Digital BW, The Print

Right, but we use you as an example of someone who has done this for
many years and knows the differences from these years of experience
and is open enough and kind enough to share where he is and where he
has been. To tell you the truth the Piezzo site is not exactly
exploding with knowledge and enthuasism. And, now that the new neutral
inkset is out I'm surprised of that fact. I have seen what you do, not
by you, but by others working the same process in a similar way. It is
impressive to say the least. My big curiosity about the Tyler mono
approach is will it go K7 or stay with Piezzo Quad and toning
alterations. I suspect the latter. I could be wrong, but I sense you
are already working with a system that is hard to beat for this type
of work. Of course the other thing is how can you ever get anything
done if you are testing and testing and testing everytime something
new comes down the pike. That's the only problem with this digital
stuff, every year your workflow changes. That may never change.

john 









--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> Steve and all, I seem to have  unwittingly become the poster boy here
> for multiple K mono printing. I just want to say that there are very
> many pro and non-pro printers out there using quad (and more) systems
> happily printing away, doing nice stuff.
> They just don't happen to hang around on lists much. A bit of cause
> for some introspection here...
> The 4+ part mono printing systems are out there from a few suppliers,
> represent a significant contribution to state of the art inkjet
> monochromatic printing, and seem to be under-represented on this list.
> It all gets down to the prints and the results, not the number of Ks
> or whatever.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > Photo paper? No contest.  K3 is well worth it.
> > 
> > Matte paper? Hmmm.  As I have said before, 3 greys in K3 vs 2 in K2
> is a not
> > necessarily a slam dunk decision.  Someone like Tyler would jump
at the
> > chance if K3 were all that was available - he wants 7 or more and if
> he can
> > have 3 rather than just 2 then he's ahead.  How much are you
> prepared to pay
> > for the extra fidelity?  The original post asked also about K3 vs,
> say, UT7.
> > Even more difficult.  In this comparison you have 3K on both sides -
> but one
> > side doesn't do colour (and is not too great at the moment on photo
> paper).
> > Does 3K give you enough B&W fidelity such that the ability to also
> do high
> > quality colour with the same printer/ink set make it compelling? 
Quite
> > possibly but still a very personal decision.  Someone who wants more
> than 3K
> > for B&W would likely not be prepared to compromise his B&W for the
> ability
> > to do colour.  Personally, I see little reason to run a dedicated
> B&W ink
> > set in my 4800 to get more than the 3K I have (I reserve the right
> to change
> > my mind if I ever get to see some of Tyler's prints!).  I also do
> colour so
> > I am very happy to have a very good B&W solution and a very good
colour
> > solution in the same box.  Was 2K enough for this?  Personally I
> tried the
> > MIS 3K solutions and found they had advantages.  Such alternatives
> do not
> > overwhelm me now that I have 3K standard.
> > 
> > There is no easy answer to your question.
> >