Digital BW, The Print

I've stayed out of this, but I was at the PMA show in the PermaJet/Jobo
booth.  I was not even aware of the competition, although the DIMA dog and
pony show was going right next to the very modest Jobo/PermaJet booth.

I had a chance to meet and talk with Jon Cone, and found him very personable
and friendly.  His Piezo booth was large and very impressive.  He's clearly
a real pro at these events and good at the sales end of the business --
rather 180 degrees off from MIS's business model. 

I have not compared the Piezo ICC output with the UT2 inks.  Given the
amount of light ink the ICC system uses, it would not surprise me if, at
least under a loupe, the Piezo inks are smoother.  

I have clearly opted for flexibility and "smooth enough" over ultimate
"dotlessness."  

When I first started doing digital output I used 16x20 image setter output
and contact printed onto fiber based paper.  I wanted no one to be able to
tell that there was a digital step.  Now I don't care.  I think the current
pigments are good enough to stand on their own.  If people see dots under a
loupe, that is OK with me.  

That said, a photo magazine writer who had just been at the Piezo booth came
by the Jobo/PermaJet booth and studied the output of a 1290 using the
PermaJet version of the latest inks -- called the New VT Blax.  The 1290 was
using the default settings with no curves or sliders.  The writer said the
print, on PermaJet Alpha, was the first digital print he'd seen that looked
as good as a darkroom print.

I, frankly, have no idea why he liked it better than the Piezo output.

At any rate, I think there are a number of factors in selecting an inkset
(some very subjective), and there are a number of good inksets -- different
strokes for different folks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/