Talk:Wilhelm Imaging Research/Archives/2012

Wilhelm Imaging Research
Look, I'm not affiliated with them in any way, and don't appreciate you saying so on the page. Also, this is not a valid candidate for speedy deletion. If you don't think it's notable, then please place it on WP:VFD. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello, my speedy deletion proposal was in no way meant personally against you, yet it really looked as if you were creating the article out of some connection to Wilhelm Imaging Research. To me they look like a really minor private company, not far from the one-man-name type. See the company history on their website - not referring to any company's success, just the founders' previous professional careers, no significant Wilhelm Imaging Research's clients or achievments mentioned!. Referencing to their website from wiki as well as adding an external link to one of the founder's speech will just gain them IMO undeserved Google rating. Wiki hardly has full info on industry leaders. Adding a company like Wilhelm's, whose claim of idustry leadership is VERY questionable, then creates a false opinion of their importance and ranking in their respective industry field. The words used seem like taken from a usual, one of trillions company advertising brochures. Why do you think this has to be contained in Wikipedia? I'll put the page among VFDs then.    Oneliner 16:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I hate to tell you this, but Wilhelm's tests are used by the industry. I used to work for a fairly major printer manufacturer, and they were used all the time. The site may not look very impressive, but the company actually has lots of influence on the industry. But go ahead and place them on VfD. Oh, by the way. Epson have used their tests, and Kodak were forced to change their testing criteria because of them. Significant enough for you? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. even if my entry was vanity (which it isn't!), it doesn't go to speedy deletes. It goes to VfD to sort out. Which has now been done, and I'm grateful you used proper procedure here. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Kodak has NOT changed their test methods and has no reason to do so since the methods were based on over 20 years worth of real-world studies of how prints are used and displayed world wide. These studies were published in major, peer-reviewed technical journals. No other resrarch organization, including WIR, has published such extensive body of research or shared it widely with the imaging community. In fact, Kodak was the first to propose that imasge stability must be tested against the four major degredation factors: heat, light, humidity, and pollutants, back when others were testing for only one or maybe two. Kodak also showed that the test factors must be in balance if results are to be meaningful in actual consumer use. I suggest you consult papers in the "Journal of Imaging Science and Technology (lead researchers: Anderson, Bugner, Oldfield, Hill, Artz). 12.75.116.28 01:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)PhotoSci

Someone does need to write up something for Wilhelm Imaging Research because it is the only, albeit commercial, company that has a history of researching and documenting color fastness for modern and traditional inks and photographic processes. The company and principles are universally recognized as nearly the sole voices in this important field. A good start would be to state the history of the company, the areas of expertise and their role in establishing ink jet printing technology as a legitimate archival replacement for traditional photography - that would be very valuable. - LJ/gessoart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gessoart (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)