Digital BW, The Print

Hello Eric,

>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? 

I don't have an answer to your questions, and I'm not attempting to
pass judgement on his methods.  I accept W's reports for what they
are: he has certain methods that he applies and he reports the results
he gets.  We are free to accept or reject his findings.  Aside from
that, it seems pretty clear to me that he isn't testing papers and
reporting on their archival properties, he's testing inks for fade
resistance.  I was just pointing out that it's a mistake to get those
things confused.


>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?  

I don't disagree with any of this, but implied in your words seems to
be an expectation that W. should be providing a complete one-stop
archival materials rating service and you are angry and disappointed
that he isn't.  I have never gotten the impression from his web site
that he's providing that kind of service (he probably doesn't have a
lab capable of it).  


Regards,
Clayton


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