Digital BW, The Print

Harvey,

I guess what I am saying is, through this imperfect medium of an 
egroup it is frustratingly difficult to make an educated decision 
about the qualities of an ink if you can't see the results for 
yourself. In an ideal world we go down the street to our local ink 
and paper dealer and she would be able to show us examples 
of all these inks on all the popularly discussed papers. Also in 
this mythical shop would be a lovely south window with lots of 
little swatches basking in the sun.

If what you say is true about the obvious advantages of the 
Indelibles then I can't imagine using any other ink. Like yourself I 
am waiting for my new 7000 and will be damned if I am going to 
pay all that money for a printer and then skimp on the 
consumables.

In reading between the lines of your posts, I think you are just as 
concerned as I am about the veracity of what you read here. 
Case in point is the resent heralding by someone on the 9000 
forum of the new durabright inks in the C80 as 'unbelievably 
awesome', or something to that effect. Then many entries later 
John Nollendorfs replied that put side by side with another inkset 
they were found wanting. Don't get me wrong, I know everyone is 
sincere and agendas are easy to spot. It's just hard to know what 
to believe without seeing it for yourself.

Good luck in your quest and let me know what you decide. Maybe 
that will help me.

David   


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:
> David,
> Am I reading into this or does the price upset you?
> 
> By all user reports the gamut *is* supposed to be *much* 
better than *all* other
> pigment inks.
> 
> The metamerism has been reported to be '1' on a scale of 1 to 
10, whereas
> Epson's OEM pigments are an '8'.
> 
> The reds *are* reported to be much better.
> 
> They are supposed to be more stable than any of the other 
inks out there.
> 
> There are *NO*, I repeat *NO* reports of clogs.  They have 
been made to go
> through Iris printers, which have notoriously small jets prone to 
clogging.
> 
> Are you missing something?...I don't know.
> 
> Are they worth it?  Only you can decide for yourself, but they 
sound good to me.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> david_nancy_bogart wrote:
> 
> >  I've just compared the price of a 16 oz bottle of Indelibles 
which
> > is listed at $100, versus a 16 oz bottle of MIS Archival for $48.
> > Does this mean the Indelible will last twice as long? Is the 
red
> > twice as bright? Twice the gamut? Half the metamerism? 
Half
> > the clogs? Will I be twice as happy? Somehow I don't think 
so.
> >
> > Am I missing something or is this another example of how
> > desperately we are searching for the holy grail?
> >
> > David
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> > <skid@b...> wrote:
> > > Jerry,
> > > It's all relative, but I suppose so.
> > >
> > > For more info on them:
> > > http://www.mandmstudios.com/inkjet.html
> > > or
> > > Jim Robbins at All Square  (actjimrobbins@a...)
> > >
> > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >  Hi Harvey,
> > > >
> > > > Are the indelibles those really pricy inks?
> > > >
> > > > Jerry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SKID Photography wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jerry,
> > > > > I know that feeling of going crazy and wanting to be 
done
> > with it.  We have
> > > > sort
> > > > > of done the same thing in deciding to go with the
> > Indelibles. (Before you
> > > > > ask...We have not taken delivery of our Epson 7000 and
> > therefore have not
> > > > tried
> > > > > the Indelibles on B&W images yet).
> > >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]