|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Michael, I think you are on to something here. The fact is that people in general are used to traditional photographic prints and don't usually think about the fact that they really don't last very long without fading. My mother has some prints hanging on her wall that have faded considerably (noticeable over 10- 20 years, and probably beginning well before that). If we could tell buyers/ recipients of our work that they can be reasonably confident under normal viewing conditions that a print will last as long as a print on Kodak Royal Gold paper that they get from one-hour processing, or when going for a big- bucks art sale, that expected life is similar to a traditional C-print or Ilfochrome, then we're in business. It is very hard indeed to make sense of the absolute numbers and various ink/ paper/ printer combos that we're trying to digest. Cathy -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Michael Greer Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 5:08 AM To: email@example.com Subject: Need Baseline For Archival papers & inks Having some experience in predictive analysis, I think we need a baseline for comparison on these archival issues. When Henry Wilhelm quotes years, people take this data as absolute. That is, if Henry says a particular paper/ink combination will last 7-9 years, many people assume their prints will be trash in 10 years with absolutely no thought given to application (i.e. direct sunlight exposure, surface unprotected, etc.). How many people actually know what his criteria is for fading? I'd assume not many. Anyway, giving absolute results (i.e. this combination will last for 8 years) is difficult business. You don't see this level of attention or concern given to "real" photographic prints because people have some level of expectation from them. That is, it's a known quantity, at least in the minds of people. In conducting many predictive analysis, we many times came to the conclusion that "directional" results are more stable than absolute results. Meaning we are testing 2 configurations, which one is better for engine cooling under 60 MPH, 95 degreee, 50% humidity conditions? Note, the analysis will deliver which one performs better (a directional result which points us in the direction of a satisfactory design). Not configuration A will have a radiator exhaust temperature of 182 degrees (this would be the case of an absolute result). With this in mind, it seems to me that making a Kodak or Fuiji paper a baseline, then testing and rating papers against that baseline under the same conditions would give us more information than a year rating. For instance, rating a particular ink/paper combination a 0.5 would mean that this combination lasts half as long as the baseline photographic print under the same test conditions. This would mean a lot more to me than the current year rating. ===== Explore potential income opportunities with Greer and Associates at http://www.ibocity.com/greeraa. Also, Come visit my digital photography web site along with a lot of other interesting stuff at http://www.greer.simplenet.com. Mike Greer __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.