Digital BW, The Print

Right, you've got to stop somewhere. The relatively few of us who
might want to use the older machines can use QTR and and Eye One and
certainly get the job done till we save up for a more current unit.

Thanks,

John




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw"
<piezobw@c...> wrote:
> 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