[pure-silver] Wilhelm Research
- From: Claudio Bonavolta <claudio@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:34:37 +0100
----- Message d'origine -----
De: "Speedy ." <speedgraphic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 22:26:37 +0000
Sujet: [pure-silver] Re: [lens] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak
commercial
À: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Tom Trotter,
>
>Thanks for the link. I will read it when I get a bit more time.
>
>I did a good bit of reading on print permanance about 1.5 years ago. It is
>interesting that Hewlett Packard products are featured on this page. I
>recall reading from an independant party a scathing indightment of the
>methodology used in testing to support HP's claims.
>
>Essentially testing consists of exposure to light of a given quality over a
>period of time and evaluations and estimates are made based on the results
>during the time of the test.
>
>HP's claims were grossly beyond those made by one of their major competitors
>- Epson. It turned out that the HP study utilized a light source of about
>33% the intensity of the light source in the Epson test and exposure per
>session consisted of a timed period of half that of Epson. In short, the
>test had been constructed to give the desired results to allow them to use
>(qualified) longivity claims in their marketing...
>
>Having not (yet) read the claims made on your link and having not read
>expert evaluation of those claims I cannot judge the the test.
>
>Since you have rightly or wrongly bought into the results I ask you again -
>How reliable was this study?"
>
>Speedy
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
>http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/
I don't know if Wilhelm is or not an independent company but I see already a
couple of concerns with their tests:
- They only test papers against light aging.
- They consider a strong light during a short period is equivalent to a dimmer
light over a longer period
First point, the last time I checked their website a few months ago, I've only
seen tests based on light aging.
There was (is ?) a slight mention on ozone tests but was completely anecdotic.
Who can imagine light is the only factor that may affect a print, whatever its
technology ???
A B/W silver based print tested under these conditions will show hundreds
(thousands ?) years of permanence.
We all know this is not true, because the major factors that affects them are
others.
Can we seriously think light is the only factor involved in inkjet aging ?
What are the real inkjet prints killers, do we know all of them ?
Some of them probably, for the rest, we'll have to wait for some time.
I'm just afraid Wilhelm & Co. are measuring things that are not the most
significant for a print permanence.
There have been so many examples in the past of problems affecting permanence
that were completely unexpected that I suggest some humility before publishing
numbers that may say nothing.
The second point, someone on a french newsgroup used a pretty nice image: put
an egg into an incubator for 28 days and you obtain a chick, put it at 80°C for
a few minutes and you only obtain an hard-boiled egg.
So, again, how can we trust this procedure and know for sure it is right ?
For a company supposed to be so scientific oriented, how can Wilhelm be so,
sorry for the pun, light in their testing procedure ?
I'm afraid this may answer the question regarding their independence ...
Only future will tell us how these prints will look like, we've no feedback on
this point.
Silver-based material is far from perfect but there is such a feedback.
Going digital may interest me but the problem is that all enlargers
manufacturers I've contacted consider the advanced amateur market as being
insignificant, so none of those who were kind enough to reply even consider
developing a digital enlarger for silver-based paper for us.
We all have to go inkjet, outsource our prints or remain analog.
I'm just hoping the already saturated minilab market will soon have a crash so
some may reconsider us more seriously.
Happy New Year to all of you !
Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch
============================================================================================================To
unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account
(the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
