Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
...
> fitting different hues into the ink positions of various printers,
is made more
>  complicated because of chipped carts and the need to manage
inventory efficiently
>  without too many part numbers. They are trying to offer a basic
neutral set
>  in 3 or 4  positions and then a cool or a warm set in another 1, 2,
or 3 posiitons. All
>  3 would share the same black.
> So, for example, an end user with a 7-position printer may end up
with 1 black, 3
>  neutral grays and 3 warm grays. One with an 8-position printer may
have the option
>  of 1 black, 3 neutral grays, 2 cool grays and 2 warm grays. The
latter would probably
>  be the best of both worlds - but obviously we are not there yet.
Another
>  complication is that older printers will need more positions than
newer ones to fill
>  out the middle part of the grayscale without visible dots.

Yes, I see the challenges. Since settling in on the process I'm now
using, my experimentation and knowledge of what else is going on out
there has become very limited.
One brief comment though, I've seen Steve Meyers doing beautiful
blends with the various Cone sets with 6 ink 7000 and 9000, and these
are quads. If one gets a handle on what part of the scale is most
effective to bring options to, and narrows their area of interest
rather than attempting to have every conceivable mix available, AND
stays creative, it's a wonderful world.

> Either way, it will all work fine with StudioPrint which I believe
deals with mixing
>  fixed-hue sets better than spreading toners across the scale. (if
that's what you
>  meant by "most of us know how to do that" !).

You are right, that's what I meant, and I'm still a believer in the
quad approach. I'm talking out of my hat here, and need to take a
better look at IJC. My assumption was that you could assign whatever
tank(s) you wanted to whatever part of the scale you wanted. This
overcomes the chip problem, and hence my assumption that most of us
(you of course), were knowledgeable of the different options, ie your
blending profiles comment. All this makes many things possible, even
more than StudioPrint. For example, spreading a toner across the
entire scale, while still having the basic part of the scale somewhat
partitioned is a bit harder to accomplish in SP. Possible, but more of
a challenge. Lyson no doubt is looking for their own consumer friendly
solution.

> And thanks for the cautious but supportive response, too. <g>

I hope I didn't sound too cautious, I really like everything going on
right now. This Lyson development is exciting. I try not to be on a
"team", but simply use what works for me and attempt to keep focused
on printing instead of tweaking. Also, I could change process in a
heartbeat if I found it necessary.
And of course, as a custom printer, with a tool like SP, other than
occasionally commenting on what "can" be done, I am keeping my
specific tweaks and ideas to myself, because they make what I have to
offer unique. I hope that doesn't sound selfish, but over the years
the atmosphere in our community has become a bit more aggressive.
But that's what's so cool about SP, IJC, and other things coming
along, they've opened things up for the creative print maker.
Tyler