|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Royce Bair wrote: > Please remember that we are also talking about a "family" of watercolor > papers- -- these test results apply to all 3 of the Lysonic watercolor papers > [Standard, Soft & Rough] -------------------------------- While I wouldn't be surprised if similar test results were obtained for these three papers (since they are made from the same paper base and use the same coating, as you observed) Henry Wilhelm is testing (has tested) each paper separately. The August version of his web site shows results for Lysonic i W-2 inkset (a special formulation designed by Lyson to be used by an Iris printer to image their matched papers). In these listed results, Lysonic Standard Fine Art is given at 28-32 years. But, specific entries in the table for Lysonic Soft Fine Art Paper and Lysonic Rough Fine Art Paper are given as "(tests in progress)." Why would Lyson submit and pay for tests on papers that some (most?) folks claim are identical to the "Standard Fine Art Paper" unless they believe that there are differences between the papers to warrant the expense of separate tests? What differences are known to exist other than surface texture? What were the results for these papers with Lysonic i W-2, did he report these in the recent release? And, thanks Royce, for sharing not only the results but your experience in the paper biz! Much appreciated (even if it doesn't always seem like it :-) And thanks to the other list members who have tirelessly picked at my (and other) arguments. I've found the open exchange of opinions to be most helpful in sorting through the confusion. I'm sure we're not done yet! I'm off for a couple of weeks to the Caribbean (with cameras) for some image hunting and R&R. Already looking forward to a couple of megabytes of digests when I return! Later, Miller Abel Santa Cruz, CA - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.