Digital BW, The Print

Sam,

I generally agree with you. I think that the various inks will hold up just
fine although I would bet on the pigments to go a much longer distance than
the dyes. (By the way, I thought Wilhelm's estimate on the Lysonic E was 50
to 55 years which is the number I picked up at the inkjetart.com site.)

The problem really is a marketing issue. I think photographers are going to
have a hard time selling fine B&W prints from the Epson 2200 to galleries
and collectors when Epson advertises the materials to have a life of less
than 100 years. There is the impression that archivally processed silver
fiber prints will last forever or for several centuries. This is probably
not true and we really don't know, but this is what you have to match. All
ridiculous but that seems to be the name of the game.

Unfortunately Wilhelm has not bothered, as far as I know, to do the obvious
and to comparison test these new materials against standard photographic
materials. His "years" are a matter of mathematical extrapolation and I
believe that his "print life" is not with the image at 100% but rather at
the point where it drops below some percentage of the original image. 80% or
90% I believe. Maybe lower. The RIT test is to 65% color retention.

Wilhelm's research would be much more meaningful if the "life" was expressed
in comparison to a silver print. Did the Lysonic E or whatever fade at the
same rate as a silver print in the same test? That seems like a pretty easy
thing to measure and the fact that it has not been reported makes me
skeptical. Besides Wilhelm has been missing in action for two years now.

If Wilhelm ran all of his trials and calculated "print life" the same way
each time, then the real value of his results is in comparing one medium to
another. I really don't think you can take his published year values and
compare them to what you personally might get. Could be less or it could be
more. There are far too many variables. Only our descendants will know for
sure.

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson 2200,1280 and quad tone options


> The most recent Wilhelm report (6/20/2000) I have on the Lysonic E
> Quad Neutral inks reported them at greater than 100 Wilhelm years and
> counting both on Lysonic Standard Fine art Paper and on Somerset
> Velvet. Also at 80 - 90 Wilhelm years on Epson Photo Paper. All on
> the 3000. (The Lysonic E Quad Sepia inks reached 80 - 90 years on
> Lysonic Standard Fine Art, 55 - 60 years on Somerset Velvet, and 15 -
> 20 years on Epson Photo Paper. Also on the 3000.)
>
> Some photos from the 1800s are still going strong. But I'm not sure
> they would be if they had been doing the kind of hard time prints do
> in Wilhelm's tests. I don't disagree that there's an informal,
> experience-based 150+ year standard for B&W prints' longevity. But I
> guess we don't know how many Wilhelm years that would be? Wilhelm
> years are made up of days which include 12 hours at 450 lux. Isn't it
> plausible that 100+ Wilhelm years is a _higher_ standard for B&W
> prints?
>
> Sam
>
>
>
(snip)

>Sam,
>
>I generally agree with you. I think that the various inks will hold 
>up just fine although I would bet on the pigments to go a much 
>longer distance than the dyes.

So would I, but the longer they both go the less I think it matters, 
and on some papers the longer-lasting pigments and dyes alike are now 
beyond 100 Wilhelm years and still counting. And Wilhelm-year 
predictions seem to me to tend to under-predict because he uses 450 
lux for 12 hours a day. That's why I try to never just say "years" 
but rather "Wilhelm years" (or "Wyrs" for short).


>(By the way, I thought Wilhelm's estimate on the Lysonic E was 50 to 
>55 years which is the number I picked up at the inkjetart.com site.)

It was 50+ (and counting) Wilhelm years for the Neutral ink set on 
Lyson's Standard Fine Art paper by whatever cutoff made it into 
Wilhelm's 6/9/99 report, which is still available on InkJetArt.com. 
(It was also 50+ and counting for Epson's (improved) Photo Paper but 
75+ and counting for Somerset Velvet.) But by whatever cutoff made it 
into Wilhelm's 6/20/2000 report, LSFA and SV were both at 100+ (and 
still counting) Wilhelm years and Epson's Photo Paper had died at 80 
- 90 Wilhelm years.


>The problem really is a marketing issue. I think photographers are 
>going to have a hard time selling fine B&W prints from the Epson 
>2200 to galleries and collectors when Epson advertises the materials 
>to have a life of less than 100 years.

That seems likely to me too. But I'm not clear on whether their life 
spans are predicted at less than 100 Wyrs period, or whether they are 
predicted at less than 100 Wyrs and still counting? My impression is 
that Epson might have started the pre-release publicity before the 
testing was completed.


>There is the impression that archivally processed silver fiber 
>prints will last forever or for several centuries. This is probably 
>not true and we really don't know, but this is what you have to 
>match. All
>ridiculous but that seems to be the name of the game.

I agree. But I think we should at least remind ourselves that Wilhelm 
was testing at 450 lux for each of 12 hours a day. And ask how that 
compares even to the survivors sample of the old silver prints we 
think have done well. To say nothing of those that didn't survive.


>Unfortunately Wilhelm has not bothered, as far as I know, to do the 
>obvious and to comparison test these new materials against standard 
>photographic materials.

"Bothered" might not be the right word, because I don't know that he 
wasn't paid to do it - I expect he was - but Wilhelm's 1/30/2000 
report includes life-span predictions in Wilhelm years for: Fujicolor 
Crystal Archive (60 Wilhelm years), Kodak Ektacolor Edge 7 and Royal 
VII (18 Wyrs), Kodak DuraLife Paper, 1999 type (18 Wyrs), Kodak 
Ektacolor Portra III Professional (14 Wyrs), Konica Color QA Type A7 
(14 Wyrs), and Agfacolor Type 11 (13 Wyrs). Wilhelm's 5/1/2000 report 
added Ilford Ilfrochrome Silver Dye-Bleach (29 Wyrs, both Classic 
Deluxe Polyester Base and RC-Base).


>His "years" are a matter of mathematical extrapolation and I believe 
>that his "print life" is not with the image at 100% but rather at 
>the point where it drops below some percentage of the original 
>image. 80% or 90% I believe. Maybe lower. The RIT test is to 65% 
>color retention.

I don't know what the figures are either. But I haven't heard it said 
that Wilhelm's standards are too low. And I guess it doesn't matter 
if we use the outcomes only to compare one ink-and-paper combination 
to another?


>Wilhelm's research would be much more meaningful if the "life" was 
>expressed in comparison to a silver print. Did the Lysonic E or 
>whatever fade at the same rate as a silver print in the same test? 
>That seems like a pretty easy thing to measure and the fact that it 
>has not been reported makes me skeptical.

But it seems to me that it has been reported as far as his client 
base allows, and we just haven't been making the comparisons.


>Besides Wilhelm has been missing in action for two years now.

But still issuing bulletins from behind enemy lines? I downloaded 
only the few with something which interested me:
       (1) on 7/4/01, that Gen4 on Royal Plush was at 50+ Wyrs and 
counting. The same bulletin noted that the Kodak Ektacolor Edge 8 
prediction had come in at 22 Wyrs.
       (2) on 7/31/01, that Gen4 on Royal Plush was at 75+ Wyrs and counting.
       (3) on 11/1/01, that 5500 prints on a variety of Epson papers 
were predicted to last 100+ Wyrs, and that Gen4 on Royal Plush was up 
to 100+ Wyrs and still counting.


>If Wilhelm ran all of his trials and calculated "print life" the 
>same way each time,

I thought he did?


> then the real value of his results is in comparing one medium to another.

This seems to be an emerging consensus, and I'm not trying to challenge it.


>I really don't think you can take his published year values and 
>compare them to what you personally might get.

Nor do I.


>Could be less or it could be more. There are far too many variables. 
>Only our descendants will know for sure.

Yes, but I think we know a lot more than we are working with when we 
discuss these subjects. My impression is that if everything we know 
were pulled together, our ink jet prints would look more promising 
than generally perceived and that traditional prints would look less 
promising than generally thought.

Sam McCandless                    samcc@...

>
>Martin Wesley
>http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@...>
>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson 2200,1280 and quad tone options
>
>
> > The most recent Wilhelm report (6/20/2000) I have on the Lysonic E
> > Quad Neutral inks reported them at greater than 100 Wilhelm years and
> > counting both on Lysonic Standard Fine art Paper and on Somerset
> > Velvet. Also at 80 - 90 Wilhelm years on Epson Photo Paper. All on
> > the 3000. (The Lysonic E Quad Sepia inks reached 80 - 90 years on
> > Lysonic Standard Fine Art, 55 - 60 years on Somerset Velvet, and 15 -
> > 20 years on Epson Photo Paper. Also on the 3000.)
> >
> > Some photos from the 1800s are still going strong. But I'm not sure
> > they would be if they had been doing the kind of hard time prints do
> > in Wilhelm's tests. I don't disagree that there's an informal,
> > experience-based 150+ year standard for B&W prints' longevity. But I
> > guess we don't know how many Wilhelm years that would be? Wilhelm
> > years are made up of days which include 12 hours at 450 lux. Isn't it
> > plausible that 100+ Wilhelm years is a _higher_ standard for B&W
> > prints?
> >
> > Sam

On 7/4/02 5:22 PM, "Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@...> wrote:

> It was 50+ (and counting) Wilhelm years for the Neutral ink set on
> Lyson's Standard Fine Art paper by whatever cutoff made it into
> Wilhelm's 6/9/99 report, which is still available on InkJetArt.com.
> (It was also 50+ and counting for Epson's (improved) Photo Paper but
> 75+ and counting for Somerset Velvet.) But by whatever cutoff made it
> into Wilhelm's 6/20/2000 report, LSFA and SV were both at 100+ (and
> still counting) Wilhelm years and Epson's Photo Paper had died at 80
> - 90 Wilhelm years.

I believe that Lyson's Standard fine Art paper is the one that they make for
Iris dyes?  If so...it is loaded with acid to work better with the
dyes...while I'm sure it will last just fine in Wilhelm's "accelerated"
tests...I'd bet that the paper will be badly yellowed after just 10 years of
real aging.  That's the problem with dyes on fine art paper...you need acid
in the paper to make them look good and last...this is a penny wise and
pound foolish proposition.  If you are going to print with dyes I would
suggest one of the swellable polymer papers...don't use fine art papers with
dyes if you want longevity.  Brightcube's Gelatin Fine Art might be worth a
look if you really want to print on fine art media...I don't think that is
loaded with acid.

Robert