Greg;
Yes, I think your 2 points were the ones intended by the article. It sounds
like
the author has plenty of subject knowledge. But we know that experts in any
field
can always argue vehemently with one another on opposite sides of an issue,
especially if there's $$ in it for them. (I'll refrain here from bringning up as
an example an infamous trial with "DNA experts" testifying on both sides of the
issue)... I guess what I'm pointing out is there's a lack of deterministic data
in
the article. The IMPLICATIONS are that Kodak and Fuji et al prints can now hang
on your wall and look the same practically until the next ice age IF the
lighting
is 120 Lux, but no specific test data is given for these 'major manufacturers.'
And if this is true for K & F prints from negs, then I'd expect Cibas and
Evercolors to now outlast the Pyramids.
george
GMcGrath@xxxxxxx wrote:
> George,
> What I gleaned from the article is:
> 1) color print papers from "major manufacturers" (I suppose that would include
> Kodak and Fuji) have been improved "dramatically" in "recent years", and,
> 2) the author takes issue with some others' methods of testing print
> stability, saying that their accelerated testing methods (principally high
> light levels used) don't represent common home storage of prints.
> I just hope he knows what he's talking about. ;-)
> Greg
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|