Re: millennium liquid laminate

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





--- Michael Keller <keller@wvinter.net> wrote:
> Michael Greer wrote:
> 
> > support or direction. Ford Motor made a decision then that they would never
> > source to a supplier that locked them into a particular product line. It is
> a
> > policy that I've seen mimicked by many large corporations. They simply
> don't
> > want to be left holding the bag should something happen to the vendor.
> 
> So how many corporations have declared themselves to be an "all Microsoft"
> shop?<g>

One more comment on this aspect and that's it. Like it or not, Microsoft as
become the standard bearer. They depend on no single industry for their
survival. They are deemed as "safe". Years ago, no one would get fired for
choosing IBM. Why? Because with a fair amount of confidence one could rest
assured that big blue was going to be around. Did that that mean they had the
best solution? No. But a solution from a partner who will be around is better
than a superior solution from a partner who might not make it. At least, that's
the philosophy that many/most big corporations adopt. Love Apple all you want.
Love the Mac all you want. But when you have billions (maybe even trillions) of
dollars at risk and you look at the prospects, who's "more likely" to survive?
The Wintel army or the Mac army? That's the issue.

> 
> But the real question is: where are all these other testing labs that are
> giving us reports on inkjet materials? You are complaining about Wilhelm
> being one man, and his testing procedures, but as far as I can tell, he's
> following accepted museum archival practice.

No, you miss the point. First, I'm not complaining. I'm, simply stating my
opinion based on my observations. Secondly, for the umpteenth time, Wilhelm is
not the issue. My issue is with the reaction by those of us interested in this
stuff. I see vendors posting ink/paper longevity results on their web pages
based on Wilhelm's testing results. I read people in this very forum dismissing
ink/paper combinations because his testing results say they won't last. I hear
people being disturbed by not knowing what to do because all of their potential
options are nixed by his results. I have no problem with his testing or
controlled environments. 

But what I have a big problem with is the year ratings. People read these year
ratings and just accept them. They say to themselves, "I can't use that
ink/paper even though I love the result because it only lasts 2 years.". But
what if the main mechanism of fading is exposure to air not not light? What if
in their application the print would last for 15 years? Let's say their target
is 10 years. They would have deprived themsleves of an acceptable solution
because of a year rating they accepted from a recognized expert. You say all
they (Wilhelm) cares about is light fastness for museum archival. Let's say I
agree with you. Then why do we (who are not interested in this) who are
interested in how long an 8x10 inch print going to last on client John Smith's
wall accept his findings for our applications? Are his findings valuable? Can
they help directionally? Yes. Should they be ignored? No. Is he contributing to
the overall picture? Absolutely. Are his findings the final authority? Today,
it seems the answer is yes. Should they be? No. Laminating (hot, cold, or
liquid) doesn't appear to help prints survive light at all. I can accept that.
BUT, in my application, it has proven to extend longevity.So now, you have a
bunch of people thinking that laminating is a waste of time because Wilhlm's
light exposure tests say so. But my experience says it improves print life
hanging on the wall. That is, it is a viable solution of me. If all I did was
read Wilhelm's reports to make my decisions, I wouldn't have a viable solution.
My issue is not with him, it's with the reaction of others to his findings.

> They don't test for anything other than light fastness in museum archival
> standards because that's all they care about. 

I understand this. That's why my beef is not with them. It's with people's
(vendors and users) reaction to their results. 

> The standards for humidity and
> temperature control are already established. If you hang a Picasso in your
> living room, no one's going to
> guarantee the life of the painting. (but it's sort of like owning a Ferrari:
> if you can afford the Picasso you can afford the maintenance and security for
> it) But don't blame Wilhelm for only testing for light fastness and dark
> keeping, because that's all
> photographic materials are tested for.

Once again, who's blaming him? Where have a written that my issue is with him?

> 
> BTW, I haven't seen a report on the keeping qualities of color negative
> materials in a while. Last i heard, they sucked, yet a LOT of people (besides
> amateurs) have gone to shooting color neg, and the longest lived color print
> photo material is for prints from
> negs. Do we have our standards out of whack?
> 
> --
> Michael Keller
> Old + New Media
> 
> 
> -
> Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
> accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.
> 

=====
Visit my digital photography web site along with a lot of other interesting stuff at http://greer.simplenet.com. Also, Greer and Associates (http://www.greeraa.com) offers studio photography, digital imaging services, web site design/construction, and training. 

Mike Greer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
-
Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.


[Index of Archives]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Scanners]     [Gimp]     [Gimp Users]
  Powered by Linux