Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 5/14/2004 5:15:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:
the point of my post and others was that it does not produce 
neutral, non-metamerismic B&W OUT OF THE BOX, which implies that one 
doesn't have a degree in color management.
99% of the BUYING public (not fine art) doesn't give a rat's butt about 
metamerism. They don't even know what it is. The compromises that Epson makes in 
their products are sound BUSINESS decisions, and ones made to cater to a small 
minority of whiners. Ask yourself what's right with Epson not what's wrong.

Carbon inks aren't neutral either they need color pigments to make them so, 
AND the minute you print on different paper stock they are no longer neutral 
anyway. No question that this still produces the LEAST metamerism, but there 
will always be some because of the different spectra of viewing light.

The members of this forum are a vast MINORITY in the big picture, and only 
represent a small segment of the market, always will. I have sold hundreds of 
thousands of color photos (most 8x10 and smaller). I reserve fine B&W for 
personal work.

I would not hesitate to print my own family photos in B&W using Ulrachomes on 
any Epson stock because my close and extended family (and the general public) 
could care less about metamerism in the portrait market where most of the 
SALES are made......gross dollars OR gross number of images.

It's nice to print color and B&W on the same paper using the same color inks. 
I get perfectly acceptable and SALEABLE prints that way with the Atkinson 
profiles on the 7600 or the canned Epson profiles on the 4000.

If we now turn our attention to the more discriminating "fine art" market 
(whatever that means) with people who aren't happy with vanilla Epson Ultrachrome 
solutions to B&W (with inherently lower sales volumes):
We can print on glossy OR the preferred matte/rag papers in a less 
compromising manner in one of 3 basic ways:

1.) Ultrachromes. Turn off the Yellow ink and print mostly with PK/MK and LK 
inks and neutralize/tone the warm carbon with C, LC, M and LM using your 
favorite RIP. (IOW mixing toners on the fly with the 2 cabons).

2.) Use your favorite Quad/Hex/Sept-TONE inkset from MIS, Inkjetmall, BWGuys, 
Lyson, etc.with curves/Epson driver, RIP or Piezotone ICC methods.  (IOW 
pre-mixing toners with the carbons). Some of these inks can print glossy and some 
can't.

3.) Use Clayton Jones Black Only method with your favorite glossy or matte 
ink and live with the tonal limitations.

The common thread for all this is personal choice AND Epson platforms in all 
cases. We should all thank Epson for producing such fine machines that perfrom 
so well, so cheap (I got the first Large format color inkjet in 1991 and it 
could only do 256 colors, no B&W or col photos and it cost $11,000). I won't 
even tell you what my 2 darkrooms cost. So relative to that, I disagree with you 
completely.

I celebrate this great technology, and, as an early adopter, I'm still amazed 
by it. I don't try to sue people over marketing verbage concerning the 
pickiness of a small sliver of the market (of which I'm a part of for certain purist 
B&W prints that I make).

I have owned every Epson going back to the original Stylus and have tried 
just about all the B&W solutions out there, including Roark's and Jones'. They 
all have their strenghts and weaknesses and can produce good SALEABLE work. I 
see not problems, only great choices.

If that makes me a whiner too, as you say, so be it.

Claude 

This ain't love, it's photon reflections, man made and controlled.


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