Re: Why Winsor & Newton?

From: Robert M ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 06/04/05-05:23:57 PM Z
Message-id: <BAY3-DAV3E0CF839B6477356D1E94E6F80@phx.gbl>

> Henry tests ONLY what he is paid by manufacturers to test. Nuff said?
> I should have added: "..and only publishes results when explicitly
> authorized by those same manufacturers."

Interesting. Many interesting conclusions could probably be drawn by those

One thing I seem to recall reading from time to time is the general belief
that Wilham (sp?) says nitrate negatives are not archival. Unless I am foggy
and I only think I remember reading that it is a popular belief. When you do
a little research you will discover this is not what he actually said. Not
Mr. Henry personally, but on the WR web site.

As for publishing research only on the approval of the manufacturer, I must
ask if this is a good idea. If "ABC" Inks paid for testing of their archival
inks and the inks fade in six months, should we not be told the results
regardless of how much the manufacturer objects?

Received on Sun Jun 5 08:17:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 07/07/05-11:30:54 AM Z CST