Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Editor P.O.V. Image
Service" <
editor@p...> wrote:

> So what FIX is EPSON recommending for US users?  I haven't seen
them 
> recommend ANY fix, much less admit the metamerism..

1. Use the ICC profiles that ship with the printer. 
2. Use an Adjustment layer if necessary (you don't use profiles, you
use non 
standard Epson papers which you are basically on your own). 
3. Build custom ICC profiles (any paper you wish or Epson's papers). 

Lastly, no fix is needed because nothing is broken. The entire line
of Epson 
printers are 6-7 COLOR printers. They do not at this time offer a B&W
only 
solution. Epson never claimed that these printers make perfect, dead
nuts 
neutral B&W prints. They can get very close (depending on steps 1-3
above) 
and for most users, the neutrality is going to be quite acceptable.
If you want a 
printer that can output perfectly neutral grays, it ain't going to
print color too. 

> I expected it uses the same basic printer engine.. As well as the
same 
> basic driver..

Yes, as far as I understand. Same heads and ink set. Same driver with
minor 
tweaks in certain look up tables. Different paper handling in some
cases. 


>  Perhaps EPSON should INSTEAD ask the group what IS needed in the 
next 
> generation of hardware..?

They asked, we told them. The two days with Epson (including four
Japanise 
engenners) wasn't totally devoted to Gray Balancer. 

> No, its a prosumer product so, by definition, pros and consumers..

More reason why GB was removed. 
 
> Which is pros or consumers?

Prosumers. But Pro's use the printer too. 


> Not at all.. However, if it makes tweaking prints to display
lighting 
> easier for one segment of the target prosumer audience, why NOT
include 
it?

If it did this... IF!


> Hey, I hate the clunkiness of the epson driver more than anyone.. 

As do we. So the focus needs to be on the driver! The Gray Balancer
is a 
band aid and not a good one. Our message to Epson Japan was to FOCUS. 
Fix the driver. Don't put any more time, money or energy into GB. How
many 
band aids do users want for the driver? 

>I'll certainly admit its retarded, but I always figured 
> it was another way for EPSON to get us to use lots of consumables..
;-) 

Possible. But if users spent the fraction of their time asking for
ganging 
capabilities IN the driver instead of yelling about a band aid
utility that doesn't 
solve as many problems as it creates, maybe Epson would do this.
Users 
need to focus like the companies they want changes from. 

> >>So, again, I ask, by eliminating the grey balancer that gets you
more 
> >>R&D how? 

Simple, Focus. Epson like any other company doesn't have unlimited
people 
or budgets to create software for their hardware. In fact, I'd go out
on a limb 
and say nearly all companies that make hardware haven't got very good 
software. Software is always an after thought. So if Epson has 10,000
man 
hour to spend on printer software, wouldn't you rather have them
spend most 
or all on the driver? What if the GB took 6000 man hours from the R&D 
budget? It's not worth it. 

None of the consultants every said the GB didn't work at all. We told
them:

1. It's far too complex compared to other similar products (like the
GB made by 
Kodak). This isn't to say some reviewer can't figure out the product
despite a 
200+ PDF manual. But most users will end up calling tech support or
giving 
up and that reflects badly on Epson. 
2. It's a band aid. Focus on the driver not band aids.
3. There are better, quicker ways to get closer to neutral goal than
GB. 



> You DID say we perhaps wouldn't get a better printer than the 2200 
> because the funds were used to support GB..  

No, I don't believe I said that and if so, that wasn't my intent. I
KNOW about 
printers coming down the pick (and I can't say a word). NO question
better 
printers are in the works. That's been Epson's history for years. The
question 
is, will newer printers have the same old tired software driver
because 
resources were spent on band aids or will a newer driver be
developed? 

>What bothers me is that 
> EPSON chops the software from the US product but will keep
releasing 
> product in the US market last.  

Believe it or not, there is a LOT more testing for the US market and
that is the 
reason we get the stuff last. It isn't done to upset the US market. 

>One thing I learned was how strongly ingrained the Japanese 
> tendency is to avoid direct contradiction, direct conflict, and to 
> refuse to admit a problem exists in the current iteration of a
product 
> (while promising the next go will be better)..  My contentious
style 
> would not endear me to EPSON's home office either, I think..

I know that all too well having spent several meetings with these
kinds of 
people. 

> Of course, if they talk to the right people at EPSON USA, they
might 
> find that I kept some secrets safe for the 2 years since the 1270
was 
> introduced... Including some marketing decisions...  Let's just say
some 
> of the stuff I learned then, showed a clear disjuncture in Japan's 
> understanding of the realities of the US market..

New product manager and a different slant since the 1270. 

> Since we're talking about user base,  any chance they included any
of 
> the PPA people who certified the 1270 as a "Professional Tool"  two 
> years ago. 

I don't believe anyone was associated in any way with PPA!