Digital BW, The Print

Tim Atherton wrote:

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

>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.
>
>  
>
Wilhelm reminds me of the "man behind the curtain" in the Wizard of 
Oz... He was seen as almost godlike in Oz until he didn't pay enough 
attention to the mundane and a little dog pulled open the curtain and 
revealed the man with feet of clay behind that curtain..

Once the reality of being fallible was revealed, he no longer scared, 
nor even impressed...

In any case, all Wilhelm certification says to me is that a firm had 
enough bucks to buy its way onto his queue.. Without disclosure of full 
results, the limited numbers we get via the manufacturers are so much 
abstract data that can't reliably be compared product to product.. 
Perhaps, just perhaps, that is EXACTLY the way the manufacturers intend.

Let's all hope RIT or someone else starts doing independent testing.. 
 Of course, if the PC Magazines, especially the Ziff Davis entries, were 
REAL journalistic periodicals, they would test for archivability and 
print display life with every serious competitive review of inkjet 
market entries..  With the lack of ad money around the tech field I 
won't bet on that happening anytime soon either..

I wonder... This group has about 1600, my group about 1700, the other 
inkjet groups have a few thousand more...   What if we were to begin an 
e-mail campaign to push the manufacturers NOT to use Wilhelm numbers.. 
AND along with that we wrote letters to manufacturers and publications 
pushing for real archival data.  We could asking publications to do 
testing or suggest they use RIT or some other lab... I know there were 
some efforts at developing alternative labs and methodologies..  Thoughts?

Keith
 
 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




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

Interesting thoughts  Keith.

I may be wrong here, but I think the Image Permanence Institute at RIT also
does testing for manufacturers, at a price?

Keith has gone from telling us to leave Henry Wilhelm out of our 
posts to trying to use our list to organize his harassment of Wilhelm.

And asks our thoughts!

For starters, I think Keith ought to be told to quit abusing this list.

Keith should also quit tormenting Wilhelm, who has done and is doing 
work for Epson, Lyson, etc. which helps us whether Epson, Lyson, etc. 
let Wilhelm publish the data or not. We should remember that the 
published data has sometimes been very disappointing and damaging to 
his lab's corporate clients. And we should remember that we are not 
his lab's clients; only their customers. They arguably owe us 
something, but Wilhelm does not.

We should wish testing was also being done under the auspices of a 
"consumers' union" of printers, a la "Consumer Reports". We could pay 
for it out of the fees charged to subscribe to the list! Now there's 
a modest proposal. Legal too. The line is forming ... wait a minute, 
where is the line forming?

Sam


Keith wrote:

>Tim Atherton wrote:
>
> >So Wilhelm is (or at least was) "the man" in this field.

[snip]

>Let's all hope RIT or someone else starts doing independent testing..

[snip]

>I wonder... This group has about 1600, my group about 1700, the other
>inkjet groups have a few thousand more...   What if we were to begin an
>e-mail campaign to push the manufacturers NOT to use Wilhelm numbers..
>AND along with that we wrote letters to manufacturers and publications
>pushing for real archival data.  We could asking publications to do
>testing or suggest they use RIT or some other lab... I know there were
>some efforts at developing alternative labs and methodologies..  Thoughts?
>
>Keith

Cone has refused to use Wilhelm in the past and has told me that he is
having RIT do the testing of the Piezotones.  I believe that MIS has also
used RIT in the past.

Robert


On 7/4/02 11:36 PM, "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
wrote:

> Tim Atherton wrote:
> 
>> So Wilhelm is (or at least was) "the man" in this field.
>>  
>> 
> <SNIP>
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>  
>> 
> Wilhelm reminds me of the "man behind the curtain" in the Wizard of
> Oz... He was seen as almost godlike in Oz until he didn't pay enough
> attention to the mundane and a little dog pulled open the curtain and
> revealed the man with feet of clay behind that curtain..
> 
> Once the reality of being fallible was revealed, he no longer scared,
> nor even impressed...
> 
> In any case, all Wilhelm certification says to me is that a firm had
> enough bucks to buy its way onto his queue.. Without disclosure of full
> results, the limited numbers we get via the manufacturers are so much
> abstract data that can't reliably be compared product to product..
> Perhaps, just perhaps, that is EXACTLY the way the manufacturers intend.
> 
> Let's all hope RIT or someone else starts doing independent testing..
> Of course, if the PC Magazines, especially the Ziff Davis entries, were
> REAL journalistic periodicals, they would test for archivability and
> print display life with every serious competitive review of inkjet
> market entries..  With the lack of ad money around the tech field I
> won't bet on that happening anytime soon either..
> 
> I wonder... This group has about 1600, my group about 1700, the other
> inkjet groups have a few thousand more...   What if we were to begin an
> e-mail campaign to push the manufacturers NOT to use Wilhelm numbers..
> AND along with that we wrote letters to manufacturers and publications
> pushing for real archival data.  We could asking publications to do
> testing or suggest they use RIT or some other lab... I know there were
> some efforts at developing alternative labs and methodologies..  Thoughts?
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> ****************************************************************
> CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
> This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright,
> Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the
> sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
> privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the
> author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or
> distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you
> are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original
> message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under
> applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in
> violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image
> liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright
> violation penalties.
> 
> POV IMage Service Banner
> ****************************************************************
> { The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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/
> 
>

Sam A. McCandless wrote:

>Keith has gone from telling us to leave Henry Wilhelm out of our 
>posts to trying to use our list to organize his harassment of Wilhelm.
>
>  
>
Sam,

ever heard of SARCASM?

just wondering...


Keith
 



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