Digital BW, The Print

Keith/Diogenes,

I have no argument with the gist of what you're saying. I share your
cynicism, only mine is aimed at the knee-jerk anti-Epson reactions, and
yours at the corporate cheerleaders. Neither group is doing a thing to help
us make an intelligent decision about these printers.

So far, I've heard several arguments for the new Epsons, some possibly
cheerleaderish,  but at least based on first-person testing. I've yet to
hear one *against* the printers based on anything more than a subjective
dislike of someone else's printing style. To my particular brand of
cynicism, it sounds like the same ol' photographic story of those heavily
invested in the old school condemning the new school because it feels like a
threat. 

This is not like another 1280 (or Annie Leibovitz ;-), where we're all
pretty familiar with the playing field. There is no existing critical mass
we can look to, so we absolutely need firsthand info from trusted test
sources (for this or any new technology). It's fine to take the wait and see
approach till that info comes in. But I view hearsay "reviews" based on
uncontrolled test prints from unknown entities in much the way you see
taking Epson press releases as gospel.

Doug

P.S. To be fair, while I was certainly disagreeing strongly with Antonis and
what I saw as another elitist statement about a very subjective art, I was
*not* personally attacking/flaming him. You took my statement out of
context. If you reread the original, you'll see that "you" and "your" is
referring to photographers in general, not him.


> 
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:20:52 -0400
> From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
> Subject: Re: Re:Luminous Landscape 2200 Review
> 
> Doug I. wrote:
> 
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 04:31:17 -0000
>>> From: "antonisphoto" <antonisphoto@...>
>>> Subject: Re:Luminous Landscape 2200 Review
>>> 
>>> Apparently, there are  a lot of perfectly succesful, talented photographers
>>> out 
>>> there who don't get what bw printing is all about.
>>> 
>> Well, I for one would love to know what it's all about then. Let's see--you
>> can be incredibly talented...you can be incredibly successful...but if you
>> don't print the way WE print, you have (sniff) lower standards and are
>> really just a hack.
>> 
> Ummm.. he never implied that...
> 
> Mary Ellen Marks and Annie Leibovitz for example have no frigging clue
> about actually printing... Doesn't make them unsuccessful.. Go see a
> shoot be either one, they don't even look through the camera until the
> last moment.. EVERYTHING except pressing the shutter is done by
> assistants, etc..  After years of think about this, I have decided that
> neither one is a real photog in my book (nor in many other photog's
> "books") anymore..  Great editors, yes, as that is essentially what they
> do, pick a great print from contacts and proofs..  Great marketers?
> yes..  Great photogs.. No..  Even good printers?  HAHAHAHAHA Not!
> 
>> And by the way, so is anyone who likes your work. It's
>> an interesting, if not exactly traditional, business model.
>> 
> Hmmm.. any reason you are attacking his business model?
> 
>>> I just listened in on a
>>> presentation by Jeff Shewe who showcased the 2200 and lots of prints of his
>>> work, bw among others.  They weren't bad, but if that was the only option
>>> available, I would keep my darkroom. They don't hold a candle to what we are
>>> talking about here.
>>> 
>>> The only thing going for the 2200 is that it offers a one-printer solution
>>> that 
>>> does an adequate job of  printing the occasional monochrome portfolio print.
>>> Very helpful to the photographer who doesn't want to get into the esoterica
>>> of
>>> piezo printing and that second, third and fourth printer - depending on the
>>> desired hue! 
>>> Color may be another matter, though.
>>> 
>> Hmmm...I suspect that if I had formed my opinions of Piezo, MIS, etc., etc.
>> based on the first 2 weeks' output of any member of this list, I'd be saying
>> those systems suck heartily.
>> 
> Much more than 2 weeks output babe...  They get the printers early AND
> the 2100 has been on sale in the EU for significantly longer than 2 weeks..
> 
> Oh, and BTW, if you did exactly what you say in the preceding, and
> INSTEAD, said the "output" you had seen so far "sucked heartily," as you
> so eloquently put it, you would be accurate.  There is no reason to call
> OUTPUT good unless it is..
> 
> The print engine can be the best in the world, if the inks and media
> don't make it.. The printer sucks as sold (until/unless 3rd party
> alternative consumables are available)..
> 
> EPSON chips the printers to prevent 3rd party inks... So,  they are held
> to a higher base standard for those inks.. That's eminently fair..
> Especially given the ridiculous markup they get for those inks..  Given
> the pricing ratios, they better be significantly BETTER than 3rd Party
> inks... Otherwise, one is getting fleeced, plain and simple..
> 
>> Say what you will about Reichmann--at least he
>> is speaking from personally living with and working with the printer,
>> instead of writing off an entire new system based on a few samples of some
>> other guy's work.
>> 
>> 
> Ok, since we can say what we will.... ;-)
> 
> Since I always play "Diogenes."
> 
> I shall assume you noted what Reichmann's reviews of the 1270 and 1280
> said about B&W output from those printers...
> 
> If you think reviews of equipment this early in the product cycle are
> untainted think again...  Remember the 1270 reviews? or more
> importantly, I can say that within the last year a manufacturer (not
> EPSON) tried to have me pulled from a review piece by implying to an
> associate editor that I was asking "uncomfortably tough questions" and
> it might make it tougher   for the pub to get "product" for early
> reviews in the future...  The associate editor actually DID pull me from
> the piece until the Editor in Chief found out and gave it back to me..
> Right now, the tech industry is in such bad shape that even PC Magazine
> and other large pubs are doing very little real testing for reviews,
> they simply don't have the money.  So, they are much more dependent on
> marketing material and demo product... I have e-mail from writers at
> those pubs saying EXACTLY that and bemoaning the way vendors are using
> it to ensure good reviews..  Nuff said.
> 
> 
>> Until people on this list have given the new system even a fraction of the
>> effort they spent perfecting their quad/hex work, or seen samples printed by
>> someone who does "get what B&W printing is all about" in their personal
>> judgement, it's all just meaningless speculation, isn't it?
>> 
>> 
> That's a ludicrous comment...
> 
> It's like saying you can't review a car until you race it or a pickup
> until you haul logs with it..
> 
> Even more, by that logic I couldn't say Leibovitz or Marks sucked as
> printers until they actually made current prints for me to review..
> "Who knows, they may suddenly have been injected with some godlike
> ability to make perfect prints, and just don't like printing"...
> PUHLEAZZZE!!
> 
> Since you felt it was fair to flame Antonis, I have a question for you...
> 
> Were you one of those  recommending to the public that they buy
> WorldCom, Enron, and Tyco, while loaning them money?  Your faith in the
> unvarnished marketing hype is endearing, especially in light of what
> much of the public has apparently had to re-learn about business realities..
> 
> If you flame someone onlist, especially while wearing blinders, expect
> to get sandbagged!
> 
> For anyone not willing to simply buy the hype outright, the best advice
> is to wait and see if anyone does better..  Suffice it to say the new
> chip/cartridge setup is gonna make it much harder..
> 
> 
> Keith