Digital BW, The Print

peter nelson wrote:

 >My point is that quad/hextone printing works well only FOR
 >SOME PEOPLE.   But that it's sort of like desktop Linux (I run
 >both Windows 2000 and Linux here).  It's still best suited for
 >tinkerers, people who like to get under the hood, people who
 >like to spend a lot of time on newsgroups and forums like this
 >exchanging hits and tips, people who don't mind ideosyncracies
 >and esoterica, etc.   In other words it's for a small group of
 >devotees but it's far from clear that it's a mainstream solution
 >that will work for a majority.
 >
 >
 >
Which takes us straight to my point.. It's not meant to be THE
mainstream answer..

Mainstream printers of in chemical darkrooms generally didn't use the
exact same workflows or processes as someone making fine-art prints...
The former generally weren't buying chemistry from SilverPrint and the
Photographer's Formulary just to process a few rolls of Tri-X or HP5...

In the case of commercial B&W work people either processed their own or
had a lab they knew do it. B&W isn't minilab color... It hasn't been
mainstream for over 25 years at least.  Color has..

So expect better color tools and B&W tools that are not designed for the
mainstream..

Keith



"Just some guy," and caretaker 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"





</div>