Digital BW, The Print

Richard,

I find he waxes poetic over many products.  His reviews (along with other 
"respected" review sites) and his wonderful online images convinced me to buy 
a couple of products that I found didn't quite hack it.  I think the reviews 
validate what you would have bought anyway and put you over the decision 
making hump more quickly.

I am now in a "try before you buy" mode.  Even though some of these reviewers 
seem very knowledgeable and technical, they might not have the same standards 
or make pictures for the same uses many of us on the list do.  Did Reichmann 
look at his monochromes in 3 types of light like Mike and I did?  In my case, 
a gallery would never take a b+w print that looked even the slightest bit 
magenta or green or inkjet looking.

Helene   


> I just read the Luminous Landscape review too. He seems SO sure about
> it. Even telling us to forget about using the word "Metamerism" ever
> again, almost cocky in his attitude. Yet, how can his results be so
> different than what a few have reported here? Lack of knowledge and
> experience? Michael seems quite learned and experienced. Willing to
> accept a lower standard of B&W print and metamerism? Perhaps, but I
> would hope to see less "attitude" and assuredness if this was the
> case. I sure hope all he says is true and perhaps the expereinced
> reported here were from poor examples. He's certainly staking a large
> part of his reputation on it is he not? Otherwise he'll just sound
> like an Epson lackey.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]