Digital BW, The Print

Martin Wesley wrote:

>
>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.
>
>  
>

As for Wilhelm, I posted this today on another list...


----------------------------------------------

Where's Wilhelm.?

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/       ?

The site is STILL under construction! The only thing that changes are
the images of construction equipment..

Two years and counting...  LOL

I am amazed that companies still report data from Wilhelm, when all of
his data seems completely unavailable to the public..

He may have a great reputation, but since the EPSON orange-shift debacle
he seems to have no desire or intent to publicly disclose results...  To
me that makes his numbers utterly useless except as a marketing tool for
manufacturers.

To all Henry's proponents... I will admit Henry had a great reputation
and provided for many years an important service to the printing
community, but, isn't two years LONG enough to put up some data? Or has
he given up on accelerated testing methods?  Meaning that we should
expect a 10 to 100 year wait (depending on the archivability of
particular inks and papers) to see real data from him?

IMHO his two year absence and failure to publicly report data has made
his company an open joke.  I'm beginning to believe the site is there
solely to placate us, that Henry has NO plans to ever again PUBLICLY
release his data...  If so, he owes us all a note to that effect..

Please note that I have addressed this e-mail to Wilhelm as well..
Maybe, with the absence of the Leben list, they will deign to answer
this open letter..

--------------------------------------------

If I hear ANYTHING from Wilhelm Inc. I will let people know..  I'm just 
NOT holding my breath...

Keith
 
 





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

I was recently looking at a site for a lab that does carbon colour prints
with an incredible predicted lifespan.

They had a link to the tests of there materials on the Wilhelm site, but of
course it was dead.

I guess they got screwed...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:09 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Life was Epson 2200,1280 and quad tone
> options -- Leave WILHELM out of this
>
>
> Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> As for Wilhelm, I posted this today on another list...
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Where's Wilhelm.?
>
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/       ?
>
> The site is STILL under construction! The only thing that changes are
> the images of construction equipment..
>
> Two years and counting...  LOL
>
> I am amazed that companies still report data from Wilhelm, when all of
> his data seems completely unavailable to the public..
>
> He may have a great reputation, but since the EPSON orange-shift debacle
> he seems to have no desire or intent to publicly disclose results...  To
> me that makes his numbers utterly useless except as a marketing tool for
> manufacturers.
>
> To all Henry's proponents... I will admit Henry had a great reputation
> and provided for many years an important service to the printing
> community, but, isn't two years LONG enough to put up some data? Or has
> he given up on accelerated testing methods?  Meaning that we should
> expect a 10 to 100 year wait (depending on the archivability of
> particular inks and papers) to see real data from him?
>
> IMHO his two year absence and failure to publicly report data has made
> his company an open joke.  I'm beginning to believe the site is there
> solely to placate us, that Henry has NO plans to ever again PUBLICLY
> release his data...  If so, he owes us all a note to that effect..
>
> Please note that I have addressed this e-mail to Wilhelm as well..
> Maybe, with the absence of the Leben list, they will deign to answer
> this open letter..
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> If I hear ANYTHING from Wilhelm Inc. I will let people know..  I'm just
> NOT holding my breath...
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hmmm, I'm thinking about this whole debate regards longevity in photographic 
materials  ---in art-speak the debate is known as entrophic vs. non-entrophic 
materials---  a well known example would be that of the works of Jackson 
Pollock.  Jackson used materials readily available in hardware stores at the the 
time consisting of common substrate materials using very cheap and poor 
mixtures ie. household paint.  Paint he did, and he made gorgeous work with 
what he used.  His works eventually were sold and accessed at millions of 
dollars.  People and investors spent all kinds of money for his work only to find it 
crumbling and the peeling work floating to the floor ( a last laugh for Jackson?).  
This presents a diablolical nightmare for art and museum conservators alike as 
well as for the investors and museums.  Now to get back on the subject of 
photography, really, what is a photo?  It is an insight into your mind, it is what you 
do with it that personalizes the work that makes it yours.  People want that.  
Look at Doug and Mike Starn, what with the poorly fixed and washed images 
scotched tape together; scotch tape yellows, poorly fixed and washed images as 
we all know will tend to acidify and stain over time.  What is it that people see?  
Personally I think it's gorgeous,  to larger scheme of things it doesn't matter or  
give two shits what I think.  It matters how other people relate to the work 
personally to themselves.  

For example as a craftsman, as a carpenter, as for the many other trades I've 
worked in as part of the transaction, I will guarantee my work and craftmanship 
up to a certain period of time.  It is a confidence instilling measure for my part and 
theirs for a certain degree of happiness all around.  Craftsmanship is the level of 
what you do to your work that makes you happy.  Is the craftsmanship the same 
as between Ansel Adams and Doug and Mike Starn? Of course not!  There are 
many different kinds of craftsmanship.  For example I have a cheesy old Epson 
740 using Espon inks and canned profiles.  I have some great prints coming from 
that machine.  Of course I see its inconsistancies and imperfections.  Does it make 
me unhappy?  Sometimes and of course not.  I take it at face value and make 
some great work from it.  I have a bunch of prints from it that show the evolution 
of my thinking.  All of the same image.  Some a little better than the next.  And I 
learn.  Do other people see that?  Perhaps on the most part, no.  Perhaps people 
intimate with the work will see process.  That is important.  Process is important.  
It shows your touch.  Photography touches on many different levels, two of the 
most important right now that I feel is tactile feel and what you see.  

Example, I love the works of Rembrandt van Rijn.  Why?  You can see the 
brushstrokes, an energy that is caught and magnetic (an extreme example? Van 
Gogh? Luician Freud? Willem DeKooning?) and what you can see.  Right now the 
injet printer spits out paper and ink that is your touch.  The example of Rembrandt 
is very relevant since his metal etchings are still in exsistance and printed and 
considered "originals."  It is his touch once removed.  I'm sure many of you will 
probably want to debate the finer points of this discussion.  However the subject 
here is entrophy vs. non-entrophy.  The subject is the now.  Right now the subject 
exsists, the paper exsists, the ink exsists, the image exsists, yours or anybody's 
for that matter.  (I'm sure quality and experimentation of the inks and papers 
have increased exponentionally over the years) Rembrandt's ink still exsists on 
the paper that was printed on many centuries ago.  Silver Gelatins and Inks are 
entirely different mediums as are the craftsmanships that go with it.

Jonathan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Atherton" <tim@k...> wrote:

> I was recently looking at a site for a lab that does carbon colour prints
> with an incredible predicted lifespan.
> 
> They had a link to the tests of there materials on the Wilhelm site, but of
> course it was dead.
> 
> I guess they got screwed...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@p...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:09 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Life was Epson 2200,1280 and quad tone
> > options -- Leave WILHELM out of this
> >
> >
> > Martin Wesley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > As for Wilhelm, I posted this today on another list...
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Where's Wilhelm.?
> >
> > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/       ?
> >
> > The site is STILL under construction! The only thing that changes are
> > the images of construction equipment..
> >
> > Two years and counting...  LOL
> >
> > I am amazed that companies still report data from Wilhelm, when all of
> > his data seems completely unavailable to the public..
> >
> > He may have a great reputation, but since the EPSON orange-shift debacle
> > he seems to have no desire or intent to publicly disclose results...  To
> > me that makes his numbers utterly useless except as a marketing tool for
> > manufacturers.
> >
> > To all Henry's proponents... I will admit Henry had a great reputation
> > and provided for many years an important service to the printing
> > community, but, isn't two years LONG enough to put up some data? Or has
> > he given up on accelerated testing methods?  Meaning that we should
> > expect a 10 to 100 year wait (depending on the archivability of
> > particular inks and papers) to see real data from him?
> >
> > IMHO his two year absence and failure to publicly report data has made
> > his company an open joke.  I'm beginning to believe the site is there
> > solely to placate us, that Henry has NO plans to ever again PUBLICLY
> > release his data...  If so, he owes us all a note to that effect..
> >
> > Please note that I have addressed this e-mail to Wilhelm as well..
> > Maybe, with the absence of the Leben list, they will deign to answer
> > this open letter..
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > If I hear ANYTHING from Wilhelm Inc. I will let people know..  I'm just
> > NOT holding my breath...
> >
> > Keith

Hmmm, I'm thinking about this whole debate regards longevity in photographic 
materials  ---in art-speak the debate is known as entrophic vs. non-entrophic 
materials---  a well known example would be that of the works of Jackson 
Pollock.  Jackson used materials readily available in hardware stores at the the 
time consisting of common substrate materials using very cheap and poor 
mixtures ie. household paint.  Paint he did, and he made gorgeous work with 
what he used.  His works eventually were sold and accessed at millions of 
dollars.  People and investors spent all kinds of money for his work only to find it 
crumbling and the peeling work floating to the floor ( a last laugh for Jackson?).  
This presents a diablolical nightmare for art and museum conservators alike as 
well as for the investors and museums.  Now to get back on the subject of 
photography, really, what is a photo?  It is an insight into your mind, it is what you 
do with it that personalizes the work that makes it yours.  People want that.  
Look at Doug and Mike Starn, what with the poorly fixed and washed images 
scotched tape together; scotch tape yellows, poorly fixed and washed images as 
we all know will tend to acidify and stain over time.  What is it that people see?  
Personally I think it's gorgeous,  to larger scheme of things it doesn't matter or  
give two shits what I think.  It matters how other people relate to the work 
personally to themselves.  

For example as a craftsman, as a carpenter, as for the many other trades I've 
worked in as part of the transaction, I will guarantee my work and craftmanship 
up to a certain period of time.  It is a confidence instilling measure for my part and 
theirs for a certain degree of happiness all around.  Craftsmanship is the level of 
what you do to your work that makes you happy.  Is the craftsmanship the same 
as between Ansel Adams and Doug and Mike Starn? Of course not!  There are 
many different kinds of craftsmanship.  For example I have a cheesy old Epson 
740 using Espon inks and canned profiles.  I have some great prints coming from 
that machine.  Of course I see its inconsistancies and imperfections.  Does it make 
me unhappy?  Sometimes and of course not.  I take it at face value and make 
some great work from it.  I have a bunch of prints from it that show the evolution 
of my thinking.  All of the same image.  Some a little better than the next.  And I 
learn.  Do other people see that?  Perhaps on the most part, no.  Perhaps people 
intimate with the work will see process.  That is important.  Process is important.  
It shows your touch.  Photography touches on many different levels, two of the 
most important right now that I feel is tactile feel and what you see.  

Example, I love the works of Rembrandt van Rijn.  Why?  You can see the 
brushstrokes, an energy that is caught and magnetic (an extreme example? Van 
Gogh? Luician Freud? Willem DeKooning?) and what you can see.  Right now the 
injet printer spits out paper and ink that is your touch.  The example of Rembrandt 
is very relevant since his metal etchings are still in exsistance and printed and 
considered "originals."  It is his touch once removed.  I'm sure many of you will 
probably want to debate the finer points of this discussion.  However the subject 
here is entrophy vs. non-entrophy.  The subject is the now.  Right now the subject 
exsists, the paper exsists, the ink exsists, the image exsists, yours or anybody's 
for that matter.  (I'm sure quality and experimentation of the inks and papers 
have increased exponentionally over the years) Rembrandt's ink still exsists on 
the paper that was printed on many centuries ago.  Silver Gelatins and Inks are 
entirely different mediums as are the craftsmanships that go with it.

Jonathan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Atherton" <tim@k...> wrote:

> I was recently looking at a site for a lab that does carbon colour prints
> with an incredible predicted lifespan.
> 
> They had a link to the tests of there materials on the Wilhelm site, but of
> course it was dead.
> 
> I guess they got screwed...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@p...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:09 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Life was Epson 2200,1280 and quad tone
> > options -- Leave WILHELM out of this
> >
> >
> > Martin Wesley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > As for Wilhelm, I posted this today on another list...
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Where's Wilhelm.?
> >
> > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/       ?
> >
> > The site is STILL under construction! The only thing that changes are
> > the images of construction equipment..
> >
> > Two years and counting...  LOL
> >
> > I am amazed that companies still report data from Wilhelm, when all of
> > his data seems completely unavailable to the public..
> >
> > He may have a great reputation, but since the EPSON orange-shift debacle
> > he seems to have no desire or intent to publicly disclose results...  To
> > me that makes his numbers utterly useless except as a marketing tool for
> > manufacturers.
> >
> > To all Henry's proponents... I will admit Henry had a great reputation
> > and provided for many years an important service to the printing
> > community, but, isn't two years LONG enough to put up some data? Or has
> > he given up on accelerated testing methods?  Meaning that we should
> > expect a 10 to 100 year wait (depending on the archivability of
> > particular inks and papers) to see real data from him?
> >
> > IMHO his two year absence and failure to publicly report data has made
> > his company an open joke.  I'm beginning to believe the site is there
> > solely to placate us, that Henry has NO plans to ever again PUBLICLY
> > release his data...  If so, he owes us all a note to that effect..
> >
> > Please note that I have addressed this e-mail to Wilhelm as well..
> > Maybe, with the absence of the Leben list, they will deign to answer
> > this open letter..
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > If I hear ANYTHING from Wilhelm Inc. I will let people know..  I'm just
> > NOT holding my breath...
> >
> > Keith

Tim Atherton wrote:
> 
> I was recently looking at a site for a lab that does carbon colour prints
> with an incredible predicted lifespan.
> 
> They had a link to the tests of there materials on the Wilhelm site, but of
> course it was dead.
> 
> I guess they got screwed...


Wilhelm this.. and Wilhelm that.... Why does everyone refer to Wilhelm??
His site has been constantly promising "new info on permanence". This
has gone on  for almost 2 years...But he never delivers. 


-Jeff

>
> Wilhelm this.. and Wilhelm that.... Why does everyone refer to Wilhelm??
> His site has been constantly promising "new info on permanence". This
> has gone on  for almost 2 years...But he never delivers.
>

Partly because Wilhelm literally wrote the book on longevity and
preservation of photographic materials, one you will find on the bookshelf
of every museum conservator and photo archivist across the world.

So Wilhelm is (or at least was) "the man" in this field.

Now though...? the lure of too many big bucks from one manufacturer after
another when Inkjet printing suddenly took off? Taking on too many projects
as a result? Who knows why. But his current reputation certainly seems to
have taken a rather large dip in the last couple of years. Maybe someone
should point this out to the bods at Epson, Canon etc. We view his testing
with scepticism now... Having it "Wilhelm Certified" doesn't necessarily
mean what it once did.

tim

Tim Atherton wrote:

>I was recently looking at a site for a lab that does carbon colour prints
>with an incredible predicted lifespan.
>
>They had a link to the tests of there materials on the Wilhelm site, but of
>course it was dead.
>
>I guess they got screwed...

And lazy?

I assume they were free to create their own reference to Wilhelm's 
reports, as the Bairs have done on InkJetArt.com. I was able to find 
there the 50-year result Martin mentioned in his response to me, and 
I appreciate the Bairs making it available.

My own case of the slows is so advanced that I try never to complain 
about anyone else. And I regard Henry Wilhelm, without knowing him, 
as a fellow sufferer. But I do find it frustrating that he himself 
apparently hasn't provided access to his previously published 
reports, which I think are very useful even now.

Sam McCandless                samcc@...

I'm glad Keith began by quoting Martin's civil and reasoned criticism 
of Henry Wilhelm's recent work. Keith's own criticism shows no sign 
that Keith tried to rise either to the standard set for him by 
Martin's example or to the standards set in this list's welcoming 
message.

As for the rude command Keith added to Lynne Siler's subject line: 
"Leave WILHELM out of this", I injected into this thread with good 
reason the name Keith hates to hear. I posted Wilhelm's data on 
Lyson's neutral and sepia quad tone ink sets because those data were 
relevant to Martin's response to Lynne.

Keith seems not to disagree with what I went on to say so much as to 
want to marginalize and harass Wilhelm. I don't think that should 
have any place on this list either.

Sam McCandless                 samcc@...


Keith wrote:

>As for Wilhelm, I posted this today on another list...
>
>
>----------------------------------------------
>
>Where's Wilhelm.?
>
>http://www.wilhelm-research.com/       ?
>
>The site is STILL under construction! The only thing that changes are
>the images of construction equipment..
>
>Two years and counting...  LOL
>
>I am amazed that companies still report data from Wilhelm, when all of
>his data seems completely unavailable to the public..
>
>He may have a great reputation, but since the EPSON orange-shift debacle
>he seems to have no desire or intent to publicly disclose results...  To
>me that makes his numbers utterly useless except as a marketing tool for
>manufacturers.
>
>To all Henry's proponents... I will admit Henry had a great reputation
>and provided for many years an important service to the printing
>community, but, isn't two years LONG enough to put up some data? Or has
>he given up on accelerated testing methods?  Meaning that we should
>expect a 10 to 100 year wait (depending on the archivability of
>particular inks and papers) to see real data from him?
>
>IMHO his two year absence and failure to publicly report data has made
>his company an open joke.  I'm beginning to believe the site is there
>solely to placate us, that Henry has NO plans to ever again PUBLICLY
>release his data...  If so, he owes us all a note to that effect..
>
>Please note that I have addressed this e-mail to Wilhelm as well..
>Maybe, with the absence of the Leben list, they will deign to answer
>this open letter..
>
>--------------------------------------------
>
>If I hear ANYTHING from Wilhelm Inc. I will let people know..  I'm just
>NOT holding my breath...
>
>Keith

Sam A. McCandless wrote:

>Tim Atherton wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I was recently looking at a site for a lab that does carbon colour prints
>>with an incredible predicted lifespan.
>>
>>They had a link to the tests of there materials on the Wilhelm site, but of
>>course it was dead.
>>
>>I guess they got screwed...
>>    
>>
>
>And lazy?
>
>I assume they were free to create their own reference to Wilhelm's 
>reports, as the Bairs have done on InkJetArt.com. 
>

Why would they have to be "lazy."?

Are we to assume that they have the RIGHT in their contract with Wilhelm 
to publish the reports AFTER Wilhelm has CLEARLY pulled the reports from 
the public domain?

Sure, they can reference Wilhelm numbers, but if no-one can 
 independently say, "yes those numbers exist,"  on what basis is one to 
accept them?  Oh.. wait.. perhaps the answer is Wilhelm's unsullied 
reputation for objective and publicly published results?


Keith
 
 





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

Sam A. McCandless wrote:

>As for the rude command Keith added to Lynne Siler's subject line: 
>"Leave WILHELM out of this",
>
I added that so that readers could easily ignore any digression about 
Wilhelm if they so desired.  That way people could still use the 
original thread subject and listen to commentary on the central topic, 
without having to listen to the sidebar debate/commentary about Wilhelm. 
 It was the exact opposite of rude, it was to let listmembers choose to 
read the commentary or not..  The only person it may plausibly have been 
rude to is Wilhelm, but he has made his own bed on this.

> I injected into this thread with good 
>reason the name Keith hates to hear. 
>
I don't hate to hear his name and was NOT attacking you for bringing it 
up..  I just think that as consumers we need to hold people and 
manufacturers accountable for the promises and claims they make..

>I posted Wilhelm's data on 
>Lyson's neutral and sepia quad tone ink sets because those data were 
>relevant to Martin's response to Lynne.
>  
>
And thanks for so doing. Sincerely.

>Keith seems not to disagree with what I went on to say so much as to 
>want to marginalize and harass Wilhelm. I don't think that should 
>have any place on this list either.
>
>  
>

I've already addressed that issue sufficiently to make clear that is NOT 
the "agenda."

Keith
 
 



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

Sam A. McCandless wrote:

>My own case of the slows is so advanced that I try never to complain 
>about anyone else.
>

As do I.. Hell, I have publications waiting for product reviews from me 
that are 8 weeks late.  But, he promised the new results two years ago 
Sam. With "soon" prominently displayed on the page back then..

What I am lobbying for is that he at least tell us if the results will 
again be published or NOT.  If he has changed his contractual agreements 
since the orange-shift debacle that is understandable, but don't tell us 
that something is coming "soon" and then have NOTHING new after two years.

Heck, at this point, I would bet dollars to donuts that files are still 
linkable to or ftp-able from his site and that the index page is meant 
to discourage the curious.  I''d bet EPSON, Lyson, et al can get the 
files from his site..  I'm just saying he should probably no longer 
represent his site or reports as consumer-oriented or consumer-driven 
data. If the game has changed that much, they would be product 
development data - plain and simple.

> But I do find it frustrating that he himself 
>apparently hasn't provided access to his previously published 
>reports, which I think are very useful even now.
>
>
>  
>
Agreed 100%

Nice to see we DO agree once in awhile..

I'm guessing that they are no longer available because Wilhelm had to 
come up with new methodologies etc.  Realistically, when the 
orange-shift data hit, EPSON could have sued him for not having a 
sufficiently scientific and rigorous methodology to have found the 
problem (as regards cyan dyes the "Gulf Coast" fade problem had been 
publicly reported on in the dye industry since 1955 - and Henry was 
representing his reports as the industry's gold-standard, yet 
inadvertently he missed the cyan dye problem).  EPSON had campaigned 
that the printers involved were worthy of professional use and that the 
prints would last as long as silver prints.

If his methodologies were flawed and IF people relied upon them AFTER 
Henry knew so, he would expose himself to liability from both 
manufacturers and consumers..  Unfortunately, he probably had no REAL 
choice but to pull the old reports.

Beyond that, he may well have had to make concessions to retain 
contracts after that debacle.  One concession might well have been to 
agree to NOT publish data until the manufacturers had products on sale 
that addressed the flaws that Wilhelm's testing might arguably have been 
expected to disclose.  These companies based product development on 
those reports.  They believed they were rigorous, comprehensive, and 
representative..  It turned out that was not 100% true..

My basic question is simply whether or not Henry is going to again 
publish easily comparable data based upon a repeatable established 
baseline methodology.  

Until that is answered , conjecture about alternative testing etc., is 
IMHO going to remain unfocussed and nebulous.  Nuff said.

Keith



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