Digital BW, The Print

While I stand by my original point that there is too often a rush to condemn
anything Epson on this list, I apologize if in the way I said it I have in
any way offended Antonis or anyone else.

Back to photography now,
Doug
> 
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:48:36 -0000
> From: "pbard2002" <phil@...>
> Subject: Re:Luminous Landscape 2200 Review
> 
>> 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. 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.
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> Doug
> 
> 
> Well, Doug, I don't know how long it took you to get a good print from
> any of the quad solutions, but for myself Piezo blew me away the first
> time a made a print.  And that print is still better than anything I was
> previously able to make using CMYK inks. You might think twice before
> you advance these kind of absurd generalizations.
> 
> And speaking of thinking twice, your post was downright insulting to one
> of the more respected voices on this list, and to the rest of us as well.
> I suggest you take a break from whatever it is you are doing and clear
> out a bit...
> 
> Phil