Digital BW, The Print

So many of the answers to your questions would be subjective that I
for one don't want to enter this debate. It's been going on for years
and there is no "best", period. It depends on the user's needs. For
example, one of your qualifiers was lower cost. All of us would like
something that was nearly free, but I have always held print quality
higher than cost. I never used RC papers in the darkroom, I'm sure
they were cheaper than the fine fiber papers I could barely afford.
Even print quality is subjective, people whose taste I respect find BO
printing superb, I don't. You can find countless posts on this list
and others over these issues. If you love your results, be happy. I
love my results, be happy for me. I think one of the best things
people can do is take part in print exchanges if they want to see for
themselves. Some people find differences between systems
indistinguishable that I think are fairly major. We all have different
expectations, so it's great there are now so many options that yield
satisfying results.
What point is there in stating that everyone should be doing what I'm
doing?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dave08g"
<dave08g@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I can certainly understand why someone would want to go to third party
> inks if they are using a Windows system and didn't want to shell out
> big bucks for Image Print.  But I would like to know why anyone with a
> MAC and 2200 would prefer a third party ink solution to either OPM or
> QTR.  
> 
> I am using a MAC/2200 with UC inks and QTR and I love the results.  Is
> there a better solution that gives better print quality, longevity,
> lower costs, etc that I don't know about?  If so, which system? 
>  
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave Gordon
> 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@t...> wrote:
> > What's the problem with options? You see people on lists seeking help
> > with problems, there are others with few to none using 3rd party inks
> > that have no time for lists, and Epsons are hardly free of problems
> > either. Some people, including myself, also prefer the results they
> > get from other processes to the B&W solution from Imageprint, and also
> > may prefer the companies they deal with to Colorbyte.
> > It sounds like you have your solution and are happy with it, and are
> > convinced it's the only way, so I'm not sure what kind of answer you
> > are looking for.
> > Tyler
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "digikdm"
> > <monroekd@h...> wrote:
> > > Would someone explain to be why there is so much banter/trial and 
> > > error/ and switching of vendors with regards to third party ink 
> > > systems when all you really need is a good RIP using Epson inks. I 
> > > know someone will counter that one of the colored Epson UC inks( 
> > > yellow is the usual culprit mentioned) will 
> > > fade over time producing metamerism, but there is little to no
proof 
> > > of the latter using the newer Epson UC inks. The prints I've seen 
> > > using Imageprint as a RIP are as good as any I've seen( other than 
> > > fiber-based halide)using any other ink systems. Why burden yourself 
> > > with ink clogs and  ever-changing curves, etc. It's a technology
bog. 
> 
> > > I've found the upfront costs of Imageprint( admittedly a
RIP-off, pun 
> > > intended) to be worth the cost in the long run.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tigertwous" 
> > > <jfisher@s...> wrote:
> > > > I've just ordered my set of Piezography inks from IJM for my
Epson 
> > > 7600 inked
> > > >  with matt black UC inks, I'm running Studio Print 10 from a 
> > > Windows XP Pro system 
> > > > and will have access to a X-rite DTP41. I plan on using Epson 
> > > Enhanced Matte to learn 
> > > > on but will move up to some other types as I get my feet wet. Any 
> > > suggestions as to 
> > > > what I should do first (other than the obvious) I usually just
play 
> > > around and find my 
> > > > way in the dark and eventually come up with what I need, but I 
> > > thought if I ask you 
> > > > folks I may be able to shorten the time it takes to achieve some 
> > > successful results.
> > > >  
> > > >  Thanks I'm looking forward to making some spectacular prints in 
> > > the future.
> > > >  
> > > >  Jack Fisher
> > > >  St. Louis, MO