In all scincerity, thank you Richard. On the whole, I do not think I said anything to contradict what you have noted. Since museum conditions do not exist anywhere except in some museums, I do not think I am wrong is saying that the museum conditions referred to are ideal conditions (i.e., where all things being equal except the uncontrolled variables - a situation which does not exist in the "real world of everday practical life" outside the lab or museum. For this reason, I take the final lab model generated data with a grain of salt when applied to the non-ideal world by being inclined to accept the lower end of the range of findings rather than the high end of those rages as my scientific basis for making my comments and evaluations. Having said this, I will only not that some times fading per se may be less than 50 % or even 80% so as not to bee seen as a major deterioration; but it may be enough to result in color shifts even if no fading per se is noticed. I regard these sorts of color shifts to be degredation and to have significance when evaluating archival qualities. I do not know if this is the case with Wilhelm's work or not. At any rate you input was informative and helpful and not really a radical departure from what I was suggesting unless you are inmplying (which I do not think you are)that museum conditions are the general norm for the everyday practical world of reality and any departures are abnormalities. -----Original Message----- From: owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com [mailto:owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com]On Behalf Of Richard N. Moyer Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 12:24 PM To: epson-inkjet@leben.com Subject: RE: Expected Life of Epson Ink + Archival Paper?? Not sure who started this thread. There have been numerous posts regarding ANSI/Wilhelm test conditions. Whereas you can read up on the long history of this yourself, and the reasons for the protocol, the base reason is that there needed to be a way to determine relative fading performance. The standard was set at what was considered MUSEUM conditions: lighting, humidity, air quality, etc. (There were many reasons for this) Wilhelm also carries out testing at elevated conditions; elevated humidity, pulsed light, abnormal spectra, abnormal air components, meaning "smog" components; nitrous oxide, ozone, etc. in order to accelerate failure. The results at elevated conditions are then statistically correlated and mapped into proven Arrhenius predictive models out of which we get Life Expectancy Values (LEV). The LEVs are always Museum conditions normalized. Otherwise any result could not be interpreted. This would lead to confusion in the marketplace and more chaos. If you want non-museum interpretations, he can give it to you (so I am led to believe), but you can't publicize these values because that would lead to confusion. But with this information, you can understand how your ink/paper/coating, etc. would fade. Useful life is not dictated by the ANSI standard, because no two people can agree on tolerable fading. But Wilhelm uses LEVs based on 50% (I believe) reduction of densities. Please accept these small paragraphs (above) as a very tiny flavor of the protocols. If you live in a region which departs from "standard" museum conditions, there are ways within the measurement protocols for adjusting the results. From what I have read, Wilhelm has an immense database of fading results induced by elevated or deficient amounts of a huge number of stress components. Like elevated UV, IR spectra. The fact that you might get different fading results - different than Wilhelm publicized results - does not mean either are wrong. It just means that your results are not been "modeled" to museum conditions. Or vice versa. The word model is used to extrapolate from one set of conditions to another - scientifically. >At 08:23 PM 1/24/00 -0600, Laurie Solomon wrote: >>Gary, I be a he not a she. >>Laurie >> >>Having clarified this, I note the statement "Although what she actually SAID >>(5-7 years under best conditions, maybe 2-3 ordinarily) is not really >>disputable (or provable either) at this point, even by your examples" raises >>questions as to what constitutes proof - scientific or otherwise. The >>ranges mentioned are based on lab findings by Wilheim ( I believe - He has >>been quoted on this list extensively before but I forget his name). >>However, I treat lab findings with a grain of salt in that they are >>typically carried out under ideal conditions not under practical everyday >>conditions. Hence, I am inclined to lean towards the low end of the ranges >>suggested by the research. >> >>Rafe from what I read is inclined to accept the upper end of the ranges. I >>have tried a number of glossy photo quality papers with Epson Ink but not in >>any systematic fashion; I have found none to last long enough to be called >>archival which at a minimum I take to be 12-15 years. From what I read Rafe >>and others have informally tired other Epson ink and non-Epson ink/glossy >>photo and non-glossy non-photo paper combinations; they have found that some >>combinations have longer durations with a few approaching what I consider >>the minimal to called archival. > > >Laurie, I've only reported what I've experienced, >having made (at this point) many hundreds of letter- >sized prints on Epson media, over the last two >years or so. I haven't really done any sort of >formal or even semi-formal testing, other than >occasionally visiting old prints, kept in dark >storage, or hanging in the homes of those who >received these prints, framed, as gifts. There's >very little (if any) significant fading on any of >these. > >There's a "show" of my framed Epson prints hanging >in the cafeteria where I work. They've been up >there since June/July of last year. They get >a lot of bright daylight, but not much direct sunlight. >They're still looking fine. > >As to testing other combinations, I'm a complete >newbie. To date, I've made (in just the last >three or four weeks) perhaps a dozen or two >decent, saleable prints using both ink and paper >that are claimed to be "archival." Obviously, >there are no results to be gleaned from those yet. > >When I give prints to friends as gifts, and when >I sell them, I talk about the proper "care and >feeding" of the prints. One of the things I >tell people is to not hang the prints where they >will be exposed to direct sunlight. Just a bit >of common sense... goes a long way. > > >rafe b. > > >- >Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use >accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.