Digital BW, The Print

Does anyone have reliable info on the true permanence o UT7 
pigment inkset by MIS? I mean by someone who is a scientist 
who doesn't sell their products.  I realize becaue of the quality of 
the tonal rendering and the price difference with Cone's new 
inks, it may not bit a big issue with a whole lof of people, 
possibly no issue at all for a lot of you.

But for me I still need reliable confirmation in order to sell work 
for exhibitions and galleries, etc. I know from past experience 
there is a lot of misinformation out there from Cone's early 
proclamtions of "carbon pigment the oldest substance known to 
mankind" when they later addmitted to me they were realisticly 
rated at 50 years in average daylight .. to the Lyson propaganda 
that their hextone inks would "outlast most gelatin silver prints" - 
and their archival inksets were rated about 75 years at the very 
best without spraying them. 

So, why does't MIS hire  a reputable testing facility or two? 
Please don't tell me it cost too much. This is their responsibility 
and it has to be factored in.

Bottom line is why should anyone trust their internal tests? In 
terms of years, what DOES  their internal testing data reveal? 
And, yes equiveliency in years of permance does matter to my 
clients.

John: it may be because Bob Zeiss at MIS and Paul Roark come with a
lot of credibility for many of us. Pretty much, across the board, they
both have been real straight shooters, no vaporware, and no products
that just don't work like they should. What few product problems MIS
has have had have been openly acknowledged and replacements made. 

Paul is independent enough for me. He doesn't do this for money. 

Now could they both be wrong as far as projectimg longevity? Possibly,
but so could Wilhelm. But I believe they are giving us honest
information. I trust both of them for that. And I can't say that about
everyone in that business. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

> Does anyone have reliable info on the true permanence o UT7 
> pigment inkset by MIS? 
> 
> So, why does't MIS hire  a reputable testing facility or two? 
> Please don't tell me it cost too much. This is their responsibility 
> and it has to be factored in.
> 
> Bottom line is why should anyone trust their internal tests? In 
> terms of years, what DOES  their internal testing data reveal? 
> And, yes equiveliency in years of permance does matter to my 
> clients.

John  -
 
Do you consider Paul Roark's testing as 'internal'?
 
Tom Baker

john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
Does anyone have reliable info on the true permanence o UT7 
pigment inkset by MIS? I mean by someone who is a scientist 
who doesn't sell their products. I realize becaue of the quality of 
the tonal rendering and the price difference with Cone's new 
inks, it may not bit a big issue with a whole lof of people, 
possibly no issue at all for a lot of you.

But for me I still need reliable confirmation in order to sell work 
for exhibitions and galleries, etc. I know from past experience 
there is a lot of misinformation out there from Cone's early 
proclamtions of "carbon pigment the oldest substance known to 
mankind" when they later addmitted to me they were realisticly 
rated at 50 years in average daylight .. to the Lyson propaganda 
that their hextone inks would "outlast most gelatin silver prints" - 
and their archival inksets were rated about 75 years at the very 
best without spraying them. 

So, why does't MIS hire a reputable testing facility or two? 
Please don't tell me it cost too much. This is their responsibility 
and it has to be factored in.

Bottom line is why should anyone trust their internal tests? In 
terms of years, what DOES their internal testing data reveal? 
And, yes equiveliency in years of permance does matter to my 
clients.




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links







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

In a message dated 7/17/2004 7:16:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
tbaker1328@... writes:
Snip>
> So, why does't MIS hire a reputable testing facility or two? 
> Please don't tell me it cost too much. This is their responsibility 
> and it has to be factored in.
> 
> Bottom line is why should anyone trust their internal tests? In 
> terms of years, what DOES their internal testing data reveal? 
> And, yes equiveliency in years of permance does matter to my 
> clients.
> Snip>
 I really think Internal tests are all the Reseller is likely to do in order 
to get a comfort factor
in selling there inks as archival. We will never know for sure until they 
have been around at least 20 years.
Whilhelm reportedly charges 5k per ink paper combination, so its easy to say 
at MIS prices
There won't be any Whilhelm tests. This is nothing to someone like Epson but 
for MIS and Cone its the difference of staying in business or not. The latest 
inks and papers are engineered for permanence and that's about it.
That's the only real trust we have and your right! It has a shaky background. 
MIS and Cone don't make the inks themselves just just buy it for resale.
I do believe internal tests, and Paul Roarks somewhat informal tests compared 
to the Whilhelm tests On Epson Ultrachrome inks
do show that the MIS and latest Cone Generation inks are equal at LEAST to 
Epson Ultrachome inks.
One thing we do know is that ink and papers are better than ever.
It wasn't very long ago that us regulars tortured our prints buy baking them 
in a Southern exposure window for months at time.
At least with this extreme test you can see shortly any weaknesses. I have 
even completely submerged my Cone ink prints in water
and I'm very comfortable with there lightfastness and water resistance. These 
inks have been tortured internally  to extremes as well, 
and frankly they are as good as it currently gets. Things are very stable now 
with the Cone inks, I really couldn't tell you 
about MIS multi hue sets as I would think the real danger nowadays is a pre 
mature color shift.
You can only gain this trust by using the products and seeing for yourself. I 
have used 3 generations of inks now and selling prints from the past two 
generations.
Things are markedly better now and I don't even give permanence much of a 
thought anymore.
I don't know if there is any scientific proof but I/m quite confident My 
quadtone Cone ink prints will outlast and Color Paper out there including Fuji 
Crystal Archive rated at 69years or so by whilhelm.
Steve M.





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

Longevity tests that state "equivalency in years" can't really be very
reliable. THey are accelerated fade tests and converting those results
to real display years in some sort of standard display or storage
condition may only an informed guess. We already see some of our
preconceptions about "archivally processed" B&W fiber failing. Even
our previous "knowledge" about mounting and framing is under new
scrutiny and will also effect things.
I would never pass on any display year proposition to a client. I
realize this can be disconcerting, but anything we used to pass on
like this was probably never reliable. It seems comparison tests are
really all we have, and many test condition factors can yield results
that disagree. For example, between Fotonic and Epson dyes, change the
humidity and ozone and you will get different winners (I'm told).
Which of those two factors will be more of an issue in a given print's
life?
I would say that someone insisting on a "years of display life" number
from you lacks understanding of the situation and is insisting on
reassurances that can't be given, never could.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

> Does anyone have reliable info on the true permanence o UT7 
> pigment inkset by MIS? I mean by someone who is a scientist 
> who doesn't sell their products.  I realize becaue of the quality of 
> the tonal rendering and the price difference with Cone's new 
> inks, it may not bit a big issue with a whole lof of people, 
> possibly no issue at all for a lot of you.
> 
> But for me I still need reliable confirmation in order to sell work 
> for exhibitions and galleries, etc. I know from past experience 
> there is a lot of misinformation out there from Cone's early 
> proclamtions of "carbon pigment the oldest substance known to 
> mankind" when they later addmitted to me they were realisticly 
> rated at 50 years in average daylight .. to the Lyson propaganda 
> that their hextone inks would "outlast most gelatin silver prints" - 
> and their archival inksets were rated about 75 years at the very 
> best without spraying them. 
> 
> So, why does't MIS hire  a reputable testing facility or two? 
> Please don't tell me it cost too much. This is their responsibility 
> and it has to be factored in.
> 
> Bottom line is why should anyone trust their internal tests? In 
> terms of years, what DOES  their internal testing data reveal? 
> And, yes equiveliency in years of permance does matter to my 
> clients.