Must be that clean Canadian air and the weak northern sunlight.
"Maybe what we'll do is get a a general consensus as to the display conditions before we start the test, ie:"
just remember that you're trying to simulate decades of normal viewing conditions, not actually wait decades for the results. which suggests that conditions need to be exagerated. unless you you have some kind of full spectrum fluorescent or xenon bulbs (and a big electricity budget), some amount of direct sun is probably the only way.
Not as clean as I'd like, but hey, beats my few years in Toronto. This was completely unscientific, of course. The print was accidently left on the cabinet. When I made a reprint to store, I found the old one & decided I'd leave it ontop of the cabinet image side up.
I admit there has been no real tests other than my eyes, but then again I'd never use dye based ink for any real long term printing solution. You can notice the slight difference side by side.....but I'd say it was take another 1 to 2 years to notice it on it's own. Which places it right on target with the 3 to 4 year rating I've read.
I won't bother posting the pigment samples as they look identical.
Now, I'd love to get some of that Arizona or New Mexico sun. That's Real Man's Sun!!!
There would be only one reason I'd be using high powered full spectrum lighting.....and I gave that stuff up shortly after university ;-)
Dave, maybe if we spent more time tending the grow lights we'd spend less time bickering over printing materials, and the world would be a better place for all ...
"He has quite a reputation that extends far beyond this small list. Certain aspects of his character and mindset are subject to comment and commentary on at least half a dozen or so lists that I know of."
On a number of photo lists, a Chihuahua George as in; watch out, joe's doing a Chihuahua George is a yappy, vicious, repetitive but ultimately meaningless post (similar but different to doing a Stobblehouse named after the inimitable photographer Ewok Stobblehouse).