Digital BW, The Print

Claude, I actually think that this was a very objective and well 
written post.
I can't say I am overly happy about being one these minorities, but, 
I would be sad to lose my 'tinkering' that is pretty much essential 
with ANY of the options available on the market.  We have to be 
experts in composing, taking, developing, editting AND printing our 
images - whether we shoot digital or film, print traditionally or 
digitally.
The day an out of the box solution appears, I will be happy as I can 
make beautiful prints stress free, but at the same time sad, because 
what I currently do is little bit 'special' and represents part of my 
skill as a photographer.

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a... 
wrote:
> 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]