Digital BW, The Print

Right now we are profiling only the 2200/4000/7600/9600/R1800. These are good 
hardware platforms. I will be able to answer your question if and when we make profiles in 
the QTR curve format for older printers. QTR tools are very good so I hope I have not given 
the impression that they are not. We have simply taken an approach to insure success out 
of the box over the widest range of printers within a model. And the result of that is a 
stellar profile which is also very forgiving to small printer flaws.

best,

Jon Cone


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> That was interesting. But wouldn't the success of this approach depend
> on the toleraces or the lack of them with different Epson machines?
> For instance the older machines with K6 might not be so close as the
> newer units?
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> . Our curves are far superior, and the
> > small benefit of being 
> > able to "linearize" your own printer isn't as essential when compared
> > to the benefit of 
> > using the superior curves created with our technology. 
> > 
> > If you want the best possible profile go with ours. But try it out
> > for yourself. Print with one 
> > of ours. then make one of your own, and post your results to this
> > website. Although our 
> > profiles "seem" generic, we think you will be surprised at how well
> > they perform in 
> > comparison to the sophisticated tools of QTR. You be the judge and
> > let us know.
> > 
> > 
> > best regards,
> > 
> > 
> > Jon Cone
> > The Piezography guy
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@a...
> > wrote:
> > > John-
> > > 
> > > Incidentally, the linearization question is a very interesting one.
> > So 
> > > far, Cone has sidestepped this. I have a few thoughts about this
> > and 
> > > would appreciate hearing other opinions: the last two generation of 
> > > Epson photo printers seem to operate, out of the box, to a much
> > higher 
> > > standard. I assume this is a combination of better software
> > (including 
> > > ICC profiles and things like ABW) and better hardware (and, to some 
> > > extent, better media; the K3 inks are better than the K2's, for 
> > > example). This reduces, but does not elimenate, the need to
> > linearize a 
> > > printer. The "need" to linearize, it seems to me, is directly
> > connected 
> > > to how much control the photographer thinks is necessary to produce
> > the 
> > > kind of prints they find satisfying and successful.
> > > 
> > > I know there has to be a wide range of opinon about the "need" to 
> > > linearize on this list. From my perspective, linearization is 
> > > fundamental and any system or approach that does not, or cannot, 
> > > include or accomodate user linearization is inherently limited. For 
> > > example, as an inkjet printer ages and it's calibrated state
> > changes 
> > > you either linearize the machine or must resort to manipulating the 
> > > image file data to compensation for the machine's drift.
> > > 
> > > So, how do proprietary systems, which now apparently include Cone's
> > K7 
> > > profiles for QTR, address this?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Bill Kennedy
> > > Austin, Texas