Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott 
McLoughlin <scott@a...> wrote:
> Comments below.
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> > It's not that hard; I've had Eboni in my 7600 for a year, and 
just
> > recently replaced the MIS LK with my own custom neutral LK. I 
keep
> > MIS color Ultraclones in the rest of the slots for color work. 
I've
> > been using MonacoEZcolor to re-profile for each change, and while
> > there are better (and more expensive) profiling suites available,
> > Monaco works well enough most of the time. The package from MIS
> > you're suggesting is a good idea, but people would still need to 
do
> > custom curves and profiles for non-supported papers. And there 
are
> > many new papers becoming available, you can't reasonably expect a
> > small company like MIS to keep up with them all.
> 
> 
> MIS could provide a clearing house for profiles though. Cover the 
major 
> bases themselves
> and then solicit profile contributions for more marginal papers.  
Also 
> for this particular
> "product" we're not talking about any arbitrary ink combo - just 
MIS's 
> improved B&W
> (+color) bundled ink set + QTR "product."

This could certainly work, I would think. Mediastreet is doing 
something like this with QTR and their G4 inks. Too bad the G4 
are 'hybrids' with some dye in them, and therefore shorter lifespan. 
But it does provide incentive and a new model for MIS to think about.
> 
> > Carving out a niche in this case is digging yourself into a 
hole: it
> > doesn't answer the recognition/legitimacy issue in the broader 
art
> > world, and as Epson gains market share, companies like MIS will
> > lose, and become progressively less able to support the R&D
> > neccessary to keep up. There is of course the wild card factor: 
some
> > enterprising individual in Japan might sell the ink formula to a
> > Chinsese ink maker, but even if we have the exact same inks 
under a
> > different name convincing the art public they are just as good 
will
> > still require hard numbers, preferrably generated by Wilhelm.
> >
> > Steve Karafyllakis
> >
> 
> This legitimacy issue is interesting to me. New to me, I guess.  
When I 
> decided I wanted to
> print digital B&W, I surfed around. PN, Google, whatever.  My 
first 
> impressions were that
> Epson printers were "the ones to get" and then for "real" B&W you 
had to 
> buy inks from
> Cone or MIS or whatever.  In other words, in my mind, the 3rd 
party B&W 
> vendors held
> the high ground for B&W printing. And preferably an expensive 
RIP.  In 
> other words,
> Epson supplied the printer and other companies supplied the rest 
of the 
> solution to make
> the printer come alive.
> 

This has been true up till now. But now that Epson has an improved 
set of inks that are chemically sophisticated enough that third 
party vendors can't copy them easily, it raises the stakes. Now that 
Epson is willing to guarrantee longevity (assuming you follow their 
procedures ) and issue a certificate of guarantee, and is backing 
that with a world-wide PR campaign, it could very well give them the 
high ground at least at the upper end of the market for a long time 
to come. I would hate to find I'm having trouble getting inkjets in 
galleries just at the time they're becoming acceptable, say a year 
or two down the road. Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but a little 
planning ahead never hurt.


> Just marketing phenomenology from a newbie. But I had no idea that 
the 
> "art market"
> considered Epson inks special.   > 

Again not until now: if the K3 inks hold up to the hype and resist 
duplication, we may need to convince potential buyers that what we 
are using is just as good, at least for B&W

> So what's the big deal with getting tests from Wilhelm?  Cost or 
the 
> having the goods?

MIS has the goods- Paul Roark's tests indicate their inks are as 
good or better than the CURRENT UC inks. The problem seems to be 
cost.
> 
> Also, I would think (perhaps incorrectly) that apart from the fine 
art 
> gallery oriented
> market, there's a much, much larger hobbyist amateur market for a 
> "superior and cheaper
> B&W solution."  These folks would welcome a cheaper set of inks, 
the 
> dual B&W/color
> oriented solution, and the opportunity to use a wide variety of 
papers 
> "out of the box."

Yes, there'll always be that niche, but it's a relatively tiny piece 
of the inkjet pie; point is we can't afford to let it get smaller.
> 
> I imagine the fine art crowd are the folks already "rolling their 
own" 
> and would most
> likely continue to do so.

I think it's the professional photogs and printer/service bureau 
segment that are even more likely to "roll their own" profiles. They 
need the accuracy and are making some money from it, they can afford 
it. They are also most likely to buy a new K3 printer, keep Epson 
inks in it, and ditch the uncertainty of 3rd party inks now that 
they can get both B&W and excellent color from one machine.


Steve Karafyllakis