Digital BW, The Print

glewis4457@... wrote:

>A couple of weeks ago the claim was that the two were identical and only the 
>name was changed due to concerns about the use of the term "Archival",
>
that's what we were all led to believe..  Even Harald Johnson said so on 
page 237 of  his definitive  new book (I am keeping Harald apprised of 
developments on this topic)..

> and 
>the logo dropped.  I challenged the writer, in a good manner, as to why they 
>would do that and why we should believe him.
>
1)  The reasons I and others have been given and passed on are still 
quite valid...

2) To quote Paul:


Paul Roark wrote:

>I also used the X-Rite to measure the front and back brightness of the new
>EAM and EEM.  With these samples, the EAM actually had a brighter front and
>back than the EEM -- just the opposite of what I'd seen comparing old EAM
>with EEM.  So, I'm guessing the change in formula, if any, occurred prior to
>the change in name, and there are sample differences that affect both.  I
>note also that outside the U.S. EAM is still, apparently, being sold.
>  
>

I'm beginning to seriously wonder if, as with their inks, they are now 
using multiple sources for the media substrate (prior to Mitsubishi 
adding the receptor coating)?  

Interestingly, if that is the case, curves could be very specific to 
market.  I.e: an American EEM curve might axiomatically not work in the 
UK or Asia if the initial source of substrate differs..  IF EPSON is 
doing something like this, given the recent addition of all the new 
EPSON branded papers to the North American market (not yet replicated 
elsewhere), then, as well as the differences we might expect to see 
between US market product and the product in other markets, I would bet 
that we will therefore see differences as well between "grey market" and 
TRUE North American market product (something I don't think would likely 
upset anyone at EPSON corporate).  This could mean one godawful mess for 
those trying to write universal profiles for EPSON printers using any 
specific EPSON media (something I am sure EPSON would understand would 
likely help keep down, to some degree,  the likelihood of users using 
alternative inksets).


Additionally, if there has been an actual formulaic change, then EEM 
could easily be the same as "new" EAM... but different from old EAM..  ugh!

>  he responded with quite a 
>resume and contacts within the Epson organization.  Now, we have this which 
>seems to claim that the two are very different.  
>
Not VERY different. But certainly there seem to be some significant 
variations...  Even batch to batch and within the  EAM/EEM format 
offerings... and they are substantial enough to raise significant 
concerns on several fronts.

Here's  a justifiable fear on my part..

Let's assume I created an EAM profile. It now may or may not be 
worthless with EEM..  Similarly, people have reported differences in 
whiteness, etc. between EEM in larger and smaller sizes..  Great, now, I 
have to profile for paper size?  Or could it be based upon the media 
source.. If so, how do I ensure I have media with the same 
specifications? Accordingly, how the heck can I profile at all -- is 
using EEM/EAM going to be akin to the way I learned to shoot chromes, 
"make sure they are all from the same batch/lot numbers"?  I'm not about 
to use a media that I have to profile by packet..  That defeats one of 
the key reproducibility benefits of going digital..

Now that we have something substantial it's time for me to approach 
EPSON's consumables people (assuming Paul and others have no problem 
with that) and ask them "what the hell is REALLY up?"  They may be 
unaware of much of this, as the pre-production substrate they get from 
contractors is probably all internal biz for the Keretsu in Japan 
(except for consumables like the Somerset Velvet, the new Fine Art 
papers made for them by Crane, and the new DuPont based media)..

>Now who should we believe 
>and why? FWIW, for me on my C80, EAM works the best of any paper I have 
>tried.
>  
>
Have you tried any EEM yet?

Jerry, contrary to my sometimes brusque manner, I really WANT to know 
what is up.  Certainly, I'm no apologist for EPSON. The only reason 
ANYONE puts up with my momentary flashes of attitude is that I'll 
tenaciously track down a problem that others are dealing with, 
regardless of what my own interests may be.. I briefly referenced my 
involvement in the whole 1270 mess some years back..  What I didn't 
mention is that I did all that without even owning a 1270 (I finally 
bought a refurb this year to use with the MIS pigs), the first 
orange-shift reports (from Carol Glasgow) hit LITERALLY as I was about 
to buy a 1270 the first Spring they were on sale in the US.. My umbrage 
at EPSON's less than up-front and forthright manner in its initial 
handling of the orange-shift is what involved me (I have a bit of Don 
Quixote in me).  


Jerry, another question, kinda off-topic: Do you use the C80 for any 
kind of non-photo printing?  I ask as I am considering that or a HP5550 
to replace my Mom's Lexmark.  I'd appreciate any insights you might have 
(especially on print speed for documents)..  
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 


{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]