Digital BW, The Print

I agree that I have had next to no issues with MIS ink.  Since the arrival
of their new refillable cartridges I have not had a clog either.  In London
I would have to pay £9-11 for an Epson cartridge for my 2100.  I can buy a
4oz bottle from MIS for the same price.  With MIS carts I can move between a
dedicated B&W ink set and a colour ink set easily and I can explore new
products and new uses for products such as glop with ease.  I used to use
Epson UC inks with QTR, then MIS UC equivalent inks with QTR.  A dedicated
B&W ink set does produce better results.  As for archival quality, it is
certainly my understanding that tests undertaken by Paul Roark suggest that
the MIS inks have all the archival quality I will need.  As for the dollar
cost of my trouble, I certainly wouldn't charge a measly $50 an hour for my
time.  But colour profiling with MIS inks takes no longer than profiling
with Epson inks.  Developing and linearising a QTR curve with MIS inks takes
no longer than with Epson UC inks.  Don't confuse being happy with canned
profiles with time not well spent.


> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...m>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:03:09 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] most grief due to non-OEM?
> 
> 
> 
> Steve...you "agree" that MIS is equally archival to Epson? On what basis?
> 
> Or did you mean that you "agree" you've had a little trouble with MIS?
> If it's that, would you have had trouble with Epson OEM? What was the
> dollar cost of that trouble (labor at perhaps $50/hr)?
> 
> $23 per Epson cart is certainly outrageous...over twice what I pay in
> the US for OEM 2200 carts, with free shipping and no tax.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> Completely agree.
>> 
>>