Digital BW, The Print

Which actually seems to me to bring up a key point. I certainly don't 
claim to be an expert, or have the experience that most of the people 
on this thread do. But from what I have read there are three things 
that primarily effect longevity: the ink, the paper, and the 
environment. If all three aren't fully controlled the longevity is 
determined by the "weakest link." It seems that what you are all 
saying is "all things being equal" this lasts better than that. But 
how often are all things equal? i.e., in the real world, does this 
really matter?

Likewise for neutrality. The "eye of the beholder" aside, the paper 
(including presence or lack of OBAs and the paper lot), the lot or 
batch of ink, the color temperature of the light in the display area 
(possibly even the age of the bulbs or the mix of daylight and 
artifical light) will effect the perceived neutrality of the ink.  

For those with experience to give a really helpful response, in the 
real world do these things objectively matter, are they overcome by 
the "noise" all the things we can't control, or are people actually 
just expressing their likes and dislikes, their own personal 
impressions and perceptions, rather than any objective, practical 
issue of major concern.

Rich


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Anyone who has ever worked with watercolors, even the finest ones 
such
> as Windor Newton, knows that you can look at the pigments floating
> around in suspension right there on the paper itself. That fairly
> coarse clumping of pigments is actually the substance and beauty of
> the medium. Hardly the kind of grinding that one would need to pass
> through an Epson micro piezzo head for photogaphic smooth value
> purposes. That is apples and oranges compared there.
> 
> What started this line of the thread was me saying that carbon 
pigment
> in conjunction with micro grinding AND all the other components of 
an
> inkjet formulation is a different animal than carbon pigment in a
> natural form, pure carbon.  
> 
> If this were not true there would be no need to fade test these
> monochrome inkjet prints at all to determine whether they were >200,
> >300, etc. They would last into the thousands of years, or at least
> until the paper fell apart.   
> 
> john
>