I do not believe Dye sublimation metal printing has been tested by Ardenburg or Wilhelm. I am thinking about submitting a few sample to Mark at Aardenburg to test things like face mounted fujiflex and chromaluxe dye sub.
However, chromaluxe dye sub testing has been done, and you can see the report here.
http://www.bayphoto.com/metalprints/Xenon_Report_12_2011.pdfSome things I picked up from this
Physical durability is an important component of longevity which isn't often mentioned, and here I think the dye sub aluminum has some real strengths.
Light fading is difficult to really pin point especially in reference for time. Mark aardenburg goes into some detail on this and his methods reflect those opinions. As such I think his data is useful in comparing things like this paper will fade about twice as fast as this one rather than wilhelms year rating.( or something like that, Mark can maybe elaborate on this or link information at
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/) It appears this is more like the parameter used in the referenced test, and the conclusion may be similar in the statement metal prints will last 2 to 4 times longer than c prints. The report specifically details how arriving at a time parameter is challenging.
some concernsI have with the tests. It appears to be designed specifically to make metal prints look good. This is more of an inkjet process than photographic, yet no inkjet prints were tested ... which would most likely have made even the metal prints look bad.
The photo papers tested are not mentioned. I can understand why, but the lack of that knowledge does cause some questions. Was this kodak, Fuji, or mitsubishi one hour lab paper? I've seen some pretty dramatic differences using off brand low cost papers.
Other than regular window glass (to simulate an indoor enviroment, nothing else was done to simulate normal circumstances. C prints for display are almost always going to be protected, and UV protecting is important. i have 40 year old C prints which have been sealed with UV protecting lacquers, some of which were displayed for over a decade, that still look great. I don't know how much they've faded, but comparing an aluminum print which is designed to have no further protection (and I'll admit considering that the fading characteristics are pretty good) against C prints which are also not placed in typical presentation fashion would seem to slant the test.
My main concern is the way the magenta color on the metal prints fades at a faster rate than other colors. This could mean that rather than just fading, the prints may actually begin to take on a green cast. before they reach the mentioned fail point. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this field could comment whether this may or may not be a concern.
But bottom line, C prints have done pretty well if protected and cared for, and this test does indicate dye sub metal may be better.
Now to find out how well face mounted C prints do if using high quality uv absorbing acrylic.