|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
ACC0147@cs.com <ACC0147@cs.com> writes on 16 January 2000 at 10:06:24 EST > So, maybe the millennium laminate doesn't give us 100 years of protection. > How about one fifth of that! I'll settle for 20 years of protection!! I'm > tempted to forget the archival inks. Print my watercolors on archival paper > (Probably arches watercolor) using Epson inks for the best looking prints, > spray with millennium, frame with uv protected glass, and add a warning about > direct sunlight with a 10 year guarantee against faiding or a replacement > print at cost. Sounds like the easiest, and cheapest, and most honest way to > go!! What do you all think? Celeste I think that no independent testing has yet shown any coating or laminate to significantly extend the life of inkjet prints, and that Wilhelm and Ctein both recommend either extreme caution, or complete abstention, in the use of coatings. Some anecdotal cases (including a note from Wilhelm that didn't specify the coating or substrate) show severe *reduction* of permanence with some coatings. So I think the evidence right now is clearly against coatings. Perhaps some day a coating that works will be developed. Perhaps millennium is it. I see no special reason to think so yet. Frankly I completely discount manufacturers claims in this, when they're completely against all the independent evidence. -- http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / firstname.lastname@example.org - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users