Digital BW, The Print

"Keep crunching those numbers, as an archivist I guess validating 
something quantitatively holds more weight than saying "looks pretty 
good to me".

Those numbers - which, by the way, are meaningless without real-world 
calibration - are meant to simulate real-world aging 
using "accelerated" methods. They are a substitute for being able to 
put a number of prints up for 200 years and then looking at them 
before making ink/paper decisions. They do not replace "real-world" 
tests, they simulate them. Frankly, even if Clayton had managed to 
somehow quanitify the fading in his prints, would the numbers 
themselves have any meaning? They only have meaning in relation to 
fading detectable to the human eye. If you have fading that can be 
quantified, but is not visible to the eye, then what does it matter? 
To collect data for the sake of collecting data is both ridiculous 
and pointless.

As for precision, one can be extremely precise without being accurate 
at all.

Paul G.