Digital BW, The Print

Scott McLoughlin wrote:

>Somehow I think competition could come in the form of supplying
>more profiles for more papers than Epson would.
>
>Just a silly example, but I've read many posts over recent months
>about folks wanting to substitute Eboni for a Epsons MK. Then
>they ask if the Epson profiles will "work" for color stuff, and the
>answer is "roll your own profiles."
>
>Well, that's silly. The vast majority of of the potential market will
>never roll their own profiles or buy a densitometer or whatever.
>
>Witness the seeming popularity of the C84/C86 and MIS EZ inks
>combo.
>
>So what if MIS put together an inkset for the 2200 (2400, etc.)
>that was less expensive than Epson's, did a better job at B&W
>printing with QTR, did as good or at least a credible job at color
>prints, and then came with a little downloadable application that
>installed a ton of canned profiles (QTR and Epson driver) for a
>ton of cool papers.
>
>The R&D shouldn't be all that great, and in fact, once the
>inkset was all in place, I imagine that many folks on this very
>list would likely contribute profiles for different papers.
>
>I think such a "product" would greatly interest folks who want
>to use one printer to do dual B&W/color duty, but with a
>preference for B&W on a variety of papers.
>
>There's all sorts of ways to compete by carving out a niche
>and growing it.
>
>The C86 idea was very, very cool. I think there's another product
>"between" that elegant and simple solution and the more involved
>roll-your-own ink/paper combos and with your own custom profiles.
>
>Scott
>
>
>
>Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>There is also the price factor-Epson inks will never be reasonably
>>>priced, that's where they make their money. The real danger here is
>>>having one company's inks become the defacto standard by which all
>>>others are judged. Even if some 3rd party inks are better in some
>>>respect, (eg lifespan) where Epson inks to be perceived as the only
>>>acceptable standard for fine art inkjets it could become difficult to
>>>sell prints made with anything else. I expect that's where Epson is
>>>going with the 'Archival Certification Program' they announced a few
>>>months back.
>>>
>>>Steve Karafyllakis
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Which made me suggest to Paul Roark that it is time that MIS together
>>with one of the art paper manufacturers should have its inks tested by
>>Wilhelm on a widely used paper. That is the only way to keep some
>>competition in this business. I also think that we shouldn't hesitate to
>>add some money too if it is that expensive. In my opinion it should be
>>Wilhelm who does the testing. That way MIS can ride on teh wave of
>>Epson's claims as well. One or two papers, a universal quad ink and the
>>MIS 7600 to check the colors/toners also.
>>
>>Ernst
>>
>>    
>>
There's little doubt in my mind that the  quad inksets of MIS are 
fadeproof but Epson has a strong marketing point with its "official" 
Wilhelm numbers. There's no way to get round that other then have them 
tested by Wilhelm or RIT by the same standard.

That isn't all what has to be done. MIS could adopt QTR more than it 
does now. Bowhaus is already working with Lyson. Offer curves for most 
models and possibly a cheaper B&W curve creation instrument than the 
Spectrometers and "secondhand" densitometers now in use. Lots of cheap 
colorimeters but no cheap densitometer possible today for that simple 
task ? Streamline their B&W inkline a bit as the variety is overwhelming 
and with QTR a wider range of models could work with fewer ink types.

Ernst