Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> Yep,  Just think back to what most of us have done in the darkroom 
over many years.  We tested, tested, and tested materials 'till we 
just couldn't tolerate looking a one more test strip.  Most of us 
found these test useful to weed out the technical process/materials 
that simply weren't useful.  The remainder we tended to keep on hand 
because most had at least some application to images we made.  
Different film/paper/developer for differents subjects/situations.  
And it woked well.  In a sense we have given up that flexibility 
with digital.  It is simply too expensive for most of us to have all 
of the ink/paper combinations on hand that might be useful for 
certain images.
>  
> In short, I find tests useful for providing 'don't buy' 
information, not 'buy' information.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
Tom et al,

This is what I was getting at when I started this string. There is 
no way physically, or financially, for most of us to try all of the 
wonderful choices for B&W digital printing. I am VERY happy with IP 
5.6 on a 2200. But I have no idea what Piezo, or R9 or Septone or 
Paul's C82/84 EZ looks like. I do have a 1270 set up with MIS QVM 
carts and I like the look of those prints from scans on an Epson 
3200. I use Paul's generously provided curves. Thank you. 

I think most of us would love to see them all side by side, if only, 
at the least, to feel good about our choices. I'd even like to hear 
the opinion of a non-participant who saw the results. One would hope 
that we aren't all so wedded to our own workflows that we couldn't 
learn from a comparison.

Best, Jim Weekes