Digital BW, The Print

Hello Everyone,

Here's a link to Kodak's Image Stability White Paper for those who 
understand this kind of technical stuff.


http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/pa
pers/inkjet/imageStabilityBehaviors.pdf

Epson came out with a "white paper" on their image stability so I
guess now Kodak has to create theirs. Poor Kodak, they are loosing
every battle of the war so badly.

Kodak uses 120 lux brightness for their tests while Wilhelm and others
use at least 450 lux. Now Wilhelm isn't perfect we all know, but that
is a big difference in illumination for that time period of 12 hours a
day.

Here is a pdf explaing the differences between their tests. As far as
I can see Kodak is the only company that uses these methods and these
figures - 

http://www.google.com/custom?q=kodak+testing&btnG=Search&cof=GL%3A0%3BT%3A%23000000%3BLC%3A%230000FF%3BVLC%3A%23FF3300%3B&domains=www.wilhelm-research.com&sitesearch=www.wilhelm-research.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steveh0607" 
<steveh060758@m...> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Here's a link to Kodak's Image Stability White Paper for those who 
> understand this kind of technical stuff.
> 
> 
> 
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/pa
> pers/inkjet/imageStabilityBehaviors.pdf
>

And here is info about the other popular testing facility run/started 
by the Rochester Institute of Technology
http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/sub_pages/8page17f.htm

Notice that they use even higher amounts of light. There is a company 
can't remember their name) that makes testing machines for this kind of 
work. They are (of course) trying to get their machine cetified as the 
standard machine/method to use by the various standards asociation 
(ISO, etc.). Their machine uses a Xenon lamp, with various filters and 
around 10000 LUX (I think, it's been a while since I read their papers).

On the Epson corporate web site, there are some brief pages explaining 
that they do their own in house testing, and there are a couple of 
pictures of their light testing box, and other atmospheric testing 
boxes. I forget the link, but I know it's there.

Then there is that blue wool test method, can't say that I've 
researched much of that process.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steveh0607" 
> <steveh060758@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Everyone,
> > 
> > Here's a link to Kodak's Image Stability White Paper for those 
who 
> > understand this kind of technical stuff.
> > 
 

I have to admit I don't know much about it, either. But my own 
experience is that light is much less a factor than exposure to air 
and heat and not being covered by glass of any type. 

I admire the way that Mr. Wilhelm has created his own little 
industry, but I would generally rely on Kodak's judgement over his. 
As far as I know, he has never produced a test for a client that they 
didn't like. That's not to say that Kodak has no self interest 
either, but they have a very long history of great research and 
integrity.

FWIW,

Tom O'Connell

Kodak, integrity? Give me a break. I delt with their tech reps for
years about this issue of their Ektacolor paper fading. I saw
classmates of mine in undergraduate school produce outstanding work
that faded in no time. Kodak knew their dyes would shift badly.
Eventually when Fuji had  came up with a better solution and rather
than try to improve the stability of own their papers they just
resented Fuji and badmouthed their research. That is why they are
dying right now. George Eastmant would turn over in his grave. Their
answer was to claim to us that their color technology was stable, it
wasn't. Ask any portrait photographer from any decade. Kodak could
have made a better product they just didn't care about longevity,
never did. They had always owned the world. Well, they lost it.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>
> Kodak, integrity? Give me a break. I delt with their tech reps for
> years about this issue of their Ektacolor paper fading. I saw
> classmates of mine in undergraduate school produce outstanding work
> that faded in no time. Kodak knew their dyes would shift badly.
> Eventually when Fuji had  came up with a better solution and rather
> than try to improve the stability of own their papers they just
> resented Fuji and badmouthed their research. That is why they are
> dying right now. George Eastmant would turn over in his grave. Their
> answer was to claim to us that their color technology was stable, it
> wasn't. Ask any portrait photographer from any decade. Kodak could
> have made a better product they just didn't care about longevity,
> never did. They had always owned the world. Well, they lost it.
>

Wasn't this exactly what prompted Wilhelm to get started? I think I 
read that in his book on image permanence. You can download the PDF 
at his site.

Well that was what gained him some international attention. Before
that no one dared question Kodak on this issue publicly. They WERE
photography in the US. Everything was for the mass market, with the
emphasis on mass, fast, rc , quick, and ephemeral (kinda like their
disposable digital cameras.) Here today gone tomorra.  At that time
they made no decent black and white paper anymore either, it was all
about the amateur stuff, except Kodachrome, which was their one great
hold over product. Their color negative film was mediocre at best
until Fuji came along and lit a fire under them. So, Wilhelm became
the anti-christ as far as Kodak was concerned, but by that time most
people has already lost their family albums from the 60's an 70's and
the art world at that time was almost all black and white for the most
part. We all knew what was going on. I worked in a museum that
wouldn't buy color work, except Cibachrome, it simply wasn't
collectable at all in a serious way. Henry W. was younger then and
probably not making much money at all this testing stuff. I can't see
 how he made any money at all for all those years as a museum
consultant. Recently I was disgusted with him for a couple of years
for not testing the 3rd party products anymore and joining with Epson
and HP but, the fact is he didn't start his career 30 years ago with
the intent of joining forces with the corporate boys, it just ended up
that way. We all get to retirement age some day, I guess we all gotta
do what we all gotta do.
I don't think it makes what he does invalad from a technical point of
view. I don't think he cooks the books. It isn't a perfect science.
Certainly if one was out to make big money there must be a better way. 

 






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
> <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Kodak, integrity? Give me a break. I delt with their tech reps for
> > years about this issue of their Ektacolor paper fading. I saw
> > classmates of mine in undergraduate school produce outstanding work
> > that faded in no time. Kodak knew their dyes would shift badly.
> > Eventually when Fuji had  came up with a better solution and rather
> > than try to improve the stability of own their papers they just
> > resented Fuji and badmouthed their research. That is why they are
> > dying right now. George Eastmant would turn over in his grave. Their
> > answer was to claim to us that their color technology was stable, it
> > wasn't. Ask any portrait photographer from any decade. Kodak could
> > have made a better product they just didn't care about longevity,
> > never did. They had always owned the world. Well, they lost it.
> >
> 
> Wasn't this exactly what prompted Wilhelm to get started? I think I 
> read that in his book on image permanence. You can download the PDF 
> at his site.
>

Tom OConnell wrote:

> I have to admit I don't know much about it, either. But my own 
> experience is that light is much less a factor than exposure to air 
> and heat and not being covered by glass of any type. 

Wilhelm gives quotes for archival quality too. No light
involved then. And far less degrading in time.

> I admire the way that Mr. Wilhelm has created his own little 
> industry, but I would generally rely on Kodak's judgement over his. 

Where Wilhelm made mistakes they were admitted and corrected
in the later tests. So did Epson that had its media tested by
Wilhelm. There are still cases not solved by Kodak that
happened 30 years ago.

> As far as I know, he has never produced a test for a client that they 
> didn't like. 

I do not know whether his sympathy covers his customer base
only and entirely but if you mean that he didn't test for
small companies you are wrong. John Nollendorfs had his
Lincoln Inks tested, Mediastreet had their Generation Enhanced
tested, Lyson had their Fotonic and Lysonic ink tested and the
result wasn't favorable for the biggest of the three. That it
is expensive to have a test done is another matter.

>That's not to say that Kodak has no self interest 
> either, but they have a very long history of great research and 
> integrity.

I will not dispute the great research but for the rest they
did anything that big companies tend to do. Trying to get away
with Polaroid's market, changing film formats every 5 years,
the color print disaster of the 70's, the Hollywood conflict
and now the substandard standard for fade testing.

> FWIW,

Doesn't come near 2 cents I'm afraid.

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

That is exactly right. HW did many tests, especially 4 or 5 years ago
that a lot of people didn't like, including the big outfits, Epson,
Hp, Kodak, and a lot of the smaller ones, Lyson, Media Street, Mis,
etc. Can you imagine how many heated discussions went on. Some of
their products faired well, others failed miserabley.

As far as other factors affecting the life of an inkjet print, apart
from uv, Wilhelm's published info was the first I read on the subjet.
He was the first person that I was aware of who made a public issue of
the problems of ozone, and other airborne substances being as much or
more of a threat to inkjet longevity than blue light. The first Epson
glossy media did well in light tests but quickly had detorioraton
problems anyway. That was a big shock to all of em. It takes a lot of
time to do those tests correctly and in good faith. We're all learning
a step at a time. 

These days the thing that I wonder the most about is media. That is a
hard one to crack. When a new paper comes along there is so much we
don't know, such as what is in the paper during production and
probably more importanly, what is in the coatings. That is a hard
thing to deconstruct. Everything is evolving so rapidly.

John





> As far as I know, he has never produced a test for a client that they
> didn't like.

I do not know whether his sympathy covers his customer base
only and entirely but if you mean that he didn't test for
small companies you are wrong. John Nollendorfs had his
Lincoln Inks tested, Mediastreet had their Generation Enhanced
tested, Lyson had their Fotonic and Lysonic ink tested and the
result wasn't favorable for the biggest of the three. That it
is expensive to have a test done is another matter.

> As far as I know, [Wilhelm] has never produced a test for a 
> client that they didn't like.

I think most of the contracts with clients specify that he can release
information only upon their consent.  So, he gives bad tests, but if the
client doesn't approve of his publishing the results, they never see the
light of day unless the client uses the results in advertising.  The
interesting thing would be if Wilhelm had a provision in the contract that
allowed him to release the full test if the client released only the good
parts of the test.  I doubt the larger clients would sign off on such a
deal.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com