Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Craig Yorke <craig@...> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>... I see other posters talking about sending  
> actual work in and having it tested. Surely the $ 25.00 fee does not  
> cover this? I would suggest that besides the 25 dollar fee for those  
> that just want to read the site and offer their financial support  
> that you institute a much higher fee of $ 100.00 which gives you the  
> ability to send in samples and a fee as well tied to the testing of  
> each sample. Surely a few hundred dollars to be able to say to  
> customers that my own combination of ink/canvas/varnish has these  
> particular fade characteristics is worth that. And if I see a large  
> variety of ink and paper test results I may be persuaded to change  
> what materials I use.
>

Hi Craig.

First, thank you for joining the Aai&A digital print research program. The response from the digital B&W forum has been most appreciated.  Light fade tests are labor intensive no matter how one goes about automating the testing. Although I have worked hard to streamline the testing, the break even cost for AaI&A for even a single test is about $600 which most individuals could never justify paying for. If I charged directly for this testing service, it would still be for all practical purposes a "manufacturer's only" game.  The idea behind the AaI&A digital print research program is that by pooling membership fees, together we will get important printer/ink/media combinations tested, free of undue influence by the vendors although vendors are indeed free to participate in the program if they want to.  So, at current pricing, about 25 members are needed to break even on one test, 50 members gives a reasonable profit and room for growth of my company.  

What's going on here is not one but two paradigm shifts in the way modern digital media gets tested for image permanence properties. The first radical shift is in the technology applied to the testing. The I* metric, colorimetry, and visually accurate posting of ongoing test results departs in a dramatic way from current industry practice that relies on outdated densitometric test methods dating back to the era of traditional photofinishing technologies (i.e., chromogenic dye-based silver halide color photography).  The second paradigm shift is in the independent laboratory services model. Conventional laboratory testing requires the client (usually a manufacturer) to pay a hefty price for the test, the costs are buried in the product pricing, and the end-user gets the test results "free" of charge.  The AaI&A testing model inverts this relationship. Testing is essentially "free" and the end-user is asked to support the benefit of the testing information (by pooling membership fees) in order to ensure that any and all material combinations are eligible for testing.  

Right now, I need more members to get the program on an even footing and sustainable trajectory. That's my gamble with this radical change in testing method and the way it gets funded. But I'm encouraged. Membership is growing, albeit slowly. I need to be patient and persistent. I have faith it will all work out well in the long run.

Thanks,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com