paper and not just
as color numbers to be discussed. If the package of ink and paper shows
poorly after a short period of time, then all the numbers in the world
cannot support its continued use without the packaging "For Proofing ONLY".
That is unless you like that look and want it to be your image statement. If
the substrate changes color what happens to the image area?  

 

Does any one know if the Smithsonian or other like institution is doing any
testing on these issues? OR will they simply wait and see what survives the
ravages of time? 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Clayton
Jones
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:58 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Wilhelm Ratings for EEM

 

Hello All,

Referring to the Wilhelm report on the 2400 in ABW mode (page 3 at
this link http://www.wilhelm-
<http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R2400.html>
research.com/epson/R2400.html ), someone
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.

It's easy to get confused by this, but you have to understand what W.
is measuring. His ratings are for ink fading. They aren't paper
reviews. He gives results with different papers because any given ink
lasts longer on some papers than others. 

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. In
fact, most of the good pigment inks don't fade much on EEM, hence his
high ratings. 

So his 110 year rating is not an endorsement of EEM for any particular
purpose. As I said above, his reports aren't paper reviews, and his
rating was not for EEM, but for the K3/EEM combination. He's just
saying that X ink lasts Y years on EEM without fading, nothing more. 
EEM is still a crummy paper for anything but proofing. I've had EEM
prints around the house and on the windowsill for several years that
haven't faded at all. They have a dingy yellow look but the ink
hasn't faded.

Regards,
Clayton

Info on black and white digital printing at 
http://www.cjcom. <http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm> net/digiprnarts.htm

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]