Tyler Boley wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Harold Jackson
> <harold@...> wrote:
>> Bill --
>>
>> ...if we expect representation of our work by serious galleries and
> to > be paid for our artistic vision then we must pay some heed to the
>> rules of the game. Not to take anything away from your work but, I
>> doubt that there is anyway to assign a value to your newsprint
> images > that would be accepted by an art appraiser or, insurance company.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I hope Bill answers for himself, but let me just add this- A very well
> known print artist did a widely collected and exhibited group of work
> made from inks mixed from food, like blueberry pie filling, etc...
> I suspect they are insured by the large museum I saw them at for very
> large amounts...So, what rules apply there?
> We don't disagree Harold, as far as I can tell, like Bill I think this
> is a hot button for me. The rules are whatever suites them at the
> time. You will become established, or not, for other reasons.
>
> Tyler
Dieter Rot and Daniel Spoerri have done that in the past.
Not all their art survived in an aesthtically nice sahpe but
that was more or less intended. If the English shark, cow,
etc rots away despite conservation it is another issue.
Back to the original question:
I gave the address to collect a German test on 50 papers
with the three most common pigment ink variations available.
It is in one of the B9180 messages on this list:
http://www.colorfoto.de/kameras/testberichte/50_papiere_auf_3_druckern.155431.htm
More than just fade aspects. You can also lay your hands on
the Febr. issue of ColorFoto for it. The article also gives
information on inkjet paper manufacturing.
3 Euro and a bit of German translation.
Dietmar Wueller of Image Engineering is also on the ISO fade
standard committees Wilhelm was/is involved with. Both with
credit like McCormick a former committee member wrote in a
message discussing the new tests. Mark McCormick is also
starting up independent testing, see a copy of an older
message I wrote:
>>A carbon pigment. There must be another colorant in/on the
pigment particle, in the encapsulation or the ink media as
carbon itself isn't neutral. Could be another trick but in
the end it behaves as a colorant and could shift test
results. The inks test well in fade tests though both for
color and B&W with light and ozone fading counted. The test
results have been updated recently by Wilhelm.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_Z3100_2007_12_28.pdf
another test result for color only:
http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/downloads/Haltbarkeit_Papiere-Cofo.pdf
There are some English articles on the same site.
Given the high resistance of all the colors to the tests I
think they will have a good neutraliser on the grey inks too.
> >
> > Apparently the HP machines use 4 inks for the 100%
black. These include
> > the light gray inks. The use of all these inks at
once is said to be
> > what is behind the high matte paper dmax. This is
certainly different
> > than my experience with pigment inks in Epson printers.
The only time
> > I've seen addition of an LK to the 100% spot raise the
dmax is when the
> > K is not covering well. If the MK is covering well, I
almost always see
> > a decrease in dmax when a lower load ink is added to
the mix.
The quad set is only used in 2 media presets for matte
papers, the other matte papers and the gloss depend on 3
inks only. I have used two different ones (3 and 4 inks both
MK) for Photorag and there was a Dmax difference, the quad
was better. HP's gives different inkloads for the two too:
42 versus 60 but call that ink limiting and now I doubt it
is what we call ink limiting. I thought that the PK would be
used in the quad to offer that higher Dmax but I'm no longer
sure that that is the case since I observed that the Z3100
PK doesn't deliver that much density on matte papers and
could cooperate well as a second quad ink for that reason
alone and not as an addition to boost the MK Dmax. The ink
load term then corresponds better with an additional use of
PK and and less MK in the lighter shadows. The Quad media
presets are only used on heavier stock, there's for example
a split between Photorag above 250 grams and below (HP uses
other names in the media presets). The PK is squirted as a 4
picoliter droplet and the MK as a 6 picoliter droplet, I
guess the last together with the latest dithering/weaving
methods is the reason for the high Dmax on matte papers. A
real difference in inklimit on the black between the Kkk and
Kkkk on top of that. The Dmax is not higher than the K3 on
some Epson matte papers as I have seen quotes of 1.77 D for
that combination too. Whether they both end equal with real
neutral black prints is something else. On plain HM Photorag
I didn't get better Dmax with any other inkset before.
> >
> > I believe Wilhelm tests do not pick up a hybrid black,
which my testing
> > indicates included the original Eposn 7500 Archival K.
So, a good
> > Wilhelm rating may not be a guarantee that the black
ink is not a
> > hybrid.
True but as written both B&W and color test extremely well
with Vivera pigment if compared to the other manufacturers.
The Epson 7500 Archival (with a universal gloss/matte K) was
the first Epson pigment ink for their own brand of printers
with lots of metamerism problems and the black not high in
density on matte papers. Since then there have been 2 new
Epson pigment inks with changes on the black inks. Epson
went for straight carbon so one needs compensation colors to
get neutral prints. HP introduced a neutral K range in the
Vivera pigment inks for the B9180, Z2100, Z3100 and Z6100.
If the test institutes use the plain B&W mode of the drivers
and do not seek neutrality in the test targets then at least
HP sticks its head more out than Epson.
Neutrality shifts during fading are checked by Image
Engineering on some density numbers, in fact the majority of
the criteria is related to neutrality, see:
http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/downloads/printer_test_white_paper1.0.pdf
I guess Wilhelm must have similar methods.
There's a note under the test criteria list where they
explain that the densities measured may be altered in the
future and the density loss may be changed from percentage
to Delta E. The ISO is more than 10 years in draft now and I
understand that this is one of the issues that keeps the
discussion going. Another opinion on what to test and
measure is what Mark McCormick voices here and testing will
start soon as I understand it:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=26244617
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/digitalprintresearch.html
He has a list where the new Fiber papers are included, an
omission in the latest testing results. Wilhelm has the
Epson Exhibition Fiber also on the list to do though.
Wilhelm, McCormick and Wueller, all three are or were on the
ISO committee. There may not be a universal testing method
yet but with more labs around with some credibility (WR,
IE, RIT, Fogra, McC) that use different methods it may even
be better than one standard with some flaws <<
--
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
| Dinkla Grafische Techniek |
| www.pigment-print.com |
| ( unvollendet ) |