Digital BW, The Print

At 05:15 PM 10/31/03 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "James Sims"
><james@l...> wrote:
>
>
>This may/may not help answer the question.  Yesterday, at the NY
>Photo Expo., an Epson rep. explained to a bunch of us standing around
>the new 4000 that there was no difference in the quality of any of
>their current printers; i.e. 1440 is 1440 is 1440.  What the pro-
>grade printers offer in terms of image quality is CONSISTENCY from
>print to print.  Not that the smaller printers were all over the map
>but just that a fine line of consistency from the pro printers could
>be expected.
>
>I kept this in mind and wandered back over to the Cone's booth where
>he had on display mounted samples of B/W prints from a variety of
>Epson printers from the (older) 1200 thru the 2000P (3000 and 1280
>included).  I held, turned and examined the prints under the very
>strong overhead light and I swear I could see NO differences in the
>raw image quality.  By the way, all of the prints were absolutely
>gorgeous and indiscernalble from conventional darkroom prints.  Nary
>a dot, band or area of posterization present.  I couldn't check for
>metamirism but don't forget conventional prints were never totally
>exempt from that either.
>
>Don't sweat the last .1 D-max.  People don't view prints with
>reflection densitometers anyway.
>
>

Guys,

I wonder if all the samples of B/W prints from different printers you saw 
at the  Epson booth were done using a RIP?   I suppose they were all on 
Epson paper - no?

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us