Digital BW, The Print

Paul,

I couldn't agree more. 

This is the one thing that I also get blasted for from time to time. 
You try to point out some shortcomings or problems, lack of options, 
etc... with a given product in hopes of eliminating that pain for 
others when they encounter problems from said products. As a result 
you are labeled as a "hater" of that product with an axe to grind. If 
all we hear are glowing reviews of a product and its hype then we 
believe it. When that product fails to work as advertised, then 
obviously we don't know what we are doing, because everyone else 
has "perfect results and zero problems" with that product.

My view of this is that if a manufacturer believes they can hype the 
product enough and make neverending promises and the market buys into 
that, then that manufacturer has zero incentive to fix the existing 
problems as well as innovate new products. Look at the rate that 
Epson is introducing new printer models since Canon posed a serious 
threat with their newest photo printer. Epson was thrown a curve, and 
has introduced more new models in the past few months than ever in 
their history - in fact they just introduced another new photo 
printer yesterday (820 I think). They are also looking at inks and 
papers in a more serious light with the popularity of the 3rd party 
products. Would they be doing this if they didn't feel the need to do 
so to compete and expand their market?

Both the Piezo and MIS VM have flaws. Up until this point though 
there has been no competition for the Piezo system. Now we are at 
least seeing an option with the MIS VM. My hope (like yours) is that 
this perceived competition will help drive innovation and pricing 
irrelevant of who is making the product.

I for one an grateful for all of the hard work that you have done to 
date to help promote the advances in the quad market. And for what 
motivation? You are doing it in a quest for better products that in 
the end we will ALL benefit from. Plain and simple. No money or glory 
is invloved for you, just the satisfaction of hopefully advancing the 
art.

I hope that 5 years from now when those that chastise you now are 
using a product that is vastly superior to what they are using today, 
that they will remember those that helped push the competition (you, 
for one) to make that product possible!

My sincerest thanks,

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Todd,
> 
> I'm not inclined to respond too much to skeptics or critics, but at 
the risk
> of throwing gasoline on the fire, I will try to explain where I'm 
coming
> from.
> 
> Of course, my critics are, in part, correct -- I do have my 
biases.  For
> example, I am biased against bullshit, and there seems to be a lot 
of that
> around -- more from some sellers that others.
> 
> Nobody ever accused me of being particularly politic -- or normal, 
for that
> matter.  So maybe people would understand my weird sense of fun if 
they knew
> where I'm coming from.  I am a retired Federal Trade Commission 
antitrust
> and consumer protection attorney.  I thoroughly enjoyed suing and 
kicking
> the butts of the biggest companies and even entire national 
industries.  If
> anyone wants a reference, ask Ralph Nader.  You can also ask any 
residential
> real estate broker about the radical shift in their industry from 
one where
> the buyer had no representation (but was led to believe s/he did) 
to one
> where most buyers are represented by agents. How did that happen?  
There was
> never even a big lawsuit on the issue.  There was this arcane FTC 
book that
> was published, but ...
> 
> The reason some people stay in government work is that, if they 
enjoy having
> an impact and have the ability, it provides a platform where a 
single person
> actually can affect radical change on entire industries.  And the 
effect is
> not necessarily through suing companies or enacting rules, or 
anything more
> than just disseminating a little information.  Our society lives on
> information even more than oil.  Tiny amounts of information can be 
the
> catalyst for really major change.  It can be a huge chess game, and 
there
> are a few of us who really enjoyed it -- and still do.
> 
> But, after 25 years of this, my life plan was and is to stop doing 
anything
> that is determined by the need for the $.  Now I just pursue those 
things
> that related to non-monetary rewards -- love of family, nature, 
beauty,
> photography, [(a good fight ;-)], etc.  Yes, it is a bit 
idealistic, but
> life is short, and I don't need a Mercedes.
> 
> So, as part of this, I wanted a good digital output for the 
hundreds of
> negatives I had produced during my mainstream-carrier phase of 
life.  I
> tried a bunch.  Piezo was the best.  I really appreciate the ease 
with which
> it got me up to speed, and Jon's information in the archives has 
been
> invaluable.
> 
> But, as my experience grew, I came to want more.  My Piezo outfit 
banded
> often, so I found that I could write RGB curves and use the Epson 
driver to
> cure that.  I found the color of Piezo less than ideal, for me.  
So, I
> developed a variable-tone Piezo-based inkset.  I made it all 
public.  Why
> not?  I'm not in the ink business.
> 
> The more I learned, however, the less enamored I became of some of 
the
> information being disseminated by the Piezo camp -- only Piezo is 
carbon
> based, Piezo is continuous tone, Piezo is pigments and doesn't 
fade, Piezo
> has the longest tonal range, ....  With my background, this BS just 
rubs me
> the wrong way.  One would think Cone Editions invented inkjet 
printing and
> quads.  In my view, good products like Piezo don't need this 
nonsense.  On
> the other hand, as I've told Jon in e-mails, with my personality I 
couldn't
> sell a thing.  I understand that salesmanship often involves hype.
> 
> At any rate, I was originally left with the impression that Piezo 
was the
> ultimate and the cheap MIS alternative was just trash.  Finally, 
some Piezo
> users (Jerry, among others) suggested that I try to make a variable-
tone ink
> mix based on MIS.  So, that sounded like an interesting alternative 
and
> challenge.  However, I didn't want to waste my time on an inkset 
that was
> second rate.  So, I started to try to find out what MIS was like.  
The
> testing was an outgrowth of this.  And the MIS VM inkset is my 
response to
> those who wanted an MIS-based variable-tone inkset.
> 
> As the VM X3 test indicates, the MIS VM inkset is not likely to be 
the last
> one I mix.  The VM X3, by the way, can be mixed from competitively-
available
> components -- not just MIS materials.  And it is something I do on 
my own,
> not at the request of MIS, with whom I have no formal 
relationship.  I do
> receive free materials from MIS and sometimes other sellers, 
sometimes
> unsolicited, but I understand this is typical for those who the 
sellers
> consider movers and shakers.  I also receive personal e-mails from
> pissed-off sellers whose papers or inks did not do too well in my 
tests.  I
> just can't please all the people all the time.  However, I have 
never
> intended to trash any of the competitors, though my casual or 
indiscreet
> writing might unintentionally have had that effect.
> 
> I am still not satisfied with the state of the art in this little 
quad
> industry.  The warm-shifting is a big pain.  I want to be able to
> incrementally add prints to my collection as I make them.  The new 
ones must
> be close enough to the old ones in color to not stand out like sore 
thumbs.
> So, that is what I'm working on now -- for my own purposes.  When I 
get a
> mix that seems sufficiently better than the MIS VM inkset that I 
decide to
> use it, I'll probably offer it to MIS first.  I'd much rather have 
some ink
> company mix the inks for me, and I appreciate the quality 
information and
> materials I've received from Bob Zeiss.  But, this is not an MIS 
project,
> and MIS might not even be interested in bothering with another 
inkset.
> 
> That's OK, this is what I do for me and for fun.  I also, of 
course, hope my
> efforts are helpful to the interests of all quad ink consumers.  
Public
> service and consumer protection has, after all, been my life's 
career.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> ________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Flashner [mailto:tflash@e...]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 11:53 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Fade test - German Etching & Piezo, 
MIS VM &X3
> on EAM
> 
> 
> on 10/17/01 3:11 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:
> 
> > I am very puzzled as to what your reasons are to question Paul's
> > motivation and integrity. He has done a great deal of work with 
the
> > inks and shared the information freely. I do not understand your
> > antagonism.
> 
> I think some air needs to be cleared here. I hope I'm not being too
> presumptuous or provocative, but here goes.
> 
> I get the feeling JB is not the only person on this list who think 
Paul is
> affiliated with MIS, and is thus an opponent, competitor, or in 
some way has
> an axe to grind with Cone's Piezo. I think people presumptuous that 
because
> he writes curves for the MIS inks, and in fact, contributes to 
their inkset
> formulations, so it's not a far fetched notion.
> 
> Paul, lets say I accuse you of (which I don't BTW), for whatever 
reason,
> being biased against Piezo, and perhaps engaging in misinformation 
or biased
> information toward their products. Would you care to state for 
yourself what
> your "position" is relative to either or both of those 
manufacturers?
> 
> Todd