|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
--- David Dyer-Bennet <email@example.com> wrote: > Michael Greer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes on 28 January 2000 at 06:46:53 > -0800 > > > It looks to me like Generations inks and suitable papers *will* meet > my needs. The informal tests look good, and formal tests are underway > (in fact, results should be out by now; but then again Wilhelm's web > site still says it'll be updated in August 1999, too :-) ). There is > some modest evidence that ink + paper combinations that meet my needs > exist. I'l also be eager to see the results. > > The evidence I have about coatings is, roughly, that coatings have > been informally shown to extend the life of Epson materials up to a > couple of years so far, that they probably don't greatly reduce > light-based fading, So far you're in total agreement. This is good. > that one friend has had problems with coated > prints over longer terms (decade or so), I don't doubt it. > and that Wilhelm recommends > against coatings for long lifespan, saying that in testing many > coatings have degraded lifespan. MAYBE a slight disagreement. I need to read his exact position on this again. I thought I read that his position was that they are ineffective at extending life. Period. I don't remember reading any qualifications (i.e. long lifespan)to that statement. If he did, then I'm in error and I might not be in disagreement with him at all. > > I have to consider two issues: Will coatings extend the life of an > image on Epson materials up to where I need it, and will the alternate > materials last as long as I need? Yes. Appropriate questions. The same ones that I've asked myself. Except that I'm now more satified wih other papers. But I'd love to get Epson ink and these other papers to where I need them. > A third question could be, would > coatings on alternate materials make a combination that meets my > needs? (I'd set 30 years as the minimum display life under > home/office conditions that I would accept; this is an arbitrary > decision on my part.) Another appropriate question. > > I have to conclude that coatings will *not* extend the life of an > image on epson materials to 30 years. I haven't concluded that yet, but it would not be a surprising result. > I don't have incontrovertible > evidence for this (or for bloody much else; this whole thing is an > exercise in using uncertain data), but here's my argument: The > Wilhelm accelerated aging tests leave everything but light level > essentially normal (better controlled). Therefore the fast fading > they show in Epson prints is light-based fading. Coatings are not > believed by anybody I know to make a big difference in light-based > fading. So I don't think coatings will extend Epson materials out to > my 30 years. I can't disagree with your logic. But I'm perplexed by is why has coating worked so far (where unprotected have failed miserably) for those of us that with used? What is the coating protecting the print from? > Will the alternate materials last that long by themselves? We're > waiting for Wilhelm tests on the materials I'm using, but there > certainly *are* alternate materials that meet my needs in Wilhelm > tests (with a factor of four safety margin :-) ). That shows that it > isn't a hopeless quest! Sunlit-window tests show Generations inks on > a couple of "good" papers doing pretty darned well. I'm feeling > reasonably confident that I'm in an acceptable place. Didn't I write that if an alternative existed for my purposes, then I too probably WOULDN'T screw with it? In others words, WE AGREE! > Would adding a coating to my current ink and paper combination extend, > reduce, or have no effect on life? This is the most speculative > area. Yes, it is speculative. But if you're confident the unprotected print would meet your needs, then why coat? Unless you like the finish, there is no reason for coating. The only reason I started doing it was because I liked the finish and it extended the life of my prints. If I didn't have I longevity issue to begin with, I probably would have never coated in the first place. Using this logic, it stands to reason that if I find a paper/ink conbination that I like from an imaging stand point, and it also proves to last unprotected, then I will probably stop coating. > > First, if I'm reasonably confident in my materials alone, I'd say it's > unwise to add another variable by adding a coating. We're on the same page. > > Finally, we come to the point where, I think, we seem to rub each > other the wrong way. You seem, to me, to be saying "Topcoats have > been shown to extend print life." Yes, that is what I saying. BUT, I think I'm being careful to point out two things. 1) I'm only making this claim for the papers, inks, and coating that I've personally used. 2) I have no idea how long they will hold up. My only claim is that they've outlasted unprotected prints by a wide margin thus far. > Within the terms of this discussion > (I believe we're both accepting anecdotal evidence as being real), > it's true that they have; several people have reported reasonable > informal tests. > > However, you then seem to me to make the leap of thinking it's quite > possible that this protection will continue for the indefinite future; NO! Dave, I've never said that or implied it. Some have assumed that that was being applied. I've been very careful to add "thus far" to my claims. You made wrote about some possibilities a few days/posts ago stating what could happen over time. Look them up, I totally agreed that these are definate possibilities and that I had no clue whether they would come to pass or not. So why are you writing for a second time about a leap of faith I seem to be taking when I explicitly agreed with you the first time about not knowing what would happen in the futre? I'm taking NO leap of faith. I'm stating explicitly that I HAVE NO IDEA what will happen. > that we have no basis to make any sort of estimate of how much longer > your sprayed prints might last. I think the evidence, such as it is, > is solidly *against* this hypothesis. What hypothesis? The only theories I've presented in this thread is why I think the prints have lasted longer. I have not theorized, guesstimated, or hypothesized how long these coated prints would last. I think I've gone out of my way to state that I have no clue. How else can I put it? > We have little reason to think > coatings stop light-based fading, I agree. > *and* we have evidence for coatings > damaging prints on long exposure (Ctein's report), But you're generalizing. There are many manufacturers and many different formulations. Have reports tested all products? Are these reports accurate for now and infinately into the future? EVERYTHING is being developed and innovated. Does this mean that coatings are excluded from development? There was a time that man could not fly. But developments occured and now with the aid of aircraft, he can. > *and* we have > Wilhelm advising against coatings for long-term keeping (without > specifying in detail what he tested). I personally think this is a BIG issue. What if Maxim XE and McDonald's are vastly different. Is it fair to assume that Maxim will fail like McDonald's failed or visa versa? I don't think so. Henry is tested specific inks and papers. He accurately writes that longevity is a result of the combination of the two. So why the vagueness about the specific coating? This is not fair to those manufacturers. Call 'em out. Name them. > > To hold the opinions you do, and since you're obviously a rational > person, I have to believe that you either reject some of the arguments > I'm accepting *against* your position, I'm not convinced we dsagree. You've assumed an extrapolation (that leap of faith thing) that I haven't made. So far, I've only taken this day by day and have let my eyes judge. No assumptions now, or into the future. Because you've assumed this, you think I'm in opposition to your position. I'm not convinced I am. > or else are using additional > arguments *for* your position that I don't know about. So, let me ask > -- which of the reasons I've cited don't you consider valid as an > argument against the use of coatings? My only statements of fact are that I've used coatings and have witnessed no ill effects, yet. And that they do in fact extend the life of prints on inks and papers that I've used up to the amount of time that I've observed them thus far. And to the limits of these qualitifications, I disagree with Wilhelm's seemingly universal condemnation of their use. That's it. That's all I'm claiming. Nothing more, nothing less. > And what additional evidence do > you have to suggest that a coating will continue to protect a print in > the longer term? I hope I've made it clear that I have none. I hope I've also made it clear that I'm NOT projecting anything into the future. I've only reporting observations that have already occured. > ===== 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