Longevity research- cross posted

[TylerB]

Most of you may already know about this, but I intend to make some noise about it-
http://aardenburg-imaging.com/
That the opening page has such a discussion of specialty B&W ink speaks volumes right off the bat. Mark developed the standard Wilhelm is now moving to, while taking little of the public credit. This is exactly the kind of independent testing we have been looking for for years, and open to as many kinds of inks and papers as his subscription level can support. He also has the first viable approach to B&W testing we've seen as an independent, Wilhelm's told us nothing of hue shift in his previous testing, very important to us B&W folks, particularly those using processes with some level of color inks involved. Obviously most of his work is with color. Some of you are probably already members. I realize to have a voluntary subscription effort like this is this economy makes for a difficult future, but isn't this exactly what we need to keep things honest?
This is extremely important work, the only impartial, thorough, and rational approach to evaluating the future of our print art since the radical switch to digital. Times are very tough, I managed to find a way to subscribe and stay alive, it's not much.
I think we should constantly support his efforts on the forums when we discuss materials, subscribe of course at least at the minimum if at all possible, and mention we are members on our sites and blogs. We would be his support, since he can't be a constant salesman and maintain the level of integrity required to give his work and results the impartial level of integrity required for widespread acceptance.
Thanks for listening, go join, and proudly chat up your membership... maybe he needs a certificate we can put ion our sites.. a decoder ring at least?
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

[neil snape]

The problems of testing , methods, and cost of doing so are all part of where we are today with this testing. Some of the information is conveyed b marketing in ways that are not intended by the scientists doing the testing.

Yet it comes to a point where if there is a substantial benefit in not trying to rock the boat, then it just slips by.  Mark is the only person I know that can calm the waters and put a paddle in troubled water and gently, very gently push it in a better direction.

Without Mark believe me, the boat will continue without an obstacle in sight.

Before people take this the wrong way, WIR is an institution , and one that are fully aware of every detail of permanence testing. IT is the way marketing has deciphered , misconstrued, changed public opinion on interpretation of test results.

If you want a very boring read , try to read the Permanence and Care of Color Photographs. With that you'd see that there is a lot of substance behind WIR, and Henry Wilhelm is not a bad guy trying to pull a fast one on anyone. Can we do better in testing? Sure , that is what Mark is trying to show us. Will marketing want to adapt and decipher this information ? Yes but not likely very quickly. It is still not  an important consideration for general photographic imaging consumers, so until so no reason to try to explain a very complex problem in one word on the side of a box like 100 years +!!!!!

[NikoJorj]

200% agree with above...

[...] and mention we are members on our sites and blogs.

Mark may be reading us... And he may even have a ready-made banner for such a purpose?
That said, my site wouldn't drive much traffic to his   but that's not a reason not to make it.

[TylerB]

...Henry Wilhelm is not a bad guy trying to pull a fast one on anyone. Can we do better in testing? Sure , that is what Mark is trying to show us. Will marketing want to adapt and decipher this information ? Yes but not likely very quickly. It is still not  an important consideration for general photographic imaging consumers, so until so no reason to try to explain a very complex problem in one word on the side of a box like 100 years +!!!!!

Hello Neil, your post gives me the opportunity to clarify something. I intended no criticism of WIR. I know you did not imply that I did, I just want to make this point. Henry has the respect and admiration of all who have come into contact with him over his many years of work in this area. I still have my boring copy of Permanence and Care of Color Photographs somewhere on the shelf. I'm sure he will continue to contribute, and he has embraced Mark's contributions as well.
For my purposes and I hope many who will take the time to check it out, Mark's efforts at Aardenburg are also extremely important if not more so. Frankly I'd think there would be more support from academia, manufacturing leaders, R&D people, collectors, and of course the archivist and conservator community.
I have the real impression the interest groups strongly involved ind intensely interested in these issues pre-digital seem to have literally withered on the vine in the face of rapidly changing times...
Tyler

[MHMG]

Mark may be reading us... And he may even have a ready-made banner for such a purpose?
That said, my site wouldn't drive much traffic to his   but that's not a reason not to make it.

Yes Nicolas, I am reading this because LL is definitely my favorite forum. The pro and advanced amateurs that have an abiding interest in the topics discussed here, their willingness to share their considerable expertise, and the largely civil nature of the discourse, is very refreshing. First, let me say thanks to everyone for all the kind words and especially to Tyler for taking the time to cross-post his very kind message and rallying the troups to the AaI&A cause. The AaI&A digital print research program is unequivocally a "grass roots" effort. I'm ridiculously undercapitalized to start this labor intensive program, but I've always liked a good challenge.

I'm also honored that my members want a logo.  Several members in the AaI&A program have asked me about this very thing, and some have taken the initiative to screenshot the color icon in my website's header and create their own logo to let their clients know that they take image permanence seriously and support the AaI&A digital print research program as evidence of that commitment. My core constituency is the custom fine art digital printmaking community, i.e., printmakers that create their own art but typically also digitally master and print works for other clients as well. I have no problem with them promoting their membership in the AaI&A digital print research program whatsoever. On the contrary, I'm grateful that my members are taking the time to do this. That said, I should make their efforts much easier by supplying a ready-made logo. It is on my "to do" list, which I dare say is way too long at the moment. Lucky for me my wife has always spared me a heavy-duty "honey-do" list, so I have only myself to blame for not getting around to it yet.

What I'm not wiling to do is to create some "certification seal" for manufacturers that has an air of authority but signifies nothing. If and when I get around to "certifying" any kind of product performance attribute, it will have to be very clear what that certification does and doesn't mean. What I see a lot today in our industry is a bunch of "fluff", ie. marketing promotions designed to impress but when you look under the hood, you find the engine is missing.

Best regards,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[neil snape]

Hello Neil, your post gives me the opportunity to clarify something. I intended no criticism of WIR. I know you did not imply that I did, I just want to make this point. Henry has the respect and admiration of all who have come into contact with him over his many years of work in this area. I still have my boring copy of Permanence and Care of Color Photographs somewhere on the shelf. I'm sure he will continue to contribute, and he has embraced Mark's contributions as well.
For my purposes and I hope many who will take the time to check it out, Mark's efforts at Aardenburg are also extremely important if not more so. Frankly I'd think there would be more support from academia, manufacturing leaders, R&D people, collectors, and of course the archivist and conservator community.
I have the real impression the interest groups strongly involved ind intensely interested in these issues pre-digital seem to have literally withered on the vine in the face of rapidly changing times...
Tyler

The comment above is not directed at you or any one person. I appreciate that you are indeed trying to help this project, and it's exactly  support like this that will make it happen. Count me in , but as Mark knows he has always had my support.
It's just for people who may read this or any other threads the wrong way. Over time, even on this forum, disbelievers of the marketing conviction of test result numbers fall onto WIR like it is a concocted story to sell printers. If it is , it isn't , never was WIR. All I want is that Mark and WIR continue testing with advances in methodology as is happening now, yet no finger pointing at the source by way of misinterpretation of the former. And yes Henry earns his respect where ever he goes, as does Mark. I've had the pleasure of meeting both>

By mentioning if you like a sort of disclaimer about the politics, perhaps I'm doing the opposite of helping. It's just I have seen a hint of what marketing does, how they think, and a slight glimpse of how permanence testing has been applied to non scientific community use (that means most of us).

Cheers.

[enduser]

As I write this I can recall a slight whiff of change in the impregnabilty of Epson, under challenge from HP and Canon, so far as color stability is concerned.   It may not end in that order, but at this stage there seems no reason to discard any of the three majors on longevity criteria.

Circumstances like these, where a dominant brand ceases to be dominant technically, is when the marketing departments start swinging.

Strong competition always results in improved products and three seemingly equal brands can only be good for consumers.

[neil snape]

As I write this I can recall a slight whiff of change in the impregnabilty of Epson, under challenge from HP and Canon, so far as color stability is concerned.   It may not end in that order, but at this stage there seems no reason to discard any of the three majors on longevity criteria.

Circumstances like these, where a dominant brand ceases to be dominant technically, is when the marketing departments start swinging.

Strong competition always results in improved products and three seemingly equal brands can only be good for consumers.

I was so happy when Canon and HP launched into gallery quality pigmented photo printers. Of course biased and somewhat still a little angry at Epson for constantly clogged heads and thousands of dollars of prints all to be torn up, I was already working with HP on future products. I have always been the type that goes with the underdog. No one believed HP could do it, at least not as well as they did. Their hard won  decision to give up some gamut for exceptional stability was one truly taken to heart for photographers or art work. Canon have done just as well as far as technology goes. Epson reign King still, which is also a well deserved title as far as image quality goes.

Yet testing methods are separate from current products. They are not inseparable but the testing methods hopefully will be applicable to future products just as well. Most of WIR early inkjet work is based on methods that go back to wet process. That is the science of this after all.  I am happy to see that marketing is pushing ahead for all three big one's. I would like to see more education to consumers from them, which should be a marketing demand, not engineering. Maybe with support here, Mark is the right person to be allied with for education to happen. So yes marketing could again raise the awareness of permanence for the products we use.

[MHMG]

It may not end in that order, but at this stage there seems no reason to discard any of the three majors on longevity criteria.

Enduser makes a point that is very well taken yet bears further comment. The seven major pigmented inksets most frequently in use today by serious fine art printmakers (Epson K3, Epson K3VM, Epson HDR, Canon Lucia x000 series, Canon Lucia x100 series, HP Vivera pigment 3100 series, and HP Vivera 3200 series) all turn in lightfastness performance that easily exceeds traditional chromogenic color photography on the vast majority of papers we choose to print on. The result of all this pigmented ink research on the part of the major manufacturers to date is that many photographers and printmakers have now concluded print longevity is totally adequate no matter what paper they choose. For many, the longevity game is over and the marketing battleground moves to other factors like color gamut, bronzing, differential gloss, etc. For those that now hold this view, independent print permanence research on inkjet technology like that conducted by AaI&A, WIR, IPI, Image Engineering, Torrey Pines, etc., is no longer necessary.

That said, my research is painting a more complex picture for the discriminating printmaker.  Even with pigmented OEM ink sets, paper selection affects the light fastness outcome significantly, often by a factor of 3-5x. Moreover, a paper that performs well in combination with one OEM ink set is not necessarily the across-the-board longevity champion with other OEM ink sets.  So, this fascinating diversity in our printer, ink, and paper choices is my incentive to continue light fade testing, and to work with members of the AaI&A digital print research program to keep testing wide varieties of printer/ink/paper/coating combinations.  When I am paying over 200 dollars for just one 50 foot roll of fine art paper for my wide format printer, I personally want to make an informed choice. I must balance my impressions of initial image quality, i.e., color gamut, bleed, bronzing, differential gloss, abrasion resistance, and other paper aesthetics with an informed knowledge of print longevity factors. That is the value proposition of continued print longevity testing.

Additionally, third party pigmented inks are continually improving as well.  Due to the costs (and the politics) of longevity testing, third party ink sets are grossly underrepresented in the longevity information available to the public.  Even for those who would never go near a third party ink set, they must realize that third party alternatives keep the pressure on the majors to keep pushing the cost/performance equation higher. So, while third party paper and ink suppliers are the thorn in the OEM printer manufacturers' side, we all benefit by their presence in the market.

cheers,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[TylerB]

....
By mentioning if you like a sort of disclaimer about the politics, perhaps I'm doing the opposite of helping. It's just I have seen a hint of what marketing does, how they think, and a slight glimpse of how permanence testing has been applied to non scientific community use (that means most of us).

Cheers.

Who can tell what helps or doesn't? All of the cross agendas, "expert" advice, unknown alliances, politics, etc. make it difficult to know how information is received or utilized any more.
In fact that's the very point you've made.
I think it's an important one, people need to realize it's vital to press for more clarity and information, and that there are heavy politics everywhere, even in ink cartridges. All the more reason for expert community supported efforts like Mark's, and the forums.

...
What I'm not wiling to do is to create some "certification seal"...
Best regards,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

I agree Mark, evolving into an entity that bestows or withholds blessings from on high would undermine what you seem to be doing. The information you provide speaks for itself. By the way, I find those "to do" lists make very good scrap for nozzle tests.
Tyler