Digital BW, The Print

>As far as longevity is concerned, note the study (and graph) by Golden 

>Paint Company that compares dye and pigment image longevity vs 

>applications of various UV/abrasion coatings.  The results are quite 

>striking to me.  Basically, non coated images have a very poor longevity

>with dye images the worst. However there is great improvement with 

>the best coatings and the difference between pigment and dye image 

>longevity is negligible in a properly coated image.   J Vee

 

Is this the URL for the Golden Paints article?

http://www.goldenpaints.com/justpaint/jp14article2.php  

 

This URL has charts comparing various inks and coatings, and the Golden UV
coatings appear to make a dramatic difference.

 

The article notes:  "For accelerated lightfastness testing we utilized Q-Lab
QUV type instruments with UV-A 351 bulbs."

 

When reading or trying to interpret the results of these tests, one must
consider the light used.  Here, keep in mind that Golden used a UV light
source.  Then their UV coating was applied to the test images.  A UV coating
filters out UV light.  Thus the coating might have been almost opaque to the
light that was used.  But the coating obviously lets through almost all
visible light.

 

Visible light is probably responsible for most of the indoor display print
fading that is due to light.  Window glass filters out much of the worst UV.
Wilhelm and RIT, as far as I know, use fluorescent lights that have a
spectrum much like we actually use inside - not searing UV radiation.  Paint
companies and outdoor sign companies are more likely to use a high UV Xenon
light because outdoor lighting contains much more UV than indoor lighting,
and these commercial accelerated light faders are fast.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J Vee
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:36 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I think I want to go back to dye ink.

 

As far as longevity is concerned, note the study (and graph) by Golden Paint
Company that compares dye and pigment image longevity vs applications of
various UV/abrasion coatings. The results are quite striking to me.
Basically, non coated images have a very poor longevity with dye images the
worst. However there is great improvement with the best coatings and the
difference between pigment and dye image longevity is negligible in a
properly coated image. J Vee

On 11/16/07 1:23 PM, "i_3d_c" <ichristie@sbcglobal
<mailto:ichristie%40sbcglobal.net> .net> wrote:

Of course, longevity is an unknown. But then I always print pigment
> versions as well plus I'll (hopefully) always have the digital files
> around for reprints 40 years from now. :-)
> 
> thanks for the input.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "i_3d_c"
> <ichristie@...> wrote:

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

 



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