Digital BW, The Print

Hello All,

Referring to the Wilhelm report on the 2400 in ABW mode (page 3 at
this link  http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R2400.html ), someone
asked me why he rated EEM so highly (110 years), it being a non
archival paper. Here's my take on this, I thought it was worth posting.

It's easy to get confused by this, but you have to understand what W.
is measuring.  His ratings are for ink fading.  They aren't paper
reviews.  He gives results with different papers because any given ink
lasts longer on some papers than others.  

The problem with EEM is that it turns a dingy shade of yellow in a
short amount of time, due to acid or lignen or whatever, so it's not
considered archival.  But that has nothing to do with ink fading.  In
fact, most of the good pigment inks don't fade much on EEM, hence his
high ratings.  

So his 110 year rating is not an endorsement of EEM for any particular
purpose.  As I said above, his reports aren't paper reviews, and his
rating was not for EEM, but for the K3/EEM combination.  He's just
saying that X ink lasts Y years on EEM without fading, nothing more. 
EEM is still a crummy paper for anything but proofing.  I've had EEM
prints around the house and on the windowsill for several years that
haven't faded at all.  They have a dingy yellow look but the ink
hasn't faded.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

That's a terrific point Clayton, and one that gets overlooked as
people just skim over the Wilhelm data looking for years and not
reading the extensive footnotes.

-- 
amadou diallo
Author, Mastering Digital Black and White
www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com

While Wilhelm's ratings may be honestly arrived-at, they are *allow*
those numbers to be used for marketing purposes. This means they're
being paid, one way or another, for those numbers, which in turn means
their "results" should be evaluated harshly. 

Using Wilhelm, EEM was designated as "archival" by Epson until last
year (they stopped earlier in the U.S.). When they dropped "archival"
it had nothing to do with ink fade. 

The longer Wilhelm fails to emphasize  the limited meaning of their
numbers (their reliance on "notes"), the more dubious their "test
results." 

Participating as actively as they do in paper marketing, and
tolerating "confusion," they muddy the waters. 

Wilhelm barely begins to address "archival," it only addresses ink
fade. Wonderful people like us know the truth from experience, while
Wilhelm prospers by the "confusion" of the unwashed masses.  

The term "archival" continues to have the larger meaning that it's
long held with silver paper, and Wilhelm barely relates. 

> asked me why he rated EEM so highly (110 years), it being a non
> archival paper. Here's my take on this, I thought it was worth posting.
> 
 
> 
> The problem with EEM is that it turns a dingy shade of yellow in a
> short amount of time, due to acid or lignen or whatever, so it's not
> considered archival.  But that has nothing to do with ink fading.

Clayton, The point that comes out of your analysis to me is simple. If you
have an ink that you want tested, let W use EEM because we don't care about
the paper we just want a good rating and EEM has proven to be a paper that
provides a good to excellent bond to prevent fading. And did EEM come out of
the Epson product line just to do this? Give W a substrate to use that could
hold Epson inks without fading? Or does it show a flaw in his testing
methods? 

 

Inks exist for the most part before our eyes as images ON paper and not just
as color numbers to be discussed. If the package of ink and paper shows
poorly after a short period of time, then all the numbers in the world
cannot support its continued use without the packaging "For Proofing ONLY".
That is unless you like that look and want it to be your image statement. If
the substrate changes color what happens to the image area?  

 

Does any one know if the Smithsonian or other like institution is doing any
testing on these issues? OR will they simply wait and see what survives the
ravages of time? 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Clayton
Jones
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:58 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Wilhelm Ratings for EEM

 

Hello All,

Referring to the Wilhelm report on the 2400 in ABW mode (page 3 at
this link http://www.wilhelm-
<http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R2400.html>
research.com/epson/R2400.html ), someone
asked me why he rated EEM so highly (110 years), it being a non
archival paper. Here's my take on this, I thought it was worth posting.

It's easy to get confused by this, but you have to understand what W.
is measuring. His ratings are for ink fading. They aren't paper
reviews. He gives results with different papers because any given ink
lasts longer on some papers than others. 

The problem with EEM is that it turns a dingy shade of yellow in a
short amount of time, due to acid or lignen or whatever, so it's not
considered archival. But that has nothing to do with ink fading. In
fact, most of the good pigment inks don't fade much on EEM, hence his
high ratings. 

So his 110 year rating is not an endorsement of EEM for any particular
purpose. As I said above, his reports aren't paper reviews, and his
rating was not for EEM, but for the K3/EEM combination. He's just
saying that X ink lasts Y years on EEM without fading, nothing more. 
EEM is still a crummy paper for anything but proofing. I've had EEM
prints around the house and on the windowsill for several years that
haven't faded at all. They have a dingy yellow look but the ink
hasn't faded.

Regards,
Clayton

Info on black and white digital printing at 
http://www.cjcom. <http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm> net/digiprnarts.htm

 



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

Hello Eric,

>Clayton, The point that comes out of your analysis to me is simple. 
>If you have an ink that you want tested, let W use EEM because we 
>don't care about the paper we just want a good rating and EEM has 
>proven to be a paper that provides a good to excellent bond to 
>prevent fading. And did EEM come out of the Epson product line just 
>to do this? Give W a substrate to use that could hold Epson inks 
>without fading? Or does it show a flaw in his testing methods? 

I don't have an answer to your questions, and I'm not attempting to
pass judgement on his methods.  I accept W's reports for what they
are: he has certain methods that he applies and he reports the results
he gets.  We are free to accept or reject his findings.  Aside from
that, it seems pretty clear to me that he isn't testing papers and
reporting on their archival properties, he's testing inks for fade
resistance.  I was just pointing out that it's a mistake to get those
things confused.


>Inks exist for the most part before our eyes as images ON paper and 
>not just as color numbers to be discussed. If the package of ink and 
>paper shows poorly after a short period of time, then all the numbers
>in the world cannot support its continued use without the packaging 
>"For Proofing ONLY".  That is unless you like that look and want it 
>to be your image statement. If the substrate changes color what 
>happens to the image area?  

I don't disagree with any of this, but implied in your words seems to
be an expectation that W. should be providing a complete one-stop
archival materials rating service and you are angry and disappointed
that he isn't.  I have never gotten the impression from his web site
that he's providing that kind of service (he probably doesn't have a
lab capable of it).  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

HI Clayton,

I am neither happy nor angry with W. I too am behind the idea that those
that rely on his data need to be careful of what it is indicating. 


"Download 9-Page PDF for Epson Stylus Photo R2400
<http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R2400_2005_06_30.pdf> 
and UltraChrome K3 Inks Here "



 

 

This title would seem to indicate from a particular printer and ink. I saw
no other paper mentioned here except Epson papers. And while it may be true
that there would be no indication of a vast array of paper, we all know that
paper, ink combinations are important to lasting qualities. I think that he
should have added to the title, "on Epson papers". There may be a large
number of people that don't venture off this combination for fear that it
will somehow mess up their machine and Epson may even give that impression.
Even here though you said "Several posts recently made reference to Wilhelm
ratings for K3 ink on various papers, but the numbers they quoted were for
color prints.  The numbers for BW prints using ABW mode are much higher. The
ABW numbers are on page 3 of this report for the 2400".

 

All of these various papers are Epsons' paper. I don't consider that too
"various", but rather very selective since they are all Epson papers. 

 

I believe that he certainly has the ability to test the K3 inks on a wider
set of papers than Epson : )  and since those other papers are not in the
tests, what can we conclude?  Well, really nothing. It comes off looking
like a highly paid for Epson ad. And someone really needs to let W know that
that front page is really horrendously layout. I think what we need is a
good ol' horse race here but the speed of motion may make it look a lot like
a snails race or worse. When David puts together the Tuscany Affair, is that
going to happen? He can make arrangments for HP, Canon,  Epson and any other
takers, to put some ink on some VARIOUS papers from the likes of Innova,
Hahnemuhle, Moab, Red River, Lexjet it all their brands or special blends,
etc and have a print off. Year after year the prints get pulled off the
walls, out of the shelves, off the barn walls and inspected by all comers to
see the results. But instead of Tuscany, let's set it up for Wyoming.    

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Clayton
Jones
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:32 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Wilhelm Ratings for EEM

 

Hello Eric,

>Clayton, The point that comes out of your analysis to me is simple. 
>If you have an ink that you want tested, let W use EEM because we 
>don't care about the paper we just want a good rating and EEM has 
>proven to be a paper that provides a good to excellent bond to 
>prevent fading. And did EEM come out of the Epson product line just 
>to do this? Give W a substrate to use that could hold Epson inks 
>without fading? Or does it show a flaw in his testing methods? 

I don't have an answer to your questions, and I'm not attempting to
pass judgement on his methods. I accept W's reports for what they
are: he has certain methods that he applies and he reports the results
he gets. We are free to accept or reject his findings. Aside from
that, it seems pretty clear to me that he isn't testing papers and
reporting on their archival properties, he's testing inks for fade
resistance. I was just pointing out that it's a mistake to get those
things confused.

>Inks exist for the most part before our eyes as images ON paper and 
>not just as color numbers to be discussed. If the package of ink and 
>paper shows poorly after a short period of time, then all the numbers
>in the world cannot support its continued use without the packaging 
>"For Proofing ONLY". That is unless you like that look and want it 
>to be your image statement. If the substrate changes color what 
>happens to the image area? 

I don't disagree with any of this, but implied in your words seems to
be an expectation that W. should be providing a complete one-stop
archival materials rating service and you are angry and disappointed
that he isn't. I have never gotten the impression from his web site
that he's providing that kind of service (he probably doesn't have a
lab capable of it). 

Regards,
Clayton





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

At 04:57 PM Monday 4/9/2007, you wrote:
>But that has nothing to do with ink fading. In
>fact, most of the good pigment inks don't fade much on EEM, hence his
>high ratings. 

But a BW print that is on yellowing paper does warm greatly - I have prints on my bedroom wall that are pinned up on EEM paper that have gone a great deal warmer. (On Kayenta, too.)

For some reason my colour prints don't show a noticeable shift of colour - probably because any shift from neutral BW is easy to spot.

Richard 
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 

   "The most absurd and reckless aspirations have
   Sometimes led to extraordinary results."