Hey, guys and gals! I have found this thread both interesting and on
topic.
BUT: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and
LS-2000 real value? has LONG SINCE ceased to be what was being
discussed. The purpose of the subject line is really supposed to be
a guide for browsing folks as to whether they want to read this one or
that one, isn't it? If we don't change the line for a week or two,
wandering all over the map, it sort of loses its purpose, doesn't it? How
long would it take for us to think what we want to discuss, and put that
in the subject line?
As I will soon be 77, and am subject to 'Senior Moments', don't flog me
too hard the first time I ignore the above advice...
Hersch
At 01:29 PM 01/25/2001 -0600, you wrote:
IMO we need to take ALL claims in sales
literature with at least a couple of
pounds (or kilos) of salt, not just a grain or two. Yes, the
qualifiers
such as "behind glass" and of course the kind of temperature
and humidity
that is only found in Paradise are NOT real world parameters. It's
much
like how that computer you're typing on was rated in its sales
literature.
The manufacturers obviously put the best sounding specifications
forward.
But it's not really a question of whether your prints will last 20 years
or
100 years as the manufacturer claims, (soon it will be 1000 years -
millennial prints??) But the real question is which printer
and ink/paper
combo will give you the longest life in the real world. If (this
month)
that's not Epson, who is it?
Bob Kehl
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurie Solomon <laurie@advancenet.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Lightfastness' maybe; but what about "gasfastness" or
"ozonefastness?"
Afterall, it was not the lack of lightfastness that caused the orange
fade
in the 1270 case and usually within a period of time much much shorter
than
the 10 year lightfastness claim for the Premium Glossy paper. I
really
think that we all need to take such longevity and archivalness claims
with a
grain or two of salt. Yes, adding the provision of "when kept
behind glass"
is or maybe the qualifier than makes the claim standup; but how
many people
keep many, if not most - not even saying all, their prints behind glass
or
stored in individual Mylar enclosures. Moreover, is the 20 year
claim for
glossy or matte papers? Typically the claims of 20-25 years
lightfastness
have been for Epson Heavyweight Matte Paper and not for glossy papers
such
as EPP, which have, at best, a lightfastness claim of only 2-5 years (
often
even if under glass in the case of the EPP paper this is extended to
5-10
years).
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On
Behalf Of Robert Kehl
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:35 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Sleep <TonySleep@halftone.co.uk>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl
(bobkehl@kvernkehl.com)
wrote:
>> However, when
>> something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll
let you
know
>> in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.
>Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro
5500,
2880dpi, 3pl,
>Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. £2,495GBP
tho'.
I believe the 5500 claims 200yrs light fastness.
But how 'bout the new 1290, 2880dpi, 4pl with 20yrs lightfastness!
