Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 5/14/2004 10:49:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> the ripoff is in having to spend $400-$500 to be able to get the printer to
> do what the manufacturer claimed/claims it can do - i.e. print B&W
> 
> On top of which, for Imageprint - while it does, basically, do the job it
> supposed to do fairly well , it is one of the clunkiest and worst designed
> pieces of software out there - especially if you are paying $1500 to $2000
> or more for the "full" version.
> 
> there is no real reason - apart from complacent market dominance - why Epson
> could not produce a printer that actually does this out of the box.
> 
> tim a

Everyone has the option not to buy it or buy another RIP, or go learn to 
write C++ code and do it themselves. 
Otherwise, one has to look at investment value, with the assumption that 
larger prints sell for larger bucks and the market can bear the higher 
price.........or maybe they should all cost 2 grand, even for small printers????

I paid $9000 apiece for Kodak 8x10 color dye sub printers 8 years ago and 
$5,000 per license for software to run it along with $15,000 for a 1.5 megapixel 
camer with moire, noise and crappy color, so I think these Epsons and most 
$300 digicams are wonderful and can produce work that puts my investment of 8 
years ago to shame. You have nothing to whine about, you should be celebrate 
having tools this good and this cheap.

As for your second point, the Epson 4000 DOES do good B&W right out of the 
box, so that makes your statment obsolete.

The whining/double standard at play here also has to do with the fact that 
all serious amateurs had separate color and B&W darkrooms/processes and would 
never dare to print B&W on color papers. Now we can and should be happy about 
it.

Claude







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