Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Just a thought
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:06:10 -0500
References: <200010300011.QAA02566@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <005e01c04279$499d5e60$4998e2d1@tekapo> <009c01c0428d$91f2bc00$140a640a@cusackknowles.com>

Well, yes and no. Obviously, we won't know for 100 years if something can really
last for 100 years. On the other hand, there are testing methods that should
tell us pretty accurately how long something will or won't last under specific
conditions.

B. D.

Chuck Albertson wrote:

> I think it's like the sign on the mortician's place of business: "Remains to
> be seen" --- I respect the work Henry Wilhelm and others are doing to assess
> the archival quality of the new stuff, but I think that claims of 100+ years
> of longevity, for products that have only been on the market for a few
> months, is a bit of a reach.
>
> Chuck Albertson
> Seattle, Wash.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Fisher" <tekapo@golden.net>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Just a thought
>
> > > B. D.
> >
> > B. D., as someone who's been putting in long hours FB printing this past
> > week, I've been following what you're saying. I don't want to be
> > contentious, as I am actually quite ignorant about most printing
> processes,
> > but my first concern is longevity: are the new digital prints as archival
> as
> > the old wet prints?
> >
> > Cheers, Dave
> >
> >

In reply to: Message from "Dave Fisher" <tekapo@golden.net> (Re: [Leica] Just a thought)
Message from chucko@siteconnect.com (Chuck Albertson) (Re: [Leica] Just a thought)