Refilling Epson P5000

the ConeColorPro inks on Epson Ultra Premium Glossy paper in an Epson R3000 ones of 11 and 15 megalux-hours would correspond to about 6 and 8 years under 'Wilhelm exposure' conditions but using the Aardenburg fading thresholds.

Before you accept any such conclusions, I suggest you look at the original data and protocols. First, has the method been validated? The most basic approach is to do replicate testing on samples from the same inks, papers and testing methods. This establishes whether results of the testing methods and equipment are reproducible. Next are quality control specimens included with each test batch? Again quality control materials would include samples of a material previously tested numerous times to establish statistical measures of variability. Finally does the "researcher" understand the very basics of method validation and quality control or do they argue that neither is necessary? Answers to these questions are what motivated me to look at "real life" fade testing even though I did not have access to calibrated light sources and measuring devices.

I hope Mark McCormick of Aardenburg, who sometimes posts here, comes to defend his work. But you can read all about the methodology at the Aardenburg website (https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/). By all means, please read up, e.g.:

https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cdr-overview/

https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/i-metric/

https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/documents/

form your own conclusions, and post what you think. But my own take is that, for what is tested (e.g., Aardenburg doesn't do ozone exposure tests), the Aardenburg data is the best there is--or certainly in any case the best of which I'm aware. IMO, Mark understands well the issues you raise, e.g. validation of methodology and variability.