Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/06/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]50 MLux-hrs of exposure = how many units of real space time? \... As in looking at your clock, seeing the hand move and waking up to your alarm next day, next week, next month, Thursday its rain Friday its smog and going "oh my my print on the wall looks lighter and there's a stain in the corner?"!! I think they time machines they make nowadays are terrific! Do they look just like microwaves with a bank of florescent lights in them?!?!? I'm surprised more people don't have problems with these tests. I seem to be the only one who does. However I did a test and there is a guy who is born in the year 2036 who also has a big problem with them as well. We both become the best of friends. A huge fan of carbon printing though and my instincts and intuitions tell me they they should last a good long time to make a normal selling price as a silver print valid. But I just know that neither I or anyone else have no way of really knowing that for sure. ... And may easily have no idea. The hard reality is when we invest in a silver print we have a fairly reasonable idea of what that kind of investment it is on the archival aspect. As we can look back on the silver prints made in successive decades and see how well they are holding up. But when we invest in a print done with technology invented the day before yesterday we really have no idea. Shining a light on them and calling it 62.3 years I find deeply comical. I'm pretty sure though I'll be dead in 40 years and after that wont care. On 6/7/13 1:53 PM, "Paul Roark" <roark.paul at gmail.com> wrote: > By the way, the silver print is no longer the top dog for archival B&W. > Carbon is king. See the fade test data, below: (I'm not sure how the > formatting will hold.) > > Aardenburg Imaging (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/) uses summary > metrics that are probably not familiar to most. The "I* Color" measures > the extent to which color has shifted. "I* Tone" measures only the Lab L > (relative grayscale density) shift. Both of these are weighted to take > into consideration human perceptual characteristics. The Delta-e, of > course, is the familiar total color and tone (Lab A, B, and L) shift, not > weighted by our visual perception characteristics. With the I* Color and > I* Tone, the higher the score, the better. 100.0 is perceptually perfect. > With Delta-e, the lower the better. > > > Aardenburg Imaging fade test results at > 50 MLux-hrs of exposure: > > > I* Color I* Tone Delta-e > > Ilford Galerie FB Silver > > Average 90.9 98.8 1.4 > > Worst 71.7 97.9 3.2 > 50% test patch 94.8 1.0 > > Ilford FB selenium toned > > Average 92.5 98.8 1.2 > > Worst 75.5 97.4 2.8 > > 50% test patch 96.2 0.9 > > "Eboni" 100% carbon on Premier Art 204 gsm paper > > Average 100.0 99.0 0.3 > > Worst 99.8 97.7 0.6 > > 50% test patch 100.0 0.2 > > Note that this carbon ink sample is now at 120 Mlux-hrs, and the 50% test > patch results are identical to what is shown, above, for 50 Mlux-hrs. (I am > the proud inventor of this inkset.) > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Chris Williams <zoeica at mac.com> wrote: > >> Europe gets all the cool kids. >> >> http://www.ilfordlab.com/ >> ... > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/