...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.