Ending Film camera sales + print fading challenge

[RichSBV]

paulr and Jorge had devised an excellent and equitable test between them. Of course dave couldn't let that happen and plunged in with his 'button pushing' and ranting to disrupt things. It apparently worked, especially after he got paul butzi to join in the childishness.

Apparently, some people just can not handle others getting along and trying to accomlish something good. They either try to ruin it or take it over completely. And sure we could expect an _impartial_ test coming from the likes of dave and paul... It's a shame on this forum and photography in general! Paul Butzi; you were one who once commanded respect among on-line photographers. You had a reputation of helping people. It's been a long and sad fall.... But not unexpected after that misserable attempt at denouncing the archivability of traditional photography...

So, how about dave and paul go off together, swap prints or whatever they may like... Then Jorge and paulr continue to do actual and impartial testing. Although I would recommend it be taken out of this forum where dave and paul are most likely to try and disrupt it again... If noone better qualified can, I would even be willing to send out a patinum toned POP print for the test...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Rich, if you could do a platinum toned POP step wedge I would love to include it in the test. I have not talked to Dan but I think he does not have step wedges, this is the reason he wanted to send prints, but I think they are not necessary. I think a step wedge where you take measurements every week can tell us the story.

Another thing to consider is the possibility of a threshold point. IOW the print resists fading for some time and then fades rapidly. It is the only thing I can think of to reconcile Wilhelm's claims with real anecdotal data where prints fade in a few years. In any case, Paulr is not responding and I sure as hell dont plan to do what Butzi wants, so it seems this once more is a missed opportunity.

[David Luttmann]

Rich,

What childishness? Paul or I have not been the ones constantly insulting and attacking people. Please show me where we have done this.

Apparently you only wish to support Jorge's nonsense and are blind to what others say. But as I said, please show where I tore this thread apart "again." I responded with a post that Paul Butzi provided a link to. Please explain to me how that post was an attack on Jorge and tore this thread apart?

If you read this thread carefully, you'll see the first mudslinging and name calling came from Jorge and no one else. It always does on these threads. Jorge has said he is free to express his opinion on the longevity of ink jet prints (you'll notice he didn't use his normal "poster" insult that time....I guess you've chosen to ignore that as well) and the reason for the opinion. The only problem with this is that he has expressed his opinion, but NEVER provided a basis for it, even though he says he has. Numerous test sites have been provided, and he says they are wrong and he is right. Does this sound like a logical response from someone who has already admitted to knowing nothing about inkjet printing. How can you know nothing, and yet know more than all these test labs, etc.

Rich, the only logical explanation that I can come up with is that if you're ignoring all Jorge's personal attacks, name calling, etc, and critisizing me for asking for his basis of reasoning for longevity, than you must have a hidden agenda yourself.

I've had a few people read this thread, and what they want to know is why is Jorge so abusive, and why doesn't he provide the data that contradicts the labs test (and not just Wilhelm, we posted several) and prove his point. To this I say, he can't......because there is none.

Now, if you wish to defend him, go ahead. He can prove that Ultrachrome and Carbon pigment inks fade in weeks, in normal display situations, and contradict all these labs and our tests.....by simply showing his data. That's all I ask. He refuses. And you support this. Does that make sense? It appears you and Jorge are the only ones to think so.

You'll notice I posted this response with no insults and name calling. And I appreciate the fact that you didn't resort to it either. Point!

Regards,

[Paul Butzi]

And sure we could expect an _impartial_ test coming from the likes of dave and paul...

Ah. Well. You'll note, actually, that I suggested Kirk Gittings and Dan Smith as the people to perform the actual testing. Nowhere did I suggest Dave Luttmann, or even Paul Butzi. Surely you don't think that Jorge is less controversial than, say, I would be? Surely to have the results be trustworthy, we'd all like to have someone we all trust run the testing. All I did was nominate Kirk and Dan, entirely without their knowledge and without contacting them in advance.

Paul Butzi; you were one who once commanded respect among on-line photographers. You had a reputation of helping people. It's been a long and sad fall....

Check out largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502898.html#564817, largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503027.html#564364, the series of posts on this thread starting with largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503017.html#564141, largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503009.html#563995 where mine was the only response, largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502967.html#563536, largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502901.html#562689, largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502904.html#562633, largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502838.html#561956. That's in the past three weeks. I've tried to list multiple posts to threads only once, but I admit I'm not being hypercareful.

Please review those threads and share with me how I might improve on my 'being helpful' performance, ok? I'm sure I can improve if you will but lead by example.

[David Luttmann]

Sounds great, Dan. I'll contact Paul in a bit to get a copy of the scan.

Regards,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Since you have high jacked this test and Paulr never responded, I hope you realize I wont just take your word for the result but would like some numbers and methodology described. These are the questions I would like answered once your test is finished.

- Initial density readings at beginning of test
- How do you plan on making sure you will read the same area of the print (easy to do on a step tablet)
- Type of densitometer and reading aperture.
- Reflection densitometer calibration readings from calibrated step tablet before each reading (base, middle values and high value are enough)
- RH%
- Where are these prints placed (Kitchen, living room, etc)
- How much direct sunlight exposure the prints will receive daily (Yes, a diary will be necessary noting cloudy days)
- Possible contaminants introduced. (Will you clean the windows, mop the floor, etc with the usual chemicals)
- Readings at two week intervals, with no less than 4 readings before the final value readings
- Final value readings after at least 2 1/2 months.

Of course no prints should have any kind of coating, UV protectant or sealant.

This can all be put in a spread sheet easily that can be e mailed to anybody.

This is how I planned to do the testing and I think a reasonably well controlled experiment. Just saying "well the prints look about the same at the end" wont be acceptable to me.

Have fun.

[David Luttmann]

Jorge,

Paul was getting back to me on who was conducting the actual test. I agree that a detailed diary will provide everyone with the data they require. Whomever receives the uncoated photos should have them in a brightly lit room. We should be aware if they are behind glass out in the open. I'm suggesting behind glass as that is how most people display. However, the time lines we are looking at are so short that I'm not sure what is to be gained.....but it should be interesting.

I mentioned to Paul that I would include some dye based prints. One thing I will do is include a dye based print printed with a no name brand ink. I've seen these fade in just a few months in bright rooms so this could provide us with a worst case scenerio as well.

The results will be made available for everyone to see.

Regards,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Since you are the ones doing this test I have no say on this, but I would like to see the prints tested without any type of glazing or protectants. This is supposed to be a test to examine the fading resistance of the materials, not the longetivity of materials under normal exhibiting conditions. Presumably nobody would place their prints in direct sun light, since you are departing from "normal" conditions then might as well go all the way.

Of course you are free to do as you all want, this is just what I would do.

[David Luttmann]

Maybe what we'll do is get a a general consensus as to the display conditions before we start the test, ie:

1) Any direct sunlight or not

2) Behind standard framed glass or not

3) Relative humidity & temperatures

4) Any chemicals released into the room via cleaning agents, tobacco products, etc.

If anyone has any other ideas, please feel free to add them to my list or Jorge's.

[Kirk Gittings]

"I suggested Kirk Gittings and Dan Smith"

Sorry guys I would love to participate, but I am buried with two exhibits opening and, a book release and all the stuff that surrounds those events. I'll be thinking of you.