Digital BW, The Print

I was not going to respond but  Doug is missing the point.

I don't believe that anyone is putting down Epson or the new 
printers, only that the initial samples seem to lack the "fine art" 
qualitry that was hoped for. We also said that it is too early to 
make a final decision based on these early results.

 If you see the earlier posts as "knee-jerk anti Epson reaction" 
then you are seriously wrong. We are "ALL" using Epson printers 
to make our images. They are the best there is for inkjet 
photographic quality  b/w prints.

I have to concur with Phil's assesment of your earlier post. 

I don't see how you can say that it is the "heavily invested old 
school condeming the new school because they view it as a 
threat." Advances in technology  and print quality is what this is 
all about. I think that we all eagerky await and applaud Epson 
with each new product announcement and hope for the perfect 
mystical magical printer that will make the most amazing prints.

I must say that it appears your post is nothing but a troll 
intentioned to start a flame war. Sorry, but  we are not going 
there.

-MJK

 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Doug I." <doug@l...> 
wrote:
> 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@p...>
> > Subject: Re: Re:Luminous Landscape 2200 Review
> > 
> > Doug I. wrote:
> > 
> >>> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 04:31:17 -0000
> >>> From: "antonisphoto" <antonisphoto@y...>
> >>> 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