Digital BW, The Print

Hello All,

Over a period of nine months I have periodically placed a small print,
with a portion of it covered by a 4-ply mat board strip, out on my
south-facing front porch in direct sunlight and kept a time log.  I
live in southeast Florida, which is in the sub-tropic latitudes, and
sunlight here is very intense even in winter.  I placed the print
outdoors only on days with few or no clouds.  Recently the direct
sunlight exposure passed the 100 hour mark and it seems like a good
time to post a report.

The print was made on VFA with a 2400 using K3/ABW, and the image was
sized to leave a 3/4" border.  The purpose of the test was twofold: to
test the lightfastness of the inks and any OBA-related changes of the
unprinted paper (hence the wide border).

The short report is that compared to the covered portion, there is no
visible change anywhere in the image, and a barely noticeable
lessening of brightness in the border.  The actual border difference
was measured by Steve Karafyllakis with a spectrophotometer, and the
numbers are below, but first there are some interesting side notes.

At first look there appeared to be noticeable yellowing in the border
(rather dingy looking, actually).  It turned out to be mostly a fine
coating of dirt, much of which brushed off.  As a further experiment I
washed one corner by holding it under running water for a few seconds
and rubbed it gently with a finger.  After drying, the difference
between it and the covered portion is barely noticeable.  You would
have to be looking for it to see it.  For all practical purposes there
is no significant change after 100 hours in direct sunlight.

Here are the numbers, each an average of three readings:

Covered border
--------------
L 97.99
A 1.49
B -1.81

Uncovered washed border 
-----------------------
L 97.62
A 1.21
B -1.04

Uncovered unwashed border 
-------------------------
L 97.10
A 1.17
B -0.96

Interpretation: L is brightness, A is the red/green axis and B is the
blue/yellow axis.  So the declining numbers mean that there is
lessening brightness with more red and yellow.  

I'm not conversant with the numbers, but visually the difference
between the covered and washed uncovered borders is barely noticeable.
 I doubt anyone would see it if it wasn't pointed out.  The unwashed
area looks dirty (yellowish brown) and AFAIC is irrelevent - it's just
dirt.

In the image itself (a landscape) there are no areas of any visible
difference.  Since it isn't a step wedge there is no consistent place
to take a spectro measurement. There are areas of pale sky and smooth
light to middle gray dunes, places where any changes would show first.

Now, the big question for me is what does 100 hours of direct Florida
sunlight translate to in some other relative value, such as Wilhelm
Years?  Wilhelm uses a test standard of 450 Lux @ 12 hrs/day to
represent a typical environment for displayed prints.  What does 100
hours of sunlight mean in those terms?  Ideas anyone?


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Addendum: I forgot to mention that Steve and I discussed the
possibility that my washing may have removed some coating.  He gave
another part of the unwashed border a quick blast of compressed air,
which removed more dirt than my quick brushing had.  Thinking that some
dirt may be trapped in the texture pits, after I got home I gave
another spot a prolonged compressed air cleaning, from several
angles.  It made a big difference and looks about as bright as the
washed area.  Have to put it on the spectro to be sure, but I'm
satisfied that the visible discoloration is just dirt and not an OBA
issue.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Clayton,
because they are normally displayed behind windows anyway, would it not be better to put them under  glass in the direct sun to remove this contaminant factor? I appreciate that longer would be needed for the test, however.

Richard

At 05:40 p.m. Monday 10/11/2008, you wrote:

>Addendum: I forgot to mention that Steve and I discussed the
>possibility that my washing may have removed some coating. He gave
>another part of the unwashed border a quick blast of compressed air,
>which removed more dirt than my quick brushing had. Thinking that some
>dirt may be trapped in the texture pits, after I got home I gave
>another spot a prolonged compressed air cleaning, from several
>angles. It made a big difference and looks about as bright as the
>washed area. Have to put it on the spectro to be sure, but I'm
>satisfied that the visible discoloration is just dirt and not an OBA
>issue.
>
>Regards,
>Clayton
>
>Info on black and white digital printing at 
><http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>I-Trak 2.1 <http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm>http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm
>
> 

--
www.richardsmallfield.com 

   "Some things have to be believed to be seen."
   --Ralph Hodgson


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

At 11:46 PM 11/9/2008, you wrote:
>Clayton,
>because they are normally displayed behind windows anyway, would it 
>not be better to put them under  glass in the direct sun to remove 
>this contaminant factor? I appreciate that longer would be needed 
>for the test, however.

Or not!  Not knowing anything about the mechanism, I can imagine that 
behavior in a sealed cavity, where any gaseous products are somewhat 
trapped, might be different.  I doubt that this would be so, but 
would start with an open mind.

Arthur Fink

	A r t h u r  .  F i n k  .  P h o t o g r a p h y
	-------------------------------------------------
	Ten New Island Avenue         . land 207.766.5722
	Peaks Island, Maine 04108     . cell 207.615.5722
	www.arthurfinkphoto.com  . af@...

	Buy my Dance! book  www.arthurfinkphoto.com/dance

	Problems with my e-mail address?  My provider has
	been returning some mail as if it were spam!  You
	can address me at    arthurfinkphoto@...

Hello Richard,

>because they are normally displayed behind windows anyway, would it 
>not be better to put them under  glass in the direct sun to remove 
>this contaminant factor? I appreciate that longer would be needed 
>for the test, however.

Sure, there are lots of things that with some thought could be done to
make better test conditions.  I didn't set out to make an official
scientific test of some sort, it was more just to satisfy my own
curiosity.  There had been a lot of talk about OBA burn off and I was
wondering how much OBAs were in VFA, especially since Epson advertises
that VFA and EEM have the same coating and EEM yellows in a few weeks.
I was looking at a test print one day and just decided to put it out
in the sun and log the time...and just see what happens.

I am continuing the testing, BTW.  We have a cloudless day today and
it went out on the porch at 8:35 a.m.  It should get a good long shot
today.  We'll see what happens after another 100 hours.

I know it's not a good scientific test with tightly controlled
conditions, and I don't know what these 100 hours represent in Lux and
UV exposure (not to mention car and lawn mower exhaust and whatever
else it may been exposed to), but it certainly should relieve concerns
about VFA not being a good lightfast paper because it has OBAs, and
the notion that any paper with OBAs will soon turn yellow.  As I
mentioned in the Paper Archivability thread, there are different types
of OBAs and the technology is improving (and, as W pointed out in the
Reichmann interview [and has been mentioned here numerous times], the
fiber silver gel papers we used for years had OBAs [and were
alpha-cellulose]).  

It's also a good testimony for K3/ABW as there is no visible fading or
color shifting.  I assume we'll see some at some point.  We'll see
what happens as the test progresses. 

I would encourage everyone here to do a similar test with whatever
ink/paper combination they are using.  I'd love to see other user
reports posted here.  I'd be willing to tabulate the results over time
and post them on my web site.  I think it would be a valuable resource.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Clayton, I applaud the effort that goes into running a test like that.
However, several key factors are missing from your data; Relative Humidity
during testing and resting. You may also include a UV index rating for your
test times. Neither of these is hard to do and would add tremendously to the
meaningfulness of your data. It would also not have been hard to make
several density strips that received allotted amount of sun exposure as
well; 10hrs, 20hrs, etc. The patches printed being big enough to read with a
spectro would also confirm the fade rate based on number of hours. Any glass
used would also need to have the information for its UV transmission
included in the data. Glass varies from type to type. I haven't looked
lately, but I believe the UV output of the Wilhelm lights, are known. The
yellowing of EEM may have nothing to do with the OBAs themselves and
everything to do with other chemical changes due to oxidation, or other
factors. In other words, there may not be enough of a chemical balance in
the paper to hold the reaction static.  

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

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, November 10, 2008 8:57 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 100 Hour Direct Sun Torture Test

 

Hello Richard,

>because they are normally displayed behind windows anyway, would it 
>not be better to put them under glass in the direct sun to remove 
>this contaminant factor? I appreciate that longer would be needed 
>for the test, however.

Sure, there are lots of things that with some thought could be done to
make better test conditions. I didn't set out to make an official
scientific test of some sort, it was more just to satisfy my own
curiosity. There had been a lot of talk about OBA burn off and I was
wondering how much OBAs were in VFA, especially since Epson advertises
that VFA and EEM have the same coating and EEM yellows in a few weeks.
I was looking at a test print one day and just decided to put it out
in the sun and log the time...and just see what happens.

I am continuing the testing, BTW. We have a cloudless day today and
it went out on the porch at 8:35 a.m. It should get a good long shot
today. We'll see what happens after another 100 hours.

I know it's not a good scientific test with tightly controlled
conditions, and I don't know what these 100 hours represent in Lux and
UV exposure (not to mention car and lawn mower exhaust and whatever
else it may been exposed to), but it certainly should relieve concerns
about VFA not being a good lightfast paper because it has OBAs, and
the notion that any paper with OBAs will soon turn yellow. As I
mentioned in the Paper Archivability thread, there are different types
of OBAs and the technology is improving (and, as W pointed out in the
Reichmann interview [and has been mentioned here numerous times], the
fiber silver gel papers we used for years had OBAs [and were
alpha-cellulose]). 

It's also a good testimony for K3/ABW as there is no visible fading or
color shifting. I assume we'll see some at some point. We'll see
what happens as the test progresses. 

I would encourage everyone here to do a similar test with whatever
ink/paper combination they are using. I'd love to see other user
reports posted here. I'd be willing to tabulate the results over time
and post them on my web site. I think it would be a valuable resource.

Regards,
Clayton

Info on black and white digital printing at 
http://www.cjcom. <http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm> net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1 http://www.cjcom. <http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm> net/itrak.htm

 



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

In addition to Henry Wilhelm, I refer you all to the Mark 
McCormick-Goodhart's site at:
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

He's doing some very interesting work in this area.

Harald Johnson


In a message dated 11/10/08 2:53:05 PM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:


> Now, the big question for me is what does 100 hours of direct Florida
> sunlight translate to in some other relative value, such as Wilhelm
> Years?  Wilhelm uses a test standard of 450 Lux @ 12 hrs/day to
> represent a typical environment for displayed prints.  What does 100
> hours of sunlight mean in those terms?  Ideas anyone?
> 




**************
AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other 
Holiday needs. Search Now. 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from
-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)


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

Hello Eric,

>...I applaud the effort that goes into running a test like that.
>However,...

These are all valid points, and anyone who undertook to do such would
be in effect reinventing the wheel that W has already created.  As I
explained, I did not set out to create a perfect scientifically
controlled test, but merely to satisfy my own curiosity and report the
results here, FWIW.  

In spite of the lack of humidity controls and all the rest, I think
there is considerable value in knowing that an unprotected print can
spend 100 hours in direct sunlight without any significant change.  If
someone else does not perceive any value there...well that's ok.

BTW, there have been discussions here in the past re the value of
informal user tests, and the results have generally been supportive of
a knowledgebase of user test results.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Clayton, I think you are putting more into my suggestions than I. Perhaps it
is my platinum printing days and the tests that I ran for it, but a
hygrometer is cheap or not even required. I quick look at a site such as
AccuWeather, would give you the RH and UV index numbers. Please don't think
that I see little or no benefit. What I meant to say was with very little
effort, your test could have provided a lot more.   

 

And as for redoing Ws work, an independent verification of that work would
not be a bad thing.  

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

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, November 10, 2008 2:21 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 100 Hour Direct Sun Torture Test

 

Hello Eric,

>...I applaud the effort that goes into running a test like that.
>However,...

These are all valid points, and anyone who undertook to do such would
be in effect reinventing the wheel that W has already created. As I
explained, I did not set out to create a perfect scientifically
controlled test, but merely to satisfy my own curiosity and report the
results here, FWIW. 

In spite of the lack of humidity controls and all the rest, I think
there is considerable value in knowing that an unprotected print can 
spend 100 hours in direct sunlight without any significant change. If
someone else does not perceive any value there...well that's ok.

BTW, there have been discussions here in the past re the value of
informal user tests, and the results have generally been supportive of
a knowledgebase of user test results.

Regards,
Clayton

Info on black and white digital printing at 
http://www.cjcom. <http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm> net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1 http://www.cjcom. <http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm> net/itrak.htm 

 



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

Hi Clayton,
thanks for your reply - and it's good to hear about VFA performing well.

I have your Condor paper here for the window test and now that it's spring in NZ, plan to start that test with a few other papers as well, asap.

I'm thinking that perhaps just printing a 21-step test strip would be a good way to do it which is what I'm planning to do.

NZ is supposed to have more UV than many other countries so it's probably a good place to do such tests.

I thought of leaving it in a south-facing window over the whole summer (remember that this is the shady side in NZ).

Probably I'll do ... Moab Entrada (natural and bright), Colorado Satine, PremierArt Matt BW (Maybe some other PremierArt - like Platinum Rag), HM Sparrowhawk, Condor ...

Oh ... another thing about the Wilhelm interview - he pointed out that many of the great photographers in the past were even using acidic papers and even those prints have stood up well.

Richard

At 03:56 a.m. Tuesday 11/11/2008, you wrote:
>>because they are normally displayed behind windows anyway, would it 
>>not be better to put them under glass in the direct sun to remove 
>>this contaminant factor? I appreciate that longer would be needed 
>>for the test, however.
>
>Sure, there are lots of things that with some thought could be done to
>make better test conditions. I didn't set out to make an official
>scientific test of some sort, it was more just to satisfy my own
>curiosity. There had been a lot of talk about OBA burn off and I was
>wondering how much OBAs were in VFA, especially since Epson advertises
>that VFA and EEM have the same coating and EEM yellows in a few weeks.
>I was looking at a test print one day and just decided to put it out
>in the sun and log the time...and just see what happens.

--
www.richardsmallfield.com 

   "I've had a wonderful time, but this wasn't it." 
   --Groucho Marx (1895-1977) 

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

Hi Eric,

>I think you are putting more into my suggestions than I. 
>Perhaps it is my platinum printing days and the tests that I ran 
>for it, but a hygrometer is cheap or not even required. I quick 
>look at a site such as AccuWeather, would give you the RH and UV 
>index numbers. Please don't think that I see little or no benefit. 
>What I meant to say was with very little effort, your test could 
>have provided a lot more.   

Understood, thanks.  To be honest, I'm not interested enough to put
that kind of effort into it.  I just wanted to see what would happen
if I put the print in the sun, so I did it.  That's all there was to
it, no grand design or intent to create a scientific test or body of
data.  I'm delighted that prints with my favorite ink/paper can
withstand 100 hours, and logging the exposure time is pretty much the
limit of my scientific patience.  I am curious as to what at point
further deterioration will appear, so I'm continuing the test (the
print got 7 cloudless hours today).


>And as for redoing Ws work, an independent verification of that work 
>would not be a bad thing.  

Isn't that other testing web site that Harold mentioned doing
something like that?

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
>
>...I just wanted to see what would happen
> if I put the print in the sun, so I did it...

seems like motivation enough to me! Thanks for posting the result,
it's all useful.
Tyler

Hello Richard,

>I have your Condor paper here for the window test and now that 
>it's spring in NZ, plan to start that test with a few other 
>papers as well, asap.

Condor was one of my top favorites for Eboni BO, really beautiful
paper.  I noticed that Condor prints hanging here in my workroom for
several months would loose some brightness compared to a fresh sheet
(not whiteness, just brightness).  I figured it was rapid OBA
exhaustion, but since there was no loss of whiteness and it didn't
affect the print appearance I never gave much thought to it.  Hawk Mtn
has stated that they use naturally white fibers to begin with, so
there shouldn't be much, if any, color change due to OBA death.  I'll
be interested to learn what results you find from direct sunlight.

 
>I'm thinking that perhaps just printing a 21-step test strip would be
a good way to do it...

Definitely.  My landscape doesn't provide for spectro readings
anywhere in the image.  Next time I do something like this I'll do the
same.  This was such a casual thing when I began it, just a curious
thought.


>NZ is supposed to have more UV than many other countries so it's
probably a good place to do such tests.

Why is that do you suppose?  I don't know how S. Fla rates, but I know
it's real easy to get a bad sunburn here.  I grew up here fishing,
sailing, snorkeling, etc, and had my share of them.  We see lots of
bright pink tourists here in the winter <g>.


>Probably I'll do ... Moab Entrada (natural and bright), Colorado
>Satine, PremierArt Matt BW (Maybe some other PremierArt - like
>Platinum Rag), HM Sparrowhawk, Condor ...

That's a big lineup.  What inks?


>Oh ... another thing about the Wilhelm interview - he pointed out
that many of the great photographers in the past were even using
acidic papers and even those prints have stood up well.

There were lots of interesting tidbits in there.  I may watch it again.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Hi Clayton,
I have a 2100 and use OEM Ultrachromes. 

But maybe I should make the tests BO? Or half QTR Neutral OEM inks and half BO?

Any thoughts?
Richard

At 02:56 p.m. Tuesday 11/11/2008, you wrote:

>Hello Richard,
>
>>I have your Condor paper here for the window test and now that 
>>it's spring in NZ, plan to start that test with a few other 
>>papers as well, asap.
>
>Condor was one of my top favorites for Eboni BO, really beautiful
>paper. I noticed that Condor prints hanging here in my workroom for
>several months would loose some brightness compared to a fresh sheet
>(not whiteness, just brightness). I figured it was rapid OBA
>exhaustion, but since there was no loss of whiteness and it didn't
>affect the print appearance I never gave much thought to it. Hawk Mtn
>has stated that they use naturally white fibers to begin with, so
>there shouldn't be much, if any, color change due to OBA death. I'll
>be interested to learn what results you find from direct sunlight.
>
>>I'm thinking that perhaps just printing a 21-step test strip would be
>a good way to do it...
>
>Definitely. My landscape doesn't provide for spectro readings
>anywhere in the image. Next time I do something like this I'll do the
>same. This was such a casual thing when I began it, just a curious
>thought.
>
>>NZ is supposed to have more UV than many other countries so it's
>probably a good place to do such tests.
>
>Why is that do you suppose? I don't know how S. Fla rates, but I know
>it's real easy to get a bad sunburn here. I grew up here fishing,
>sailing, snorkeling, etc, and had my share of them. We see lots of
>bright pink tourists here in the winter <g>.
>
>>Probably I'll do ... Moab Entrada (natural and bright), Colorado
>>Satine, PremierArt Matt BW (Maybe some other PremierArt - like
>>Platinum Rag), HM Sparrowhawk, Condor ...
>
>That's a big lineup. What inks?
>
>>Oh ... another thing about the Wilhelm interview - he pointed out
>that many of the great photographers in the past were even using
>acidic papers and even those prints have stood up well.
>
>There were lots of interesting tidbits in there. I may watch it again.
>
>Regards,
>Clayton
>
>Info on black and white digital printing at 
><http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>I-Trak 2.1 <http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm>http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm
>
> 

--
www.richardsmallfield.com 

   "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their 
   home." 
   --Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital 
   Equipment Corp., 1977 


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

> >NZ is supposed to have more UV than many other countries so it's
> probably a good place to do such tests.
> 
> Why is that do you suppose?  I don't know how S. Fla rates, but I know
> it's real easy to get a bad sunburn here.  I grew up here fishing,
> sailing, snorkeling, etc, and had my share of them.  We see lots of
> bright pink tourists here in the winter <g>.

It's actually due to the "hole" (thinness) in the ozone layer due to
CFC pollution.  The hole appears annually over Antarctica and places
like Chile, NZ, etc that are nearby are affected as well.  Now that
CFCs are largely banned the problem should eventually solve itself.

<Now, the big question for me is what does 100 hours of direct Florida
sunlight translate to in some other relative value, such as Wilhelm
Years? Wilhelm uses a test standard of 450 Lux @ 12 hrs/day to
represent a typical environment for displayed prints. What does 100
hours of sunlight mean in those terms? Ideas anyone?


Regards,
Clayton>

Each hour in the direct sun is equel to, roughtly, 100,000 Lux. So, 
your test was subject to about 10 million Lux.

Museum lighting is roughly 50 Lux. If you displayed that test under 
50 Lux for 10 hours a day, the test print would have been subjected 
to almost 55 years worth of museum lighting.

However, I believe your test print was subjected to more than 10 
million Lux due to your geographic location.

Scott

Hello Richard,

>I have a 2100 and use OEM Ultrachromes. 
>But maybe I should make the tests BO? Or half QTR Neutral OEM 
>inks and half BO?

I think it depends on what questions(s) you want to answer.  If you're
just testing paper for OBA issues then just use a blank piece of
paper.  If you want to test an ink for fade resistance then use the
ink you want to know about.  A bit of planning should point the way.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Hello Roger,

>It's actually due to the "hole" (thinness) in the ozone layer due to
>CFC pollution.  The hole appears annually over Antarctica and places
> like Chile, NZ, etc that are nearby are affected as well.  Now that
> CFCs are largely banned the problem should eventually solve itself.

Thanks, that makes good sense.  Haven't heard much about the ozone
hole lately.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Hello Scott,

>>Wilhelm uses a test standard of 450 Lux @ 12 hrs/day to represent 
>>a typical environment for displayed prints. What does 100 hours 
>>of sunlight mean in those terms? 

>Each hour in the direct sun is equel to, roughtly, 100,000 Lux. So, 
>your test was subject to about 10 million Lux.
>Museum lighting is roughly 50 Lux. If you displayed that test under 
>50 Lux for 10 hours a day, the test print would have been subjected 
>to almost 55 years worth of museum lighting.

Ahh, thank you, that's the kind of info I was hoping for.  


>However, I believe your test print was subjected to more than 10 
>million Lux due to your geographic location.

Any idea how much more?

Ok, let's stick with 10 mil for now to make it easy and compare with
W's test standard...

Museum @ 50 Lux for 10 hrs
--------------------------------
500 Lux/day -> 182,500 Lux/year
55 museum years


Home/Office @ 450 Lux for 12 hrs
----------------------------------
5400 Lux/day -> 1,971,000 Lux/year
5 Wilhelm years

Amazing that a typical home/office environment is that much brighter
(9x) than museum lighting, I never would have guessed that much. 
Anyway, W rates unprotected VFA/ABW at 112 years.  In museum lighting
that would be about 1200 years.

If my 100 hrs represents 5 W. years, then it would take about another
2200 hours to reach 112 W. years.  That certainly puts things into
perspective. (someone please correct me if my math is wrong).

We must remember that W's rating is based on a certain amount of
acceptable change.  So it doesn't mean that a print won't show any
changes until that point.  I'll continue my testing and will report
back when the image begins to show some changes.  As for OBA issues,
I'm wondering if there will be any further changes beyond the barely
noticeable amount we have at this point...

Any comments?  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

> 
> Museum @ 50 Lux for 10 hrs
> --------------------------------
> 500 Lux/day -> 182,500 Lux/year
> 55 museum years
> 
> 
> Home/Office @ 450 Lux for 12 hrs
> ----------------------------------
> 5400 Lux/day -> 1,971,000 Lux/year
> 5 Wilhelm years
> 
> Amazing that a typical home/office environment is that much brighter
> (9x) than museum lighting, I never would have guessed that much. 
> Anyway, W rates unprotected VFA/ABW at 112 years.  In museum 
lighting
> that would be about 1200 years.
> 
> If my 100 hrs represents 5 W. years, then it would take about 
another
> 2200 hours to reach 112 W. years.  That certainly puts things into
> perspective. (someone please correct me if my math is wrong).
> 
> We must remember that W's rating is based on a certain amount of
> acceptable change.  So it doesn't mean that a print won't show any
> changes until that point.  I'll continue my testing and will report
> back when the image begins to show some changes.  As for OBA issues,
> I'm wondering if there will be any further changes beyond the barely
> noticeable amount we have at this point...
> 
> Any comments?  
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 

Hi Clayton,

My info came from the info Livik published sometime ago. A friend of 
his did the work in Southern Califronia.

You're located more south than So., Cal. I would assume. So, maybe 5-
10% more exposure? But that's only a guess.

I know that my own home only has about 200 Lux on a bright day. 

Livik published a way to determine the LUX reading for a given 
location using a lightmeter. I'll dig around and see if I can find it 
for you.

Scott

In the Aardenburg tests, for each file (click on the free blue ones)
it has text at the beginning explaining light levels vs WIR years

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4404c2hvd19kb2NfbGlzdC80

Hello Roger,

>In the Aardenburg tests, for each file (click on the free blue ones)
>it has text at the beginning explaining light levels vs WIR years

Great chart, thanks for the link.

Speaking of Aardenburg, I received an email from someone there today
who, after confirming the calculation of 5 WIR years, added this:

"Now, WIR uses fluorescent lamps in testing, so you've got 
considerably higher UVB and UVa content since you are using natural
daylight and no glass filter. That means you may have a harsher test 
by a factor of 2-5. So your test may be roughly comparable to a 10-
25 years of display via WIR method. That said, the difference in
spectra may accelerate some components more than others. Additionally,
your samples probably got a lot hotter during the illumination cycle
than would occur under normal indoor display, and high temperatures
strongly desiccate prints even when they are in an otherwise humid 
environment. Often, said desiccation will slow reactions that depend
on water as one of the reacting species (a lot of common hydrolysis
reactions for photographic and paper products)."


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Clayton Jones wrote:
> Hello Roger,
> 
>> In the Aardenburg tests, for each file (click on the free blue ones)
>> it has text at the beginning explaining light levels vs WIR years
> 
> Great chart, thanks for the link.
> 
> Speaking of Aardenburg, I received an email from someone there today
> who, after confirming the calculation of 5 WIR years, added this:
> 
> "Now, WIR uses fluorescent lamps in testing, so you've got 
> considerably higher UVB and UVa content since you are using natural
> daylight and no glass filter. That means you may have a harsher test 
> by a factor of 2-5. So your test may be roughly comparable to a 10-
> 25 years of display via WIR method. That said, the difference in
> spectra may accelerate some components more than others. Additionally,
> your samples probably got a lot hotter during the illumination cycle
> than would occur under normal indoor display, and high temperatures
> strongly desiccate prints even when they are in an otherwise humid 
> environment. Often, said desiccation will slow reactions that depend
> on water as one of the reacting species (a lot of common hydrolysis
> reactions for photographic and paper products)."

The low humidity in the samples itself caused by the 
illumination has been discussed here before.
Faster Xenon light testing could show it, even when the 
chamber is humidified the sample can have raised temperature 
and lower humidity.

For testing prints that will be used indoors at least one 
piece of glass should be used if exposed to sunlight. Normal 
window glass cuts UV out at approximately 350 Nm. If I do 
not trust a paper that hasn't been tested somewhere else I 
hang half a print in a glass window facing east. That place 
is hardly heated and humidity is usually above 50%. It 
doesn't tell me more than what I see: OBA fading, paper 
yellowing, image bleaker, but that's enough to decide for 
what kind of work it is still suited or whether it is not 
usable at all.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:
> If I do 
> not trust a paper that hasn't been tested somewhere else I 
> hang half a print in a glass window facing east. That place 
> is hardly heated and humidity is usually above 50%.

Artists' window tests where prints are taped to a window have a lot of infrared (IR) energy 
exposure that doesn't occur at locations further into the interior of the building. I have 
measured print surface temperatures as high as 54 degrees centigrade (130 deg. F) under 
those conditions so desiccation is still very strong even though the print is indoors.

Best regards,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

mccormick.mark59 wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:
>> If I do 
>> not trust a paper that hasn't been tested somewhere else I 
>> hang half a print in a glass window facing east. That place 
>> is hardly heated and humidity is usually above 50%.
> 
> Artists' window tests where prints are taped to a window have a lot of infrared (IR) energy 
> exposure that doesn't occur at locations further into the interior of the building. I have 
> measured print surface temperatures as high as 54 degrees centigrade (130 deg. F) under 
> those conditions so desiccation is still very strong even though the print is indoors.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mark
> http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
> 
> 
Mark,

It isn't a scientific test, far from it. The windows happen 
to be at the east side so at least there's no direct sun 
exposure after 12 in the morning. But you are right, the 
sample will be too dry in general.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

South window tests are good indicators on how an "unknown" paper/ink
combination will work, when compared to a "known combo". Putting
samples in the window without this kind of comparison will not yield
very valuable information. (even with a control sample stored in a
like situation but in the dark)  

A low humidity situation with dye inks, will tend to skew results in
making you think they are more fade resistant. I don't believe
humidity is nearly as important factor with pigmented inks as with dyes. 

Dye inkjet inks "co-mingle". The prefered papers are swellable
polymer, which tend to isolate the droplets, from one another. The
co-mingling of dyes, causes premature failure of the weaker dye.
Humidity plays a roll, the higher RH, will cause the dyes to migrate
even within the swellable polymer ink receptor, again causing
pre-mature failure. 

This complex situation regarding humidity levels is why the major
players have all gone to using pigmented inks for "archival" results.

John Nollendorfs 
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
"mccormick.mark59" <mark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<edinkla@> wrote:
> > If I do 
> > not trust a paper that hasn't been tested somewhere else I 
> > hang half a print in a glass window facing east. That place 
> > is hardly heated and humidity is usually above 50%.
> 
> Artists' window tests where prints are taped to a window have a lot
of infrared (IR) energy 
> exposure that doesn't occur at locations further into the interior
of the building. I have 
> measured print surface temperatures as high as 54 degrees centigrade
(130 deg. F) under 
> those conditions so desiccation is still very strong even though the
print is indoors.

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mark
> http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
>

John, If I am reading your post correctly, you are saying that as the dyes
mix together, that act, is causing them to fade. Any idea what they are
doing? And are there tests that were done to predict this fade in
relationship to amounts of  X amount of A + X amount of B fades at a rate of
Y? 

 

You can email off list if you wish, but I just find that real intriguing. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

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 sinar001
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:00 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 100 Hour Direct Sun Torture Test -Aardenburg

 

South window tests are good indicators on how an "unknown" paper/ink
combination will work, when compared to a "known combo". Putting
samples in the window without this kind of comparison will not yield
very valuable information. (even with a control sample stored in a
like situation but in the dark) 

A low humidity situation with dye inks, will tend to skew results in
making you think they are more fade resistant. I don't believe
humidity is nearly as important factor with pigmented inks as with dyes. 

Dye inkjet inks "co-mingle". The prefered papers are swellable
polymer, which tend to isolate the droplets, from one another. The
co-mingling of dyes, causes premature failure of the weaker dye.
Humidity plays a roll, the higher RH, will cause the dyes to migrate
even within the swellable polymer ink receptor, again causing
pre-mature failure. 

This complex situation regarding humidity levels is why the major
players have all gone to using pigmented inks for "archival" results.

John Nollendorfs 
--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
"mccormick.mark59" <mark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<edinkla@> wrote:
> > If I do 
> > not trust a paper that hasn't been tested somewhere else I 
> > hang half a print in a glass window facing east. That place 
> > is hardly heated and humidity is usually above 50%.
> 
> Artists' window tests where prints are taped to a window have a lot
of infrared (IR) energy 
> exposure that doesn't occur at locations further into the interior
of the building. I have 
> measured print surface temperatures as high as 54 degrees centigrade
(130 deg. F) under 
> those conditions so desiccation is still very strong even though the
print is indoors.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mark
> http://www.aardenbu <http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com> rg-imaging.com
>

 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E Neilsen"
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> John, If I am reading your post correctly, you are saying that as
the dyes
> mix together, that act, is causing them to fade. Any idea what they are
> doing? And are there tests that were done to predict this fade in
> relationship to amounts of  X amount of A + X amount of B fades at a
rate of
> Y? 

The destabilizing effects of dye mixtures and their respective dye
concentrations which leads to the commingling of the dyes alluded to
earlier is commonly referred to as "catalytic fading". For printers
that print gray with C, M, and Y blends, catalytic fading can often go
undetected in current industry light fade tests because those tests only
sample relatively pure C, M, and Y colors, plus "neutral grays" (no
matter how the grays are produced). Systems that make grays with heavy
GCR (replacement of C, M, and Y colorants with K in low chroma colors)
or substituted "photo gray inks" can pass such tests with much higher
scores than they deserve since the problem can still be manifested in
other color blends like blues, purples, reds, and skintone values. The
only way to account for catalytic fading correctly is to test a larger
population of colors laid down by the printer, especially important
color blends like skin tones,.

Swellable papers do significantly improve dye stability, but they do
not completely eliminate catalytic fading issues. An example of
catalytic fading on a swellable paper can be found here:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/news.46.html

Note that the printer/ink/paper combination in this example was given
an industry rating of about 25 display years, but deserves less than a
10 year rating when darker colors, skintones, reds and purples are
evaluated as well, because severe catalytic fading is occurring when
the magenta and yellow inks appear in higher concentrations.

best regards,
Mark
http://www.aadenburg-imaging.com

Thanks Mark, So it sounds like a good test patch for that might be a 225
profile target or something like that. Well defined color patches that can
give you a way to track that fading. After quickly reading through the
links, I can understand the 30 patch idea. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

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
mccormick.mark59
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:44 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 100 Hour Direct Sun Torture Test -Aardenburg

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E Neilsen"
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> John, If I am reading your post correctly, you are saying that as
the dyes
> mix together, that act, is causing them to fade. Any idea what they are
> doing? And are there tests that were done to predict this fade in
> relationship to amounts of X amount of A + X amount of B fades at a
rate of
> Y? 

The destabilizing effects of dye mixtures and their respective dye
concentrations which leads to the commingling of the dyes alluded to
earlier is commonly referred to as "catalytic fading". For printers
that print gray with C, M, and Y blends, catalytic fading can often go
undetected in current industry light fade tests because those tests only
sample relatively pure C, M, and Y colors, plus "neutral grays" (no
matter how the grays are produced). Systems that make grays with heavy
GCR (replacement of C, M, and Y colorants with K in low chroma colors)
or substituted "photo gray inks" can pass such tests with much higher
scores than they deserve since the problem can still be manifested in
other color blends like blues, purples, reds, and skintone values. The
only way to account for catalytic fading correctly is to test a larger
population of colors laid down by the printer, especially important
color blends like skin tones,.

Swellable papers do significantly improve dye stability, but they do
not completely eliminate catalytic fading issues. An example of
catalytic fading on a swellable paper can be found here:

http://www.aardenbu <http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/news.46.html>
rg-imaging.com/news.46.html

Note that the printer/ink/paper combination in this example was given
an industry rating of about 25 display years, but deserves less than a
10 year rating when darker colors, skintones, reds and purples are
evaluated as well, because severe catalytic fading is occurring when
the magenta and yellow inks appear in higher concentrations.

best regards,
Mark
http://www.aadenbur <http://www.aadenburg-imaging.com> g-imaging.com



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