Digital BW, The Print

Robert,

You wrote:

>Finally a manufacturer published actual test results.

It is good to see some data.  I've always liked the fact that MIS published
its RIT test results for the MIS Archival inks.

It looks like there may be an error in the MIS FS delta E calculation in the
fade results Cone Editions released.  The FS K faded less than the Portfolio
black, yet is listed as having a higher delta e.

I'm also not sure about note 3 on the "Test Condition."  It says,
"Lightfastness: Irradiation UV (Xe) 10,000 Kj/m2/200 hours."

If the lamp was strong UV, then I wonder if the results correlate well with
actual lighting.  Most of us are oriented to indoor display, where the UV
from fluorescent lights or window-filtered (thus no deep UV) light is the
main problem.  Unlike the outdoor signage market, I don't think we have that
much of a UV problem with our prints.

I'm a little surprised that the carbon sepia did not do better.  I would
have thought that an ink that was supposed to be pure carbon would fade less
than inks that have some color pigments in them to get the tones that are
popular.

I'll run my own tests as samples are provided.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
______________________________________

From: piezography3000@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: piezography3000@yahoogroups.com
Date: 7 Nov 2002 03:12:17 -0000
To: piezography3000@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [piezoBW] New file uploaded to piezography3000


Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the piezography3000
group.

  File        : /400 Hour Xenon tests/preliminary-xenon.pdf
  Uploaded by : piezobw <piezobw@...>
  Description : 400 hours on EPSON EAM

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/files/
400%20Hour%20Xenon%20tests/preliminary-xenon.pdf

[cut and paste the last part of the URL]

Paul, 
Are you suggesting that the errors in Jon Cones results might be 
deliberately biased towards his inks? 
I personally wouldn't trust anything that he publishes until it is 
verified by a independant source such as your own. 
Jon Cones pruducts have never quite come up to his promises along 
with his after sales support. 
I am happy with the MIS FSN for the time being, my  Epson 2200 is 
also producing some fine B/W prints.

Keep up the good work.


Barry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Robert,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> >Finally a manufacturer published actual test results.
> 
> It is good to see some data.  I've always liked the fact that MIS 
published
> its RIT test results for the MIS Archival inks.
> 
> It looks like there may be an error in the MIS FS delta E 
calculation in the
> fade results Cone Editions released.  The FS K faded less than the 
Portfolio
> black, yet is listed as having a higher delta e.
> 
> I'm also not sure about note 3 on the "Test Condition."  It says,
> "Lightfastness: Irradiation UV (Xe) 10,000 Kj/m2/200 hours."
> 
> If the lamp was strong UV, then I wonder if the results correlate 
well with
> actual lighting.  Most of us are oriented to indoor display, where 
the UV
> from fluorescent lights or window-filtered (thus no deep UV) light 
is the
> main problem.  Unlike the outdoor signage market, I don't think we 
have that
> much of a UV problem with our prints.
> 
> I'm a little surprised that the carbon sepia did not do better.  I 
would
> have thought that an ink that was supposed to be pure carbon would 
fade less
> than inks that have some color pigments in them to get the tones 
that are

> popular.
> 
> I'll run my own tests as samples are provided.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> ______________________________________
> 
> From: piezography3000@y...
> Reply-To: piezography3000@y...
> Date: 7 Nov 2002 03:12:17 -0000
> To: piezography3000@y...
> Subject: [piezoBW] New file uploaded to piezography3000
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the piezography3000
> group.
> 
>   File        : /400 Hour Xenon tests/preliminary-xenon.pdf
>   Uploaded by : piezobw <piezobw@c...>
>   Description : 400 hours on EPSON EAM
> 
> You can access this file at the URL
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/files/
> 400%20Hour%20Xenon%20tests/preliminary-xenon.pdf
> 
> [cut and paste the last part of the URL]

Hi Paul-

In talking with Jon Cone at PhotoPlus, he repeatedly emphasized his findings
with EAM- that it yellows significantly in a short time.  Since this is
somewhat contrary to yours and other's findings, both in tests and
anecdotally, I wonder if these lamps are doing something different than
would be experienced in real life.

Bill

on 11/7/02 12:04 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> 
> It is good to see some data.  I've always liked the fact that MIS published
> its RIT test results for the MIS Archival inks.
>  
> I'm also not sure about note 3 on the "Test Condition."  It says,
> "Lightfastness: Irradiation UV (Xe) 10,000 Kj/m2/200 hours."
> 
> If the lamp was strong UV, then I wonder if the results correlate well with
> actual lighting.  Most of us are oriented to indoor display, where the UV
> from fluorescent lights or window-filtered (thus no deep UV) light is the
> main problem.  Unlike the outdoor signage market, I don't think we have that
> much of a UV problem with our prints.
>

EAM yellows because of the burn out of the optical brighteners.  Jon is
using a Xenon source which is rich in UV...this burns out brighteners more
quickly than a fluorescent source or indoor light...but EAM will
yellow...eventually...that is absolutely certain.

I agree with Paul, traditionally it is dyes not pigments that tend to be
very UV sensitive.  Its important to remember that you really don't know
what light source your prints will be viewed under.  In an office building
its likely to be fluorescent and halogen, in a gallery incandescent or
halogen and in a home it may be daylight.  That said, a Xenon source is the
standard in the fading business.  Its high UV content may make both dyes and
pigments fail faster than a fluorescent source...but the ultimate character
of the fade should not be different from a fluorescent source for
pigments...the changes will just happen quicker.  There is no doubt from the
data that he reported that the Museum Black is much more stable than the MIS
FS black and the grays...as we already suspected...are much more stable as
well.  What remains to be seen is how this translates into actual longevity.
But from my perspective I want to be using the winner of relative
testing...because this will also be the winner in longevity.  In the end the
difference in ink costs is pretty minimal compared to the total cost of a
print...particularly if you are printing on archival papers.

Robert

On 11/7/02 5:14 PM, "Bill Morse" <willym@...> wrote:

> Hi Paul-
> 
> In talking with Jon Cone at PhotoPlus, he repeatedly emphasized his findings
> with EAM- that it yellows significantly in a short time.  Since this is
> somewhat contrary to yours and other's findings, both in tests and
> anecdotally, I wonder if these lamps are doing something different than
> would be experienced in real life.
> 
> Bill
> 
> on 11/7/02 12:04 PM, Paul Roark wrote:
> 
>> 
>> It is good to see some data.  I've always liked the fact that MIS published
>> its RIT test results for the MIS Archival inks.
>>  
>> I'm also not sure about note 3 on the "Test Condition."  It says,
>> "Lightfastness: Irradiation UV (Xe) 10,000 Kj/m2/200 hours."
>> 
>> If the lamp was strong UV, then I wonder if the results correlate well with
>> actual lighting.  Most of us are oriented to indoor display, where the UV
>> from fluorescent lights or window-filtered (thus no deep UV) light is the
>> main problem.  Unlike the outdoor signage market, I don't think we have that
>> much of a UV problem with our prints.
>> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
> 
> 
>