Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: deanwork on May 19, 2017, 05:17:30 pm
-
Well looks Wilhelm and his corporate sponsors, Epson and Canon decided not to publish whatever they found out about these guys new ink sets. Maybe the have more to hide than The Donald. At least on the Canson media Hp is killing them still in longevity.
-
Cool. Use Canson media on HP printers then.
-
Well looks Wilhelm and his corporate sponsors, Epson and Canon decided not to publish whatever they found out about these guys new ink sets. Maybe the have more to hide than The Donald. At least on the Canson media Hp is killing them still in longevity.
I'm perplexed. If WIR hasn't published the results of their testing how do you know HP is "killing them still in longevity"? Epson did make some statements about longevity when they issued the P800, indicating some impressive pro-tem results; but of course one would still like to see the report of the testing lab. Anyhow, WIR isn't the only game in town; Aardenburg should eventually have useful independent data.
-
Z6200 Print Permanence Ratings Released 4/8/2017 - VIVID Inkset (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_Z6200_2017_03_08.pdf)
Surprising that WIR would release print permanence ratings now for inks and printers that are now so old.
Even more perplexing is that probably they don't even equal 10+ year old king of the hill Vivera technology.
Those Barcelona team guys really did something when they came up with the Vivera inks. VERY hard to beat.
But the best thing is that the prints look fantastic.
I sure hope HP has something up its' sleeve that is better than Vivid. It's not even a "photo" printer in the sense that the Z3200ps printers are. Vivera rocks. Can't wait for testing results to come out comparing Canon and Epson's newest offerings vs Vivera.
Where the rubber meets the pulp, I believe Vivera will come out on top. However the proof will be in the pudding. We'll see.
WIR is definitely NOT the only game in town, thankfully.
-
Indeed it would be useful for him to actually publish the Real results after starting what like three years ago . All this time Epson has used his"preliminary" hyped figures for Epson to sell these printers.. That is backassward and they should release the fade data Before they release the printers the way they used to and the way Hp did with Vivera. Exact same thing goes for Canon.
Personally I'm tired of Waiting. I'm buying a Z3200 on Monday. They are as fast as my Canon with the same gamut and with twice the longevity on Canson media and a full multi warranty protection for years at a very minimal price and you can purchase it whenever you want long after you buy the printer. That's not even considering the free i1 Spectro and software.
uote author=Mark Lindquist link=topic=118017.msg977930#msg977930 date=1495241215]
Z6200 Print Permanence Ratings Released 4/8/2017 - VIVID Inkset (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_Z6200_2017_03_08.pdf)
E
Surprising that WIR would release print permanence ratings now for inks and printers that are now so old.
Even more perplexing is that probably they don't even equal 10+ year old king of the hill Vivera technology.
Those Barcelona team guys really did something when they came up with the Vivera inks. VERY hard to beat.
But the best thing is that the prints look fantastic.
I sure hope HP has something up its' sleeve that is better than Vivid. It's not even a "photo" printer in the sense that the Z3200ps printers are. Vivera rocks. Can't wait for testing results to come out comparing Canon and Epson's newest offerings vs Vivera.
Where the rubber meets the pulp, I believe Vivera will come out on top. However the proof will be in the pudding. We'll see.
WIR is definitely NOT the only game in town, thankfully.
[/quote]
-
Indeed it would be useful for him to actually publish the Real results after starting what like three years ago . All this time Epson has used his"preliminary" hyped figures for Epson to sell these printers.. That is backassward and they should release the fade data Before they release the printers the way they used to and the way Hp did with Vivera. Exact same thing goes for Canon.
Personally I'm tired of Waiting. I'm buying a Z3200 on Monday. They are as fast as my Canon with the same gamut and with twice the longevity on Canson media and a full multi warranty protection for years at a very minimal price and you can purchase it whenever you want long after you buy the printer. That's not even considering the free i1 Spectro and software.
Many people are stepping up to the Z3200ps John, you're not alone. I know your Z3100 has given you many years of great prints.
Just letting you know - if you want a 5 year care pack, you must buy it within 30 days of purchasing the printer. Additionally, the care pack begins when you purchase it, not after the first year of warranty. It's strange but it's the way they do it.
Unquestionably the Z3200ps machines are the most underrated printers ever, and the best kept secret of many professionals and hobbyists alike. I applaud you for your decision - I bought my 3rd Z3200 just to make sure I have everything covered going forward. Pro Imaging supplies still has the 44" printer available for $2,995, and Ted is the man to talk to, but wherever you buy yours, it's a great move. Perhaps you'll give them a second chance. Whatever - best wishes with your new printer. I am still like a kid in a candy store with mine, especially after making 1725 patch target profiles. It prints so crazy good on Moab Entrada Natural 300 Gsm - Mark McCormick turned me onto that. BTW - he absolutely loves his Z3200ps.
-Mark
-
It's good seeing this thread. I've been waiting for print longevity numbers for the Canon Pro-2000 inkset since it was announced over a year ago. I am still waiting.
-
Well looks Wilhelm and his corporate sponsors, Epson and Canon decided not to publish whatever they found out about these guys new ink sets. Maybe the have more to hide than The Donald. At least on the Canson media Hp is killing them still in longevity.
Henry Wilhelm is alive and well. In fact he just gave a seminar May 9th at the Palm Springs Photo Festival entitled Examining the Latest Printing Technologies: How Great Photographers Are Exhibiting Their Work. Here is the link:
http://wilhelm-research.com/PalmSpintsPhotoFestival/Wilhelm_Printing_Seminar_at_the_Palm_Springs_Photo_Festival_2017.html
In regards to the final WIR test reports for both Canon and Epson, yes, they are long overdue and the lengthy delay is strange. Thankfully Mark McCormick-Goodhart of Aardenburg Imaging has been releasing test updates for the Epson HD inkset, so far confirming Epson's projected 2x longevity claims versus the prior Ultrachrome K3 inks. You can read about these tests here:
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/epson-uchd-versus-k3-inks/
In addition, the Canon ImagePROGRAF Pro-1000 with Lucia Pro inks is now in test at Aardenburg. However, keep in mind that WIR permanence tests conducted for paper and printer manufacturers are still performed using old school analog densitometry and endpoints set to 'easily noticeable' fading (up to a 35% loss of color), determined by a small consumer focus group back in the 1970s. With today's complex colorants densitometric analysis fails, as densitometers only measure optical density, not color.
This is why prior WIR test reports on Epson printers, for example, show the exact same data between different generations of inks. Thus even if WIR releases new reports, it's important to keep in mind these test limitations and the fact that colors such as red, green, and orange cannot be measured using densitometry.
In terms of the long-awaited WIR report on the latest Canon Lucia Pro inks (if indeed WIR testing is being done as claimed), it remains a mystery of growing concern due to Canon's silence and removal of lightfastness data from their website. Perhaps staff at LuLa would have better success in reaching Canon management for answers.
As most people know, the preliminary (unfavorable) lightfastness data posted on the Pro-1000/Lucia Pro inks on Canon's website (under tech specs) was removed. However, I recently ran across the same data by accident in the Canon knowledge base. Perhaps they forgot to remove it there as well. But we still don't know if the testing was done internally or externally, nor the testing parameters or endpoints.
https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART164634&actp=RSS
Until we have complete permanence testing results on the latest Canon and Epson inksets, HP is still king and you are wise to purchase one.
-
................In regards to the final WIR test reports for both Canon and Epson, yes, they are long overdue and the lengthy delay is strange. ...............
................ However, keep in mind that WIR tests are still performed using old school analog densitometry and endpoints set to 'easily noticeable' fading (up to a 35% loss of color), determined by a small consumer focus group back in the 1970s. With today's complex colorants densitometric analysis fails, as densitometers only measure optical density, not color.
................Thus even if WIR releases new reports, it's important to keep in mind these test limitations and the fact that colors such as red, green, and orange cannot be measured using densitometry.
In terms of the long-awaited WIR report on the latest Canon Lucia Pro inks (if indeed WIR testing is being done), it remains a mystery of growing concern due to Canon's silence and removal of lightfastness data from their website. Perhaps staff at LuLa would have better success in reaching Canon management for answers.
...................
Hi Renee,
For all we know, the reports from WIR on the Canon and Epson inksets may have been completed, but the companies (who are the clients of WIR and determine publication) have chosen to not release the data for reasons only they would know and we can only surmise. Maybe the companies think there is something technically wrong with WIR's results, which is a possibility not to be discounted out of hand; otherwise, I don't see what incentive there is for them to not publish - the number's we've seen aren't too bad and holding it all back just creates adverse speculation they don't need.
Now, I'm interested to know where you got all this information about the limitations of WIR's evaluation technology and methods. While Mark M-G has pointed to at least one lacuna in their approach, particularly in respect of OBA fading, I haven't seen any literature raising these other concerns you mention, and given that WIR is a serious commercial/scientific enterprise no doubt charging these corporations (who employ highly qualified scientists able to evaluate its work) good money for its services, I must say I'm somewhat surprised to hear they are decades out of date in what they are doing. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just wondering about the likelihood. As well, it's important to recognize that the age of a methodology is not the unique determinant of its on-going usefulness - it depends.
Turning to "staff at LuLa" - the Contributor (not staff) who writes most of what LuLa publishes on printers, papers and printing is me, as you may know. I have raised with both companies the question of longevity data and its release, because I am not technically trained or physically equipped to evaluate longevity. The only response I received was "it will be forthcoming" and like all the rest of us I'm still waiting :-). So that's the status. They know the community is very interested in seeing the results, and there is nothing more I can say about it - except to note there are other companies making, or rebranding papers who do not even mention whether they get this testing done.
-
Yes, I was the first or one of the first people to submit samples of the Hp Vivera ink set to Mark at Aardenburg . What his results showed was a general overall confirmation of what Wilhelm had published in regard to showing a two to three times better longevity result than Epson ultrachromre k3 and Canon Lucia ex ink sets at that time.Same thing reflected by some independent German tests. What was really bizarre was how far off Wilhelm was when it came to his figures for media coated with optical brightening agents, such as the Hp Pro Satin, that was an absolutely beautiful paper with an absolutely dreadful stability result in most all of its colors. However, on the quality media, like the Canson media with pigment brighteners , his tests have shown the same essential thing as Aardenburg, a much superior result with Vivera in side by side comparisons with those previous inksets. As a result of this I personally discount his >450 year figures for the Canson rc media like the Pre Satin because I was burned before, having printed some important shows with the Hp pro Satin only to regret it a year later when Marks tests of my samples came out and I was horrified.What is interesting is Wilhelms published results of the Ink Press rag papers with all the inks. They are lower priced papers and equal or beat the Canson results, according to WR. Is that true? We just don't know without other independent tests. One thing for sure , Epson was smart to get in bed with Canson and their colleagues in the coating realm in Germany, with their " Legacy" 😊 Line, because those papers with those coatings are going to make them look a whole lot better than their other, " signature worthy" media did with their new inks. And that is not a coincidence. Not so with the junk media like Exhibitiom Fine Art that so many people wasted their money on before the truth was revealed.
-
....Now, I'm interested to know where you got all this information about the limitations of WIR's evaluation technology and methods. While Mark M-G has pointed to at least one lacuna in their approach, particularly in respect of OBA fading, I haven't seen any literature raising these other concerns you mention, and given that WIR is a serious commercial/scientific enterprise no doubt charging these corporations (who employ highly qualified scientists able to evaluate its work) good money for its services, I must say I'm somewhat surprised to hear they are decades out of date in what they are doing. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just wondering about the likelihood. As well, it's important to recognize that the age of a methodology is not the unique determinant of its on-going usefulness - it depends.
Hi Mark:
Thanks for the detailed response and important points you've raised. This discussion thread is very important and long overdue. I've been out all day and am only now responding (I live in California - Pacific Time), but wanted to provide you with some information on where this testing information is available. I will respond more tomorrow.
For one, a superb article on LuLa, The Weakest Link, by John Pannozzo, President of ColorByte Software, was published on your site back in 2012. That article covered the testing limitations in great detail. See here:
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-weakest-link/
More importantly, testing information is widely available on the WIR site. Unfortunately, most people skip all the critical articles Wilhelm has published over the years and jump right to the final testing reports. That said, I've noticed links to many test reports and key publications have disappeared of late, as it seems they're now being incorporated into WIR's massive tomes The Wilhelm Analog and Digital Color Print Materials Reference Collection and The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs, which are available to download.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/WIR_Reference_Collection/The_Wilhelm_Analog_and_Digital_Color_Print_Materials_Reference_Collection-1971_to_2016_(2016-04-01_v13).pdf
However, if you read all the footnotes included in WIR test reports, you will discover a lot of crucial information if you're willing to research additional publications. It's just that most people want a simple answer on 'how long a print will last' for a given printer/ink/paper combination. The rest is too technical or of little interest to the average consumer. The footnotes in each test report clearly reference articles explaining the methodology used (densitometry), parameters, endpoints, and how they were determined using psychophysical studies.
It's no secret WIR still uses densitometric analysis to perform permanence testing for printer and paper manufacturers, not because it's desirable in the age of modern inkjet printing and multiple complex colorants, but simply because of manufacturer politics. It's a big, hot sticky mess. Since manufacturers still cannot agree on ANSI/ISO standards, Wilhelm has his hands tied and is stuck employing the same method for manufacturer testing he developed for color prints decades ago. The manufacturers simply will not budge.
Note this is not to say WIR doesn't use colorimetric methods for other day-to-day research; I am solely referring here to how print permanence testing is done on behalf of paper and printer manufacturers as we understand it. If indeed any paper or printer manufacturers have contracted with WIR to have testing done using Aardenburg's I* metric model, I am unaware of that but would be thrilled to learn of it.
To be clear, this is certainly not the fault of Wilhelm in any way, who is a brilliant man with innumerable contributions to the field of print permanence. He has been tireless in advocating manufacturers adopt a single, more modern standard.
Of course you may be aware Mark McCormick-Goodhart of Aardenburg once worked as a subcontractor for Henry Wilhelm, at which time Mark invented the I* metric testing model, which employs colorimetric analysis and was developed in conjunction with Henry. In fact, there are many joint publications written by Mark and Henry detailing the I* metric, also available on the WIR site and elsewhere. And the open source, public beta I* software is freely available on WIR to download and test:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/istar/index.html
However, if the industry were to switch methodologies, the overall 'years on display' (compared to WIR reports) would drop, alarming consumers. Much education would need to take place. Wilhelm uses a standard of 'easily noticeable fading' based on decades-old consumer focus groups (to determine what constituted objectionable fading), whereas Aardenburg adheres to 'little to no noticeable fading,' much more appropriate for artists, photographers, and printmakers whose eyes are more sensitive to losses in color and contrast than the average consumer.
For most of us, a 25-35% loss of color is simply unacceptable. That's why conservation display ratings based on megalux values (used by Aardenburg) are much more meaningful than simple 'years on display' (used by WIR), as display conditions vary widely.
If you reference the footnotes in WIR reports and read other WIR publications, there are many explanations as to why certain starting density values were chosen. In fact, when WIR added the additional 0.6 starting density value and retested chromogenic dye prints using Fuji Crystal Archive paper, the estimate for 'years on display' dropped nearly in half. This is because the curve drops off. He used to run the tests with a single 1.0 starting density only. These starting densities have continued to evolve over the years.
And that's another reason why there's so much conflicting information on photo lab websites regarding print longevity values. Some labs still claim their chromogenic prints on FCA paper will last 100 years based on outdated WIR data and the standard 450 lux (at 12 hours per day) display conditions. The marketing hype is all over the place, sans any scientific explanation. It's very frustrating for consumers to sort the wheat from the chaff.
In addition, I've been blessed via conversations I've had with Mark McCormick-Goodhart, as he so generously shared his valuable time with me in explaining the history of print permanence testing. I had reached out to him last year to do research in preparation for a print permanence podcast I did for Breathing Color.
If it were permissible, I would post the PDFs from WIR that show how the testing is done, but that is illegal without explicit permission. Meanwhile, this information is readily available on the WIR site, although it requires a lot of digging.
Here is a direct link to a great Wilhelm article, How Long Will They Last? An Overview of the Light-Fading Stability of Inkjet Prints And Traditional Color Photographs, that should be of help. In this publication you will find much useful information and a table containing the WIR 'Visually-Weighted Endpoint Criteria Set v3.0,' which shows how much color loss is allowed before the test endpoint is triggered. I think people will be surprised to see this data.
See the column showing the 'Allowed Percentage of Change in Initial Status A Densities of 0.6 and 1.0.' Note the term density is used throughout, as densitometry is employed as I stated initially.
If you are aware of densitometry standards, then you know the meaning of Status A versus Status M for photographic applications. My point being the fact that Status A is mentioned in the WIR paper, which obviously refers to densitometry.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_ISTpaper_2002_02_HW.pdf
It's crucial this information comes to light so people can make more informed decisions, and hopefully lobby manufacturers to adopt a more appropriate testing method, the I* metric.
I hope this helps and I will post more tomorrow. Thanks again.
-
Now, I'm interested to know where you got all this information about the limitations of WIR's evaluation technology and methods. While Mark M-G has pointed to at least one lacuna in their approach, particularly in respect of OBA fading, I haven't seen any literature raising these other concerns you mention, and given that WIR is a serious commercial/scientific enterprise no doubt charging these corporations (who employ highly qualified scientists able to evaluate its work) good money for its services, I must say I'm somewhat surprised to hear they are decades out of date in what they are doing. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just wondering about the likelihood. As well, it's important to recognize that the age of a methodology is not the unique determinant of its on-going usefulness - it depends.
Hi Mark:
In following up on my initial reply to your questions on WIR test methodologies, here is another link to a very useful article (available on WIR's site) jointly written by Henry Wilhelm and Mark McCormick-Goodhart that will answer some of your questions.
A New Test Method Based on CIELAB Colorimetry for Evaluating the Permanence of Pictorial Images
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/WIR_CIELAB_TEST_2003_07_25.pdf
The publication clearly states the problems inherent in densitometry, and explains why densitometric analysis is no longer appropriate with today's inksets.
Hope this helps.
-
Ubfortunately, the ISO comittee, long ago rejected I*, as did manufacturers, stating that a new University sponsored pyschophysical study group would be required in order to affect change going forward, decades ago. Eschewing any pragmatic approach to current updated testing methods employing updated algorhythms, manufacturers and ISO standards adhere to woefully outdated methodologies that lead to innacurate conclusions due to the discrepancies of densitometric vs colorimetric methods of measurement.
Compounding this confusion is that the big three testing facilities, WIR, IPI, and Aardenburg are so far unable to present a unified front on a standardized approach, and manufacturers prefer not to adopt the current more accurate testing protocols as it would potentially skew test results unexpectedly for products and product claims. They are not unaware of the more accurate test results however.
Realizing that densitometry has been around since the seventies and applies originally mostly to film, it is absurd that new standards would not be updated, but rather obstructed by manufacturers.
Quoting an IPI article conclusion:
" A variety of decay forces can cause digital prints to deteriorate. There are also many problems associated with testing digitally printed materials for permanence and interpreting the results. The variability in test methodologies currently being used, coupled with the variability in conditions to which the prints will be exposed during actual use, leads to concerns about the accuracy of advertised image-life predictions. The lesson to be learned is that, while image-life predictions can only give us a rough idea of how long prints will last, they can be used to compare products on the market as long as the test procedures used were similar. The publication of updated ISO test methods that all laboratories can use will help to improve public confidence in image-life predictions."
Understanding Permanence Testing (https://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/webfm_send/311)
Ultimately, the hegemony of camps distracts from a greater concern - which is the manner in which prints fade, and the way in which the inks and media combinations decay over time, given that decline is inevitable. Aardenburg has been advocating for a new dialogue that deals with the quality of fading; does a print fade gracefully or hideously.
At what point is a print worthless from a perceptual standpoint. Has the yellow declined to the extent that faces become blue, or green, or does a print have the ability to gradually fade with equal characteristics which contribute to an acceptable aesthetic. And is it gradual in decline or immediate after certain "drop-offs".
It has long been accepted by many cultures that aging is not only inevitable, but prized, depending upon the qualities exhibited. As photographers are fascinated by the character found in aging barns and rusted cars, So too can the "appropriately aged" photo exhibit similar charateristics at end of life.
It's another way of looking at print longevity. Fading is inevitable. Just how gracefully does the print fade is an important question. Essentially, it is about "how", not just "when".
To discuss print longevity in terms of quantifications or simplistic 400 year longevity designations of inks and medias completely misses the point IMHO. An acceptable range of expecteded print permanence should suffice, but more important, to me, is some indication of life fading qualities over time.
Perhaps it is time to shift focus, in part, away from quantifications and begin focusing on qualifications in regard to print longevity.
Mark
-
Do we get to vote on who is on the ISO committee.
The big thing for me that simply makes no sense is how Wilhelm gives these great figures to media that is loaded with dye brighteners. This goes back to the infamous Epson Archival Matte controversy, but continues into the present. As an example I looked at various papers under my my black light printer last night and watched the Canson rc media glow exactly like plain typing paper that is full of brighteners.Yet the Canson Pre Glossy rc is rated in the multiple hundreds of years with the hp inks, the same rating as Canson Rag Photo , a 100% cotton media with no oba. Now you know that's just wrong.
-
Who funds Wilhelm? How does he make his money?
-
Who funds Wilhelm? How does he make his money?
As far as I know it is a private research institute funded by contractual work for its clients. I don't know whether they receive grants etc. from other sources to fund pure research.
-
Hi Renee,
I'm glad I asked these questions. Thank you ever so much for your detailed responses and references to articles on the WIR website. I have visited there numerous times, downloaded and read a fair bit of his material, including those extensive explanatory footnotes in his published reports. Lots of information there. The difficulty with all this lies in interpreting the meaning of the results - in particular what they don't directly say about the appropriate impact of the qualifications on our appreciation of the numbers in the documents. For that, Mark McCormack-Goodhart has indeed provided invaluable and extensive explanation of some shortcomings in current mainstream approaches and his methodology for dealing with them. Mark Lindquist mentions that long ago the ISO (I suppose TC 42) rejected I*. It would be interesting to learn why. ISO itself is not exactly transparent. Yes, we know TC42 functions through the ANSI, coordinating the participation of some 12 member countries, but who the specific participating technical experts from those countries are, their institutional affiliations and the basis of the decisions they make, isn't easy for outsiders to penetrate. But the important thing would be to understand the technical basis of the current state of disagreements on the development of generally accepted standards for print permanence. It's hard to know where we stand and why without this.
-
Do we get to vote on who is on the ISO committee.
The big thing for me that simply makes no sense is how Wilhelm gives these great figures to media that is loaded with dye brighteners. This goes back to the infamous Epson Archival Matte controversy, but continues into the present. As an example I looked at various papers under my my black light printer last night and watched the Canson rc media glow exactly like plain typing paper that is full of brighteners.Yet the Canson Pre Glossy rc is rated in the multiple hundreds of years with the hp inks, the same rating as Canson Rag Photo , a 100% cotton media with no oba. Now you know that's just wrong.
Not so sure. A representative of one of the world's most prestigious paper companies once explained to me that the simple presence of OBAs in a paper does not of itself determine the long-term fade characteristics and impact on print appearance. He said it depends very much on the quantity and type of OBA material and in particular where it is embedded - for example being embedded in the base of the substrate makes it very much less prone to such issues than if it were mixed in further up. I'm just reporting here, so don't shoot the messenger - I have no way of evaluating this information, but perhaps this is the kind of thing the test results you mention are picking up.
A senior rep of one of the printer companies reminded me that our much treasured wet darkroom papers of yesteryear were also loaded with OBAs and way back then didn't generate the intensity of concerns we are discussing today for the inkjet papers. He has a point. I hauled out some my darkroom prints dating from the 1960s made on various high quality Agfa and Ilford papers of the day, measured them and indeed they revealed the tell-tale signs of OBA content (see attached from 1966); however, these prints have been in dark storage for around 50 years and they don't look yellowed, nor do they exhibit any evidence of uneven yellowing. The b* values on the highlight and very light grey areas are generally below 5 measured under M2 measurement condition and below 1 measured under M0 or M1. BTW, the Black looks really rich and dense to the (my) human eye, but the spectro rates the deepest black I could see at about L*9.5. Today we're getting down to L* 1.6 or so. It would be interesting to scan and reprint some of this stuff, and compare!
-
Mark Lindquist mentions that long ago the ISO (I suppose TC 42) rejected I*. It would be interesting to learn why. ISO itself is not exactly transparent. Yes, we know TC42 functions through the ANSI, coordinating the participation of some 12 member countries, but who the specific participating technical experts from those countries are, their institutional affiliations and the basis of the decisions they make, isn't easy for outsiders to penetrate. But the important thing would be to understand the technical basis of the current state of disagreements on the development of generally accepted standards for print permanence. It's hard to know where we stand and why without this.
It wasn’t for any technical reasons. Both Kodak and Fuji scientists vetted it internally and raised no objections on technical grounds. The reason was ironically, that the committee thought retaining a simply embellished densitometric model with a few more color patches would expedite the task of publishing a new ISO test standard. A more sophisticated colorimetry-based testing method could then be developed later on. Still waiting for that to happen...
-
Hahnemuhle is always saying their presence doesn't matter, but that is a relative judgement. It is true that hah photorag 308 did fairly well in my submitted Aardenburg tests many years ago, but not as well as the papers with no oba. That is because hah starts out with quality cotton and alpha paper in the beginning and oba is added in small amounts to the paper when it is made not added later when the receptor coating is put on, as is done in many of the junk papers by Red River, Epson etc.
Now as to oba not being a problem in gelatin silver papers that simply isn't true. Ask Mark about that. His tests of the modern Ilford analogue papers showed them failing miserably in the white point. I've mentioned before that a collector friend of mine owns two 20x24 ansel adams prints made from two of his most popular negatives in the late 50s to early 60's and the paper base of both of them has greyed out so much that it is just embarrassing for anyone who might want to own these as an investment. These prints hung in a condo with moderate indirect daylight hitting them for 25 years.That lowers the contrast of the whole print and Ansel would not be amused. My own Ilford Gallerie prints from the 70's also have darkened paper base now and they were in dark storage. With the Ilford paper being made now the paper they start with could be of even lower quality and the brightness faked even more with brightening dyes. Really these days the only way to guarantee silver papers of lasting quality is to make your own. I'm considering that when I start the alternative process work next month - printing from the Ohp film.
-
I spent five years on an ANSI technical group some years ago. Getting to consensus on issues can sometimes be difficult and I'm sure that this is what happens in the photography area. ANSI (American National Standards Institute) is the US member to ISO which is the umbrella group of world standards organizations. Technical work groups are pretty much open to participation to those with expertise and time to work on projects. There is no compensation from the standards organization for such work. There's a whole process that has to be followed for the development of a standard. If the major vendors of ink jet printers and inks want to slow things down, it's not difficult to do (I have no knowledge of whether this has or has not occurred).
Here is the current list of TC42 (photography) projects: https://www.iso.org/committee/48420/x/catalogue/p/0/u/1/w/0/d/0 You can see all the published standards by ticking the appropriate box. The ISO group did a lot of work on film speed and processing chemicals in the "old" days.
I've read a number of the Wilhelm papers over the years and have also supported the Aardenburg work both by contributing funds and doing an extensive printing test of Hahnemuhle Photorag Ultrasmooth where Mark suggested that we look at all aspects of the Epson ABW print driver as well as the colored inkset. I like the work Aardenburg has done as it's transparent as to the methodology and makes good sense. The results are there for everyone to examine.
-
Hahnemuhle is always saying their presence doesn't matter, but that is a relative judgement. It is true that hah photorag 308 did fairly well in my submitted Aardenburg tests many years ago, but not as well as the papers with no oba. That is because hah starts out with quality cotton and alpha paper in the beginning and oba is added in small amounts to the paper when it is made not added later when the receptor coating is put on, as is done in many of the junk papers by Red River, Epson etc.
Now as to oba not being a problem in gelatin silver papers that simply isn't true. Ask Mark about that. His tests of the modern Ilford analogue papers showed them failing miserably in the white point. I've mentioned before that a collector friend of mine owns two 20x24 ansel adams prints made from two of his most popular negatives in the late 50s to early 60's and the paper base of both of them has greyed out so much that it is just embarrassing for anyone who might want to own these as an investment. These prints hung in a condo with moderate indirect daylight hitting them for 25 years.That lowers the contrast of the whole print and Ansel would not be amused. My own Ilford Gallerie prints from the 70's also have darkened paper base now and they were in dark storage. With the Ilford paper being made now the paper they start with could be of even lower quality and the brightness faked even more with brightening dyes. Really these days the only way to guarantee silver papers of lasting quality is to make your own. I'm considering that when I start the alternative process work next month - printing from the Ohp film.
Contrary to my experience. I just now re-examined envelopes of prints made in 1970 (47 years ago) on a range of Agfa Portriga and Brovira papers, the Brovira BN no doubt containing OBAs . No such issues. The paper looks fine and so do the prints. Dark storage however.
-
...If the major vendors of ink jet printers and inks want to slow things down, it's not difficult to do (I have no knowledge of whether this has or has not occurred).
Hi Alan:
Thanks for weighing in and sharing your experience serving on an ANSI technical group. It seems logical and fairly obvious that paper, printer and ink manufacturers would push back against any new test methodology that results in less 'favorable' print permanence data, no matter how much science screams out for such change.
Any such test modifications would likely cause alarm and confusion among consumers, who are accustomed to the ease and convenience of a simplistic 'years on display' rating based on a single light level assumption, something manufacturers are trying to avoid. It's a ratings game, pure and simple. But the longer this decades-old testing model is allowed to continue, the harder it will be to reeducate the public.
It should concern any printmaker that densitometry fails to properly measure the light colorants, multiple levels of black, reds, oranges, blues, and greens present in today's complex inksets. It fails to measure tonal loss. In addition, densitometry cannot adequately measure the impact of OBAs. Employing a methodology developed decades ago to rate chromogenic dye prints (with CMY) is simply inadequate today.
My understanding is that this ratings game has caused the lack of manufacturer consensus, and has been the main obstacle in moving forward with more modern and appropriate test methodologies. Until there is a public outcry and pressure is put on manufacturers for more stringent test methods, things will stay the same.
You may recall this same type of stumbling block years ago with Kodak, as their standard home display illumination level assumption was 120 lux, far less than the 450-500 lux used by all other paper, ink, and printer manufacturers. Kodak was the stubborn outlier for obvious reasons, as the much lower illumination level assumption resulted in Kodak's greatly enhanced longevity numbers compared to the competition. This battle continued for a long time.
There is no real scientific basis for manufacturers to reject the I* metric model, as it's been thoroughly tested for years. To my knowledge, Aardenburg offers the only test results which both numerically and visually document color and tonal changes.
So we can only assume politics has reared its ugly head yet again, without regard to what's best for the printing community.
Thanks again for weighing in.
-
...The big thing for me that simply makes no sense is how Wilhelm gives these great figures to media that is loaded with dye brighteners.
...As an example I looked at various papers under my black light last night and watched the Canson RC media glow exactly like plain typing paper that is full of brighteners. Yet the Canson Pro Glossy RC is rated in the multiple hundreds of years with the HP inks, the same rating as Canson Rag Photo, a 100% cotton media with no OBA. Now you know that's just wrong.
In perusing numerous WIR test reports over the years, it puzzled me that papers with the highest amounts of optical brightening agents seemed to fare the best in 'permanence' ratings. Such as Epson's Exhibition Fiber paper. Or Enhanced Matte.
As many people know, the weakest or most 'fugitive' pigment ink has always been yellow. My understanding is that the reason papers with OBAs fare better than their non-OBA counterparts in WIR permanence tests is because, as the OBAs burn out and the papers return to their more natural warm state, the fading of the yellow ink is compensated for as the paper yellowing (or loss of blue) increases. So this phenomena totally skews the data.
Yes, RC papers have OBAs, as they contain titanium dioxide. But there are other problems with OBAs. Here's a great article on Aardenburg which explains them:
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/optical-brighteners-obas/
-
In perusing numerous WIR test reports over the years, it puzzled me that papers with the highest amounts of optical brightening agents seemed to fare the best in 'permanence' ratings. Such as Epson's Exhibition Fiber paper. Or Enhanced Matte.
As many people know, the weakest or most 'fugitive' pigment ink has always been yellow. My understanding is that the reason papers with OBAs fare better than their non-OBA counterparts in WIR permanence tests is because, as the OBAs burn out and the papers return to their more natural warm state, the fading of the yellow ink is compensated for as the paper yellowing (or loss of blue) increases. So this phenomena totally skews the data.
Yes, RC papers have OBAs, as they contain titanium dioxide. But there are other problems with OBAs. Here's a great article on Aardenburg which explains them:
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/optical-brighteners-obas/
Without measurements on the paper white itself the yellow ink fading could compensate for the OBA degradation in WIR tests but I doubt it is a 1:1 compensation as OBAs tend to differ in the way they shift color in time. The weakness of yellow ink is mainly found in Epson ink sets but their latest pigment ink. AFAIK what I recall of WIR tests of the Hahnemühle papers without OBA and with slight amounts of OBA PhotoRag, German Etching, came out better than the Photorag Bright White that has more OBA. That is within one group of papers. I have no recollection of RC papers measured then but most of them contain OBAs and depending where they are located the paper white color shift can vary a lot. If within the PE barriers of the paper base their gas fading at least is reduced. That effect also applies to the silver halide RC papers of the past and that kind of papers also has a gelatine/PVA emulsion layer that can act as a barrier to gas, oxygen, ozon, too. Which might explain that archived silver halide prints keep their fluorescence properties more or less.
"Return to their more warm natural state" is not always the case. The Epson Exhibition Fibre OBAs seem to add their own color of degradation in time. Check Aardenburg tests. There is also the effect of OBA papers stored after display that become darker in the archive and can be revived a bit by exposure to light again but degrade as well over time. Mark McCormick is the one to explain that in detail.
TiO2 whitening agent pigment has no fluorescence within the visible light spectrum. It transforms UV light to heat beyond the infra red spectrum. In that sense it can compete with OBA dyes on UV light absorption (though wave lengths can differ) but that is all. How TiO2 acts on the degradation of OBAs when mixed together is another thing, I think it might as TiO2 is used in more inventions these days to auto clean surfaces like window glass. The TiO2 whitening agents in the front PE barrier of analogue papers used to be an issue in the past, the PE degraded fast. Changes in the PE polymer and other crystalline TiO2 whitening agents have changed that effect. To get the highest OBA effect some inkjet paper manufacturers put the OBA near the front surface in the inkjet paper, exposed to all the degrading factors in print display. With TiO2 deeper into the paper structure there is no competition on UV then and TiO2 opaqueness is less of a problem too. Based on this Baryte BaSO4 is the better whitening agents in combination with OBAs, it has no UV absorption. The OBA dyes will degrade nevertheless.
https://www.ncsu.edu/bioresources/BioRes_07/BioRes_07_2_2582_Liu_SNYZZ_Review_of_OBA_Prodn_HYP_Paper_2618.pdf
Some of the latest Epson matte art papers with OBA effect seem to have a better composition or better OBA type if we check the Aardenburg Imaging test result of them.
The Epson Proofing White Semi Matte RC paper has little OBA content, there a few other RC papers among the proofing papers that have less OBA content but none have the high white reflectance and straight white reflectance spectral plot that this paper has. High gamut also due to a good inkjet coating. Weight is good. Warm paper though and not everyone will like its surface.
An older thread here on the same subject:
http://lula.brainwebhosting.com/forum/index.php?topic=96331.0
BTW, the Aardenburg article is excellent, nothing wrong with the explanation there.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
My understanding is that TiO2 creates ozone on exposure to UV light. This becomes a problem once the print containing it is sealed in a glass protected frame. In such a sealed environment the ozone builds up and starts to attack the print. This is why I don't consider RC papers archival.
-
My understanding is that TiO2 creates ozone on exposure to UV light. This becomes a problem once the print containing it is sealed in a glass protected frame. In such a sealed environment the ozone builds up and starts to attack the print. This is why I don't consider RC papers archival.
If that is the case in practice then you should worry about any inkjet paper oand actually more about non-RC papers. It is a whitening agent that can and is used in anything that needs a white color. Without any specific information on the whitening agents in papers it could be present in baryta papers too. Best information on a baryta paper I have seen was the Sihl Satin Baryta paper with a 25% baryta spec. Nothing further whether that was a percentage of the total weight (unlikely) or of the whitening components used. The rest could be anything like TiO2, Kaolin, Zinc oxydes.
The process needs UV light and NOx present to create ozone efficiently. I would not worry about that in a glass protected frame. The TiO2 has to have specific properties for that too. And the TiO2 exposed to the NOx, it is usually in the paper base between the PE barriers and in a special form in the front PE barrier, anti-oxidants added there too. You would not want NOx to be in that frame anyway.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja1018755?journalCode=jacsat
Edit; there is some information on that in Wilhelm's book. Describing the knowledge at that moment and the RC analogue media of the 1970s. page 581
Edit2; Wilhelm mentions the creation of oxidants due to TiO2 + UV and visible light in RC papers of the 1970-1980 period and that becoming problematic when framed behind glass. There were other conditions mentioned too like changing temperatures and humidity. Resulted in silver oxide stains in B&W papers and PE cracking, chromogene dyes in color prints also affected. As I have written before the RC papers have changed since and whether inkjet pigment inks on RC paper suffer in the same way is not tested to my knowledge. Inkjet papers in general have not been tested on degradation of mechanical aspects like the bond of the inkjet coating to the paper base.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
The process needs UV light and NOx present to create ozone efficiently. I would not worry about that in a glass protected frame. The TiO2 has to have specific properties for that too. And the TiO2 exposed to the NOx, it is usually in the paper base between the PE barriers and in a special form in the front PE barrier, anti-oxidants added there too. You would not want NOx to be in that frame anyway.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja1018755?journalCode=jacsat
Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription to the journal and can only read the abstract. I would be interested to know what the threshold concentration of NOx is to observe this effect. It may be a minimal concern in most indoor viewing situations. However, were one to display images outdoors near a busy roadway the impact of NOx would be noticeable.
-
Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription to the journal and can only read the abstract. I would be interested to know what the threshold concentration of NOx is to observe this effect. It may be a minimal concern in most indoor viewing situations. However, were one to display images outdoors near a busy roadway the impact of NOx would be noticeable.
I do not have the subscription either. It was to illustrate what the effect is. Whether NOx is needed to produce oxidants with TiO2 is another matter, I edited the message before this one.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Or if you happen to show your work in Beijing.
It may be a minimal concern in most indoor viewing situations. However, were one to display images outdoors near a busy roadway the impact of NOx would be noticeable.
[/quote]
-
It may be a minimal concern in most indoor viewing situations. However, were one to display images outdoors near a busy roadway the impact of NOx would be noticeable.
In which case you really should be looking at solvent or latex / resin on a more suitable substrate, unless you just want it for very short term display. Even then, expectations on life of the product is at best a few years.