|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
--- Laurie Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > As for your comments about people on this liost needing to get out in the > "real world." I find thqat to be a very arrogant statement and am surprised > to hear it coming from you. I gave you more credit than that. Your real > liffe experiences as well as that of others are as valid as are those of the > people whio disagree with you. They also live in and are a part of the > "real world" you refer to. Well, since we're all getting messy, why stop now? ;-) Anyway, Laurie, I'm not sure J. Arthur was refering to you. But it seems clear to me that most of the people on the opposite side from me on this issue have never actually sprayed inkjet prints themselves and evealuated them over time. Why do I believe this? Because no one has commented on their personal experiences except for those of us that think it is effective. Every post I've read of people who've actually done it claim that top coating is very effective in their applications for the length of time they've observed the print(s). I keep reading theory and getting advised to consult this reference or that reference based on this expert or that that council's written opinion. But I and others have personal experience with top coating effectiveness, at least in the relatively short term. (less than 3 years for me). But that experience is actual *real life* experience. Not some assumed to be accurate accellerated test. In my real life experiences (and ones that I've read from others with actual experience), top coated prints tend to blow the doors off uncoated prints, irrespective of anybody's theory. As to your previous point about top coating destroying prints. That makes sense to me. I can certainly see the possibility/probability. But what if it's the top coat that allows the print to last long enough for the top coat to damage it? For example, let's say a top coated print lasts 20 years before the top coat starts to damage the print. But an unprotected prints last only 10-15 years before it's hopelessly faded. Yes, the top coat damaged the print. But the top coat also gave you 5 more useful years. Of course this is hypothectical, but the point is that we have to look at these thing relative to the alternative. If my experiences showed me that my top coated prints and my unprotected prints looked about the same after the same time.exposure, then I probably wouldn't do it. What has some what irritated me is that regardless of what those of us who have done it and continue to do it say about our personally observed experiences, we get reffered to lab reports saying that we're wrong by people *who seem* not to have done it themselves. In effect, they're either telling us our eyes are not seeing what they see, or we're all liars. Either one is an offense. ===== 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.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users