|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Thanks for the post Jon. It's this kind of experience that I personally gain a lot from. It gives me a lot to think about. I have another question for you. The air born particles from aerosol sprays drives me crazy. Plus there just seems like a lot of waste. Have you tried brushing on liquid coatings? If so, which one(s)? I'm looking for one that will dry to a smooth surface and have the high glossy acrylic finish of Krylons Crystal Clear. I'm interested more in look than UV/fade protection. Any ideas? Jon Cone wrote: > I agree that it is a difficult call to both lump all products together, rely > soley on Henry WIlhelm's testing, and make a statement like Maxim is going > to produce X results. > > I first put hindered Amine Light Stabilizers into a coating (CEP UV/HALS) in > 1993. I also saw incredible gains on various dye sets. But what I didn't > take into consideration was the results which produce end of testings by > Henry Wilhelm. He and I both looked at some startling test results from my > own testing which contradicted his. Mine were in a south facing window - his > under 45,000 fluorescent. > > But what I learned was that in his testing, coatings with both UV absorbers > and HALS can produce unpredictable results. The main throw off is that one > of the dye components is protected to a greater degree than the other three. > The result is that the other 3 begin to fade while the forth doesn't - and > the end of test is reached earlier than without the coating in which all 4 > components faded at the same result. It is better that all 4 dyes fade at > about the same result. This is why Lysonic inks tested so well. > > The criteria here in all this - is not how a "picture" looks, or how good > the color bars hold up, but rather (in Henry's testing) how quickly a > neutral gray or CMY patch shifts. He does this because the eye notices > overall cast changes sooner than individual component failures. Of course if > a color component fails sooner than a mixture the test ends as well. > > So I remain a bit skeptical because of experience. > > Best test would be to make a neutral gray patch of approx. 1.0 density. Coat > it and compare to one kept in dark storage. Put both the test and an > uncoated test in a sunny window and see what happens. If you add color bars > with your tests you may be suprised to find that the color bars change much > more slowly than mixed colors. > > Henry uses scientific procedures to determine fading - not how "good" a > picture looks. > > On the other hand (being my own devils advocate) - how "good" a picture > looks is what it is all about! > > So - where do I stand then?? just here - I'll let you all sort it out. > I actually still coat my Iris prints with HALS. I've learned that if you > are going to err. Err on the side of danger!! : ) > > -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- > > Jon Cone > http://www.inkjetmall.com > http://www.cone-editions.com/workshops > > -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- > - > Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. > http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. -- Mike Greer Come visit my web site on digital photography and other interesting topics at http://www.greer.simplenet.com . I have been extremely lazy, so many of the topics are not finished yet. But they will be, some day. - Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users