Digital BW, The Print

Austin Franklin wrote:

> > These tests can be image limited, either by the scanner, camera, size of the
> film or simply by the size of the output image.  In order to be a completely
> "valid" test, everything has to be taken into account, and listed...it's
> proper scientific method.  Again, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't go
> with their own observations, as they should...but they should also
> understand what it is they are testing.
>
> If the image is the one that Paul used, then I dispute any conclusions drawn
> using only that image.  If the image is one that is done with a high end
> camera, developed well, contains a full range of tones, and has very high
> detail...than that is a different story.  I'd actually prefer to use a few
> different test cases with varying types of images to make the tests, IMO,
> valid.
>
> I have done tests with both Piezo and quad tone inks, and I found, on my
> 3000, that the Piezo system gives me better images.  Both from a tonality
> prospective and in image detail.  I have literally made thousands of prints.
> I have two Epson 3000s (as well as two 1160s), and had one of each setup
> with Piezo and the other one with MIS.  I removed the MIS after it ran out
> and installed the regular Epson inks, simply because I was happier with the
> Piezo inks/driver, and I needed a color printer!
>
> All my testing was done with Rollei and Hasselblad images, scanned with a
> Leafscan, Plus-X, D-76 1:1 at 75F printed on an Epson 3000 on EHWM 12x12 on
> a 13x19.
>

But Austin,
I don't understand why your test is any more valid than the aforementioned ones? Can you please explain?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography




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