Digital BW, The Print

Alessandro: I tried the Randall workflow in my 1280 and it just didn't
work right for me. The transitions in both prints and step wedges were
uneven. Jeff Randall read a previous post of mine and graciously
contacted me off list to discuss it. He said the curves were written
for a 1270 and he'd never tried them on a 1280 but they might not work
as there seemed to be a difference in other curves for 1270 vs same
curves for 1280. Of course, one of the things I've learned here is
that what works for some people doesn't seem to work for others. 

I'm curious, did you find the Randall workflow and curves worked out
of the box on a 1280?

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alessandro Pardi
<alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> Peter, 
> if you go the FS way, do yourself a favor and use Randall's workflow
rather
> than Woolf's, as the former is a real ink partitioning workflow
(i.e. dots
> free). Just as Saint Roark's, by the way.
>  
> Alessandro
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob_Michaels <bob@b...> [mailto:bob@b...]
> Sent: martedì 25 febbraio 2003 2:28
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Which MIS inks? VM or FS? Roark or Woolf?
> 
> 
> Peter: I've used both inks and workflows. You can't go wrong with
> either one as they both are excellent. But if I were pressed to make a
> choice, I'd say the VM inkset / Roark workflow in a 51/49 decision. It
> just seemed a slight tad easier to learn out of the box. But, again I
> have to say that you have the two top choices of everything out there
> in my opinion and either would do you well. 
> Bob Michaels
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "flabes23
> <peter.bongard@t...>" <peter.bongard@t...> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > Which MIS inks do you guys recommend: The VM Quadtone or the FS
> > Hextone-inks? Which one has the better quality (more shades of gray,
> > contrast,...) and which workflows is better (Paul Roarks or John
> Woolfs)?
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Peter