| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
<x-flowed> > > So I think the evidence right now is clearly against coatings. > >I believe Sergei more than I believe Wilhelm. If Wilhelm ran his fade >tests with 80-90% humidity (instead of that unrealistic sissy 60%) >and/or spiked his test chambers with pollutants like ozone, he would >probably change his tune. It's not clear to me if this 'rapid fading' is real fading, a reaction of the ink, dot gain or what. It is also obvious that Wilhelm research deals with fading due to light. As we found out light fading is not the only possible fading. What IS clear to me is that cheap acrylic spray effectively protects the (hopefully dry) printout from this reaction with humidity. I haven't experimented with the new heavyweight matte, still waiting for it. The thin matte epson papers absorb the spray fine. Photo paper also. >There is plenty of independent evidence presented on this list. The >danger of standardized testing is that they try to model sissy >conditions instead of modeling harsh ones. Extrapolating from this, we can wonder how much archival the 870 inks will be? after all epson states '...protected with glass'. Sergios. -------------------------------------------------- Alternative Factor: Science fiction in Greece at http://www.altfactor.gr - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. </x-flowed>
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users
|