>> I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't
understand the
>> issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output
>> can be
>> obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that
>> seems
>> still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as
>> long as
>> great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would
>> choose the
>> one with greatest longevity. Is there a consensus among experts?
>> (I have been to Wilhelm's site -
>> -
>> but he seems to limit his studies to digital.)
>> Thank,
>> John J.
Oddly, Wilhem is considered the #1 authority on conventional film and
print permanence. He has several books out of the subject. He has
since been more interested in digital due to the huge demand for this
information.
As far as which will last longer, conventional versus inkjet output...
When using most OEM inks and papers, conventional photographic printing
is far more stable that inkjet. However, if you use inks and paper
types specifically designed for longevity, the digital print *may* have
an advantage, which we will not truly know for hundreds of years.
Wilhem, for instance, identifies Cibachrome type two are having only a
17-19 year life before fading becomes most a potential issue. He gives
higher points for inks, dyes or emulsion which fade evenly between their
colors to maintain neutral greys and blacks. There are some ink and
paper types within the inkjet market which claim accelerated aging with
fading of over 200 years based upon the relative accuracy of any
accelerated testing processes.
Art
