Digital BW, The Print

<snip>
>
> HOWEVER, apparently, the Small Gamut Quads (SG) do not suffer from the
> same metamerism..  If you need glossies, they, and possibly the Luminos
> Monokrome set, appear to be your best option -- excluding using pigment
> inks and spraying every glossy print to prevent ruboff..
>

Not in my experience Keith. I have been sent some cool-toned samples that
shift wildly into magentas in tungsten / halogen indoor lighting. There I
was with this print I'd been told was cool wondering where the magenta had
come from, and then I remembered to go and look at it in the window-light ;)
In fairness, I have been told that the cool tones seem to show m* more than
some of the other tones... and at least one user has reported to me that
whilst the inks are still metamerising, they (Lyson and Marrutt in the UK)
have been quite clever in that the majority of image adjustments they now
provide actually result in colour shifts that are not altogether obvious or
displeasing. I can not comment from personal viewing though.

But of course, if you ask 'Does Lyson SG tone more effectively than Piezo
BW' the answer is Yes ;) I am a fan of Piezo, but that does not mean I do
not appreciate some of the strengths of the alternative systems.

> I would suggest giving the Lyson SG inks a shot if you want glossy
> through matte options in a single non-metameristic inkset..
>
> Thinking about it, what I'd like to see is a head-to-head comparison of
> the SG's and the Piezo setup... I don't own Piezo and am not about to
> buy it just to do one review..  Is one of you, particularly, perhaps
> ,someone that had clog issues with Piezo, able to do such a comparison?
> I personally would love to see results comparing both -- including warm
> shifting, fading, printable media,  etc...

Why would you be looking for someone who had a negative experience of Piezo?
Why not someone who had had a negative experience with lyson (Quads or SG's)
and then moved very successfully to Piezo? eh he he.

> Given the issues with Piezo/Sundance/Cone, I haven't asked, but, I doubt
> anyone at Cone or Sundance will send me a copy of Piezo and sample inks
> for a 1270 head-to-head piece right now... (Besides, I'm swamped with
> articles and projects as it is..)

Well, if you ask without expectation you may be surprised.. but I don't know
either way ;)
Though really, you ought to do a head-to-head on a printer that Piezo
supports <grins> That is... a 1280 or 1290 or - hey do it on the 3000 <more
grins>. But for what it's worth, my experience with testing the 1270 with
Piezo (without using 'best' mode that is most definitely not supported), was
stunning. Just wish I could take photos and scans that the printer / system
is capable of... you can tell the difference between high quality medium
format++ / drum scanning to average/good 35mm with LCD scans even at 10*8
print sizes and less.

I have also just tested the 890 with Piezo. Stunning. Not supported
officially, but stunning nevertheless. For what it's worth, my experiecen
thus far with Piezo on 890, 1290 I have found them all to be easier and
faster in 'Better' mode than in 'Best' - I sense minor alignment issues come
into play at Best that I personally have found difficult to resolve with the
alignment routines on those printers. Prints in Better have been extremely
smooth where they need to be, very sharp too with a good file, and
reasonable print speed.


>
> Any brave souls?

not me!

Disclosure: I sell Piezo BW - but you knew that, right? Like I say, just cos
I'm a fan doesn't mean I don't appreciate that other systems have their own
strengths and weaknesses.

Best regards,
nij

Nigel Rheam
MWORDS Limited   www.mwords.co.uk   Digital Fine Art