Digital BW, The Print

David,
I am *totally* concerned about the veracity of all the claims.

And I too, really wonder about those new C80 inks.  Further I distrust even the
75 year claims when it is apparent from official reports that their 200 year
claim regarding their original pigment inks was jut marketing hype.  Along with
their 'Archival' Matte Paper, whose name has been changed (to Endurance Matte)
due to the legal implications of the apparently false labeling.

I am further frustrated after coming to the understanding that there are so many
purveyors of these products (printers, papers, inks etc.) that come to this
business from such a different perspective than the 'fine art' crowd that they
can't comprehend our needs.

By way of example, when I first started talking to one seller (who I respect),
he started telling me that I would just *love* his 'canvas' offering.  I
explained that I would *never* be interested in them, as they did not fit in my
definition of an 'art' substrate.  I don't think he believed me, because he
thought I was ignorant of the 'market' as he understands it (and, of course, I
think he's ignorant of my needs).

And it's no different in the discussions I've had with George Coons of Hawk
Mountain papers.  A very nice guy, but he cannot understand my insistence on a
paper (including both the base and coating) that does not contain *any* optical
brighteners and still be coated for pigment inks.  It's not that he does not
understand the paper business, or that his product is faulty, but it's is just
not right for my fine art reproduction needs.  And, so far, I cannot get that
point across to him.  He thinks I'm either naive or too demanding.  Ah well....I
also think time will solve these problems.

Brother...I feel your pain.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

david_nancy_bogart wrote:

>  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]