Digital BW, The Print

I have to confess that I haven't read every post on this incredibly long and
angry thread...but here are my two cents (hopefully not more gas into the
fire...but we'll see).

As far as the grey balancer goes...I totally trust someone like Andrew
Rodney to make the right decision.  Andrew deals with "prosumer" clients
everyday and I think has a good grasp of what they can and can't do...that's
a part of his business.  He knows exactly the types of problems that
prosumers have with color management issues and I think would be in an
excellent position to help Epson estimate what would likely be their
technical support burden.  Many pieces of software go through development
and even beta and never make it to market for exactly these reasons.  Many
products do get to market...that never should!  It is absolutely not up to
us the end users...but is purely an economic decision that the developer
needs to make.  Personally, I don't think it would get rid of
metamerism...thus what's the fuss?

If you want to produce great BW prints...why are you wasting your time
talking about the 2200/2100?  The prints from these printers will be
incredibly expensive to make (because of ink cost) and will be inferior to
what you can produce from the current quad options for a lot less money with
an older printer at least with respect to metamerism and lightfastness and
probably also with respect to print quality.  If you want gloss prints use
Lyson SG with your 1270...you'll get some metamerism like you would from the
ultrachromes. If you want toned matte prints use MIS VM and Paul Roark's
curves or simply hand fill carts with any of the various Piezotone inks
coming out.  If you like prints around neutral...set up your 1270 with a CIS
and put the new Selenium Piezotones in it...and experiment with papers...you
can cover the entire neutral range with these inks...and NO metamerism.
Either of these options will give you better BW prints for much, much less
money.
 
In my opinion the new 2200/2100 presents a nice option for the prosumer who
wants to make color prints that have about the longevity of fuji crystal
archive. It presents really the only option for digital color luster/gloss
printing with better than 60 yr lightfastness ratings. It may give better
color prints on matte fine art papers than the 3rd party color inks (e.g.,
Gen4, MIS Perpetual, Indelible Inks) currently available...but it will cost
much, much more per print and you will get relatively inferior
lightfastness.

I'm likely to buy a 2200 to experiment with color printing...but honestly,
from what I have seen so far (BW sample prints from three different people
using either the 7600 or 2200), the ultrachromes are not going to be the all
in one color/BW option.  If you are a prosumer...you probably can find the
money for two printers.  Regardless, you already have one printer that you
can use for BW and you were going to buy a 2200 anyway...so I guess you did
have the money for 2 printers

Robert

On 8/3/02 1:22 PM, "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...> wrote:

> Andrew,
> 
> As far as I can see, the 2200/2100 is a 'prosumer' printer - aimed at
> serious amateur photographers. I can see that some professionals might see
> that they can save a buck or two by buying one instead of a professional
> Epson, but that should NOT change the design team's aims.
> 
> As a serious amateur photographer in Europe I will buy a 2100, and I hope I
> get the Gray Balancer. I already have ProfilerPro and a ColorMouse for
> making 'serious' profiles, but the Gray Balancer from what I have read is
> far simpler than profile-making (I have made several hundred 'serious'
> profiles that do not meet my ideal so far). I've just spent days (literally)
> using PS curves (that you advocate) and transfer curves to try and produce a
> decent black&white print with normal color inks on a 1270. And using PS
> curves to try and produce a modified ProfilerPro profile (with DoctorPro)
> that produced a neutral grayscale. No luck so far, despite the waste of vast
> amounts of paper and ink.
> 
> I can therefore understand the ire of US potential buyers of the 2200 who
> see that you and others have stopped them having another alternative -
> however weak that alternative may be. Custom profiles may be the answer to
> using papers and inks that are non-Epson; you have nothing to compare them
> with, so anything is better than nothing. But if you compare profiles of
> Epson papers and inks with the Epson profiles, I find it is difficult to
> beat them. You may beat them on one characteristic, such as gamut, but to
> beat them on all, such as linearity and shadow detail, blues and purples
> etc., is difficult. Perhaps not to you.
> 
> I just don't think that professionals such as you should be advising Epson
> on what they give to us amateurs. By all means use your panel to advise them
> on 5000 - 10000 professional printers, but the 2200/2100 printers are not
> professional printers - they are for the likes of me who can just about
> afford £500 for a printer, after perhaps wasting £1000 on ProfilerRGB,
> ProfilerPro, and a ColorMouse!! I don't want to print on bog-paper, or paper
> serviettes; I'm quite happy printing on the papers that the paper
> manufacturers and ink manufacturers have carefully matched and sold to
> Epson.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "thedigitaldog" <andrew@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:57 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: News on Epson 2200 Gray Balancer SW
> 
> 
>>> NONE of us were paid to be in California to advise.
>>> 
>>> 
>> I NEVER even implied you were...
>> 
>> The point wasn't directly pointed at YOU! Some seem to think any decisions
>> made on the part of the Epson advisers was motivated by finical gain. I
> point
>> out that none of use were paid simply for all to know that the collective
> group
>> (who would have probably cost $30K for one day of work) did so because be
>> believe in Epson products and want to allow Epson to make rational
>> decisions based on our collective expertise.
>> 
>> Epson asked the dozen of so people to meet because of our expertise. We
>> are not prefect by any stretch. Collectively, we are damn close to
> representing
>> the best minds in the imaging world (or at least representative in the
> U.S.).
>> There experts in the field of imaging, digital printing, photography etc.
> We
>> were asked to evaluate the printer for PROFESSIONAL users since we are all
>> professional users. The fact that we felt unanimously that the product was
> far
>> too complex for non pros let alone pros, the product manager decided that
> GB
>> wasn't a good fix for most 2200 users.
>> 
>> 
>>> Most if not all of us have publically discussed our dislike for aspects
> of the
>>> Epson print driver and the fact that a $10K printer uses the SAME driver
> as a
>>> $99 printer.
>> 
>>> and that relates to the 2200 (a prosumer product) how?
>> 
>> I just told you. We were there by request to look at the printer for
> prosumers
>> and pros. Pro's use the 2200 too! One well know photographer in the group
>> uses this printer and I suspect he charges more in one day then most
> people
>> on this list make in 6 months! You also assume that the 2200 differs in
> how it
>> operates from the 9600 or 7600 but it's simply a smaller version and our
>> comments were also viewed by the product manager of the pro line. There
>> isn't much difference in the 2200 from the 9600 other than size and price.
>> 
>>> You are doing exactly what I said was likely, representing specific
>>> vested interests...
>> 
>> Yes indeed, at least a specific mindset! Can you imagine how well a
> product
>> would be if it was designed by committee? The advice given was from a very
>> specific slant. You assume that the 2200 was designed for the same group
> of
>> people that might go into Office Depot for a color printer. It wasn't. We
> were all
>> made fully aware of the aim of this productlong before we tested it.
> That's why
>> this group was assembled. We were hand picked based on our specific slant
>> and based on the aim of this printer.
>> 
>> 
>>> and if you go back through my posts you'll see that
>>> I said that was to be expected , but was not therefore axiomatically
>>> negative. The vested interest NEED to be represented.. BUT, as much as
>>> is possible, they ALL need to be represented..
>> 
>> Product design by committee for pro users, and morons? I wish that could
> be
>> done. Somewhere the product has to have a focus. In the case of the 2200,
>> the focus was made.
>> 
>>> You have made clear your
>>> independence and objectivity... That does NOT mean you have NO vested
>>> interests at all..
>> 
>> A post was made to the contrary. I think it should be made CLEAR that our
>> collective advice was made for the sole purpose of producing a better
>> product.
>> 
>> 
>>> The comment one or two individuals (and I was NOT
>>> among them) made about your company and profiles, is NOT the vested
>>> interest of which I speak..
>> 
>> I understand that and my follow up were not aimed at you personally.
>> 
>>> Here's my quote as you YOURSELF posted it
>>> "Does anyone know if there was a single expert on EPSON's panel who had
>>> publicly criticized earlier EPSON marketing choices? "
>> 
>>> You really need to read some studies of group dynamics... You may be an
>>> expert on profiles, etc.. but from your post you are WAAAY out of your
>>> depth on discussing group dynamics and how blue ribbon panels, "as an
>>> organic entity," operate.
>> 
>> I never said I was such an expert in this area. I can only tell you that a
> group of
>> people who's advice many companies have asked for in the past were
>> assembled and we all unanimously agreed about where GB should be in the
>> food chain. Some didn't like that decision Epson made (many who never saw
>> the GB in the first place). Based on those people's expertise (or lack) in
> the
>> field AND the fact they never saw the software or knew the aim of the
> product,
>> I have to dismiss much of their posts based on their misunderstandings.
>> 
>>> And eliminating an already developed piece of software from a shipping
>>> product accomplishes that HOW?
>> 
>> Foremost, it insures a good user experience. Do you really think every
> piece
>> of software ever developed sees the light of day once real users hammer on
>> it?
>> 
>>> But see, it doesn't matter does it? IS KEEPING IT OUT OF THE CURRENT
>>> SHIPPING PRODUCT SOMEHOW GOING TO GET THAT MONEY BACK?
>> 
>> In the long run yes. The software has to be keep up to date. It needs to
> be
>> changed as the drivers are updated as well as all the flavors of OS change
>> (OSX 10.2 will change a lot of issues with printing). It keeps cost down
> since
>> tech support is very expensive, especially for a product that doesn't give
> any
>> bang for the buck as GB does. What happens as the reference target fades
> or
>> the user loses it? Epson has to stock that target and keep dealing with
>> customers that need a new one. They have to update the PDF as they refine
>> the product (and boy, GB needs refinement in a very big way). Better to
> cut
>> your loses and move one.
>> 
>>> I assume you aren't going to tell me that the EPSON decision-makers are
>>> so wholly irrational that you felt that by having EPSON USA NOT ship the
>>> Grey balancer that EPSON would in the next go round not "waste their
>>> time" on software other than the driver?
>> 
>> That was our advice to them. We had 4 high level people from Epson Japan
>> at the two day meetings. One was in change of ink, the other in charge of
> the
>> driver. One was in charge of GB. Epson flew them from Japan to meet with
> us.
>> We were able to talk with them and tell them our wishes for newer inks,
> newer
>> capabilities of the driver. We were very firm in letting these key people
> from
>> Japan know that the focus made on GB was a bad one. Did that help? Time
>> will tell.
>> 
>>> OR did you argue that the money saved in tech support calls for a piece
>>> of "software from hell" could be used to build better drivers for 10K
>>> printers sold on the USA market.. ?
>> 
>> We did that and told them ALL the printers need better drivers.
>> 
>> So you have access to a large format Epson printer? Have you ever wanted
> to
>> make two 8x10 prints, one next to the other on a 44 inch printer? You
> can't do
>> it unless you gang them both up in the same canvas in Photoshop. That's
>> insane. You should be able to have software to do this AUTOMATICALLY so
>> you don't print out 34 inches of wasted paper just to get an 8x10 print.
> You
>> can do this on a Roland wide format printer but not an Epson. So we
>> discussed all kinds of needs for both desktop and larger format printers.
>> 
>>> If you even suggested that,
>>> suggesting that the US pro-sumer market should indirectly support the
>>> development of drivers for the large format market...
>> 
>> No, I said it was silly to see the same driver on a $99 printer drive a
> $10,000
>> printer. The two have vastly different requirements and users. Make the
> $99
>> driver easier to use and the $10K driver more robust.
>> 
>>> Actually deciding NOT to ship the software given that a priori
>>> investment, makes the time put into the PDF and even into writing the
>>> software a COMPLETE loss..
>> 
>> Yes, cut your losses and move on. HAD Japan shown us the product when it
>> was pre-alpha, we could have helped design a better product in the first
>> place. They didn't so our advice was to cut your losses and move on. I
> still
>> think that's a good idea (as apparently the others in our group feel).
> Several in
>> the group has produced or been instrumental in software development. If
> you
>> had any idea of what has ended up in Adobe Photoshop over the years from
>> direct involvement with some of our group, you'd be very impressed.
>> 
>>> So, again, I ask, by eliminating the grey balancer that gets you more
>>> R&D how?
>> 
>> It gets the resources that would be used to continue with GB off of GB
> onto
>> something far more useful.
>> 
>>> HUH? You're becoming irrational... If you think the 2200 will be their
>>> last prosumer entry I might suggest you need a shot of thorazine to stop
>>> whatever delusions you are having..
>> 
>> Did I say that? I said that by moving resources from GB, those resources
> can
>> be used for more important needs.
>> 
>>> I NEVER suggested you pushed the elimination of the software because it
>>> would compete with custom profiles..
>> 
>> You didn't, others did.
>> 
>>> What I DID suggest was that it is
>>> impossible for individuals with vested interests to leave them at the
>>> conference room door -- the reality is those interests will define the
>>> range of your real world experiences..
>> 
>> Perhaps you can convince Epson that your expertise in this area is such
> that
>> next time such a group is assembled (and it will be), you can be included.
> But
>> such decisions will not be made casually or by committee. I think it would
> be a
>> very bad idea to have such groups assembled based on a users ability to
>> plug a USB cable into a printer. I'm not saying you are such a person but
>> rather that there are only so many people that can be brought together to
>> advice a company and that these people have to have some level of
> expertise
>> and an idea of what a product is aimed to do and have an idea of the user
>> base.
>> 
>> 
>>> If you are frustrated because people choose to critique what the panel
>> said, you should have chosen not to participate..
>> 
>> I'm frustrated by people that make stupid assumptions based on things they
>> know nothing about (like that we advised that GB be removed because some
>> of us make profiles). Again, that isn't aimed at you. Those that made such
>> assumptions know who they are. I'm frustrated by people that complain that
>> they didn't get a piece of software they know nothing about nor have ever
>> seen or tried. I'm frustrated by people who suggest that others shouldn't
>> purchase a 2200 because the software wasn't placed in the box in the U.S.
>> and discount a great printer that does a fine job without said software.
>> 
>> The bottom line is GB isn't in the U.S. shipping product and it is
> elsewhere.
>> Let's see how well it does in other markets.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>