Digital BW, The Print

Steve,

I actually disagree - having worked in support I have a little experience
with the c**p that some departments have to put up with, and equally, also
being a user, I'm familiar with what some of them put out ;)  [I'm not
talking about IJM here, by the way, my last awful-support experience was
McAffee].

Here's my example: Take a look at the Epson-leben list, or the Epson 9000
Yahoo group. Two groups which I browse and occasionally post on. There is
FREQUENT discussion, confusion, dissatisfaction, anger, frustration about
colour management with those 'oh-so-simple' ICC profiles. The problem seems
to be that Adobe do not _exactly_ describe how Photoshop (for example) sends
out files (to a printer) depending on settings. Epson do not exactly
describe how it picks up profiles depending on printer / printer driver /
which buttons are clicked, etc etc etc. ie ICC is VERY MUCH implementation
dependent and frankly a nightmare as such. ANY support department in this
environment has to ask a zillion questions to find out where the problem
lies, but let's face it, Adobe tech support probably has very little
interest in helping Epson to fix a driver problem, and vice versa. A
standard complaint is "It's funny how the problem is never the fault of the
person you're talking to".

And what are we now seeing? Well, as far as I can tell we are seeing, or
about to see, a whole tranche of RIPs or RIP-like products that are going to
enable you to isolate the colour management of printing with ICC from
Windows installs of new products, odd-sounding buttons on Epson printer
driver software, etc. If I am right, we will see alot less colour management
problems caused by installations that <oops> wiped out your favourite
profile, but we will CONTINUE to see problems by chnges in ink, paper
formulations, quality of profiles, quality of printer, degraded printers due
to 'natural' maintenance requirements, etc.

I fear that if Cone were to open up the ICQ profiles, we sure would get more
papers and inks supported, and that would be fantastic - BUT we would also
find a new job-description in the sigs on this list "Greyscale Management
Consultant" - the people who could examine and test (potentially) everything
in the chain from software output to profiles to ink densities and advise
you and fix your problems. Without that person, IJM would blame the
third-party ink or ICQ supplier, the ink m'fer would blame the ICQ supplier
or Piezo software, etc etc etc

In fact, we culd say that this group is a "Greyscale Management Group",
but...

FWIW, I do agree that opening things up could result in higher sales or
whatever for software, and I do believe that would be good. But it is only
good if you can somehow work it such that the resultant problems do not
happen. I don't believe anyone can do that, so in the mean-time, I am happy
to be one person telling my supplier that there is 'demand' for cheaper ink,
'demand' for toning products, 'demand' for a profile for 'xxx' paper and so
on. In the mean-time, some manufacturers can if they wish reverse engineer
ink tones to make their own ink... and the Piezo driver has even been used
by people using Spectratone inks etc (don't know how well that would work in
through testing, but I was sent  a very nice picture using this mix).

Apologies for the long post!

Best,
Nij



> From: spdolha@... [mailto:spdolha@...]
> That's like saying that people complain to Adobe about results with
> different colour inks and papers when using Photoshop with ICC
> profiles - not likely.  Customers only complain when a vendor's
> technical support can not give clear solutions to problems or point
> people at the reasons for the problems.
>
> My feeling is that the Piezo software could become an industry
> standard by releasing the specification for the ICQ curves - just
> like ICC is a standard today.  Perhaps they could license the ICQ
> spec to other ink and paper vendors to allow the entire industry to
> innovate and in fact expand on the sales of the Piezo software.
> This also lets the market determine which inksets and papers rise to
> the top - and if Piezo gives the best results, the market is quite
> capable of determining that.  There are many historical examples of
> restricted market share resulting from not opening up to standards.
>
> I think opening up the Piezo software would actually increase sales
> and expand the market for Cone.
>
> Regards,
> Steve Dolha
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich"
> <steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> > IF I were Jon Cone I would not sell "just the software" given all
> the variables out there...it is important to have a system
> (paper/software/ink) that works for most people...and Piezography
> System works very well for most people (me included)...if you let
> people change too many of the variables (unsupported papers for
> instance...or someone elses cheap ink)  then you would open up a can
> of worms...and potential for customers to complain and
> complain....and point fingers at the "software" (the most expensive
> part of the equation?) as causing the problem.
> >
> > I think his "turnkey" system with a broad range of supported and
> profiled papers (many available from Inkjetmall) is the smart way to
> go...if I were in his shoes running that business that is what I
> would do too.