Digital BW, The Print

I used to visit Luminous Landscape a great deal. I  respected
Michael's opinions and reviews a lot. Then I really got burned. I read
his glowing review of the 2200 and how stunning the prints were for
both B&W and color. At the time, I was doing a lot of color printing
for people who wanted the prints on high gloss paper.
 I bought the printer based on his review, set it up and made a few
color prints on various high gloss papers. Wow! What awful bronzing!
It was terrible. Embarrassing. I could not understand just how the
heck Michael's review made no mention whatsoever of the obviously
visible bronzing on glossy paper. How could he possible miss it?
 The unit went for sale on Ebay and sold immediately since it was in
high demand and truly 'like new'. I went back to making gorgeous high
gloss prints on my old printer.
  Sorry, but I'll never again trust the guy as a reviewer. He missed
something that was easy and obvious for anyone at all to notice in
minutes. Admittedly, I might be harsh, but this was not a subtle
matter or something hard to catch. 
  Also, his review stated "metamerism---NOT" for the 2200 which was
untrue as well.
  (still grumbling)
  Howard



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Barrett Benton"
<bwbenton@...> wrote:
>
> As with a lot of stuff Reichmann writes about, it's the details he
> omits that can be just as irritating as the gaffes he creates.
> 
> In regarding the B9180, Reichman states: 
> 
> "Pigment inks offer a level of permanence not seen from printers which
> use dye-based inks. These actually exceed that of any colour
> reproduction process yet seen. Prints made using pigment based inks
> even rival silver gelatin based prints, (unless selenium or gold toned
> and archivally processed). Nevertheless, dye based inks have continued
> to improve, and when used with some specialty papers offer archival
> ratings of 30 – 70 years. But none can match the 80 – 200 year ratings
> of pigment inks on quality paper."
> 
> Gosh, that's funny – according to the same source he gets his numbers
> for the 9180, my current printer of choice, HP's 8750, the B9180's
> Vivera-dye-based stablemate, also scores pretty damn high on the
> lightfastness scale, not the "30-70 years" Reichman states.  And,
> unlike the B9180, the 8750's three black channels amount to a true
> "tri-tone" setup for b/w, as is the case with Epson's 2400.  When you
> print in greyscale mode with the 8750, those three inks are the *only*
> ones in play;  if you want tones, you can always work in with the
> other colors available (there are six more).
> 
> For what it's worth, here's what Wilhelm sez:
> 
> http://wilhelm-research.com/hp/8750.html
> 
> I'm not trumpeting this printer as the be-all/end-all for everyone:
> for one thing, it does have one Achilles heel vis-a-vis pigs
> (waterfastness, although this hasn't been a major problem for me).  In
> addition, if your needs go beyond 13x19", you won't be looking here. 
> But the thing works wonderfully for me, particularly for b/w - the
> best performance I've ever gotten from any process I've tried, and by
> far the least painful (remembering my issues with an Epson 1160 with
> third-party inks, I decided "I'd rather switch than fight").  I guess
> my problem here is with "reviewer's amnesia". Reichman is hardly alone
> in this, although he's something of a repeat offender in his
> bedazzlement for the new, while simultaneously glossing over (sorry)
> potential issues regarding said new product, while conveniently
> forgetting details about the product(s) that came before it.
> 
> I like a lot that I hear about the B9180.  But I can't help thinking
> that HP has taken one step forward for color printing while taking one
> step back for b/w.  *One* grey ink?  This most likely means color is
> part of the b/w printing picture here: I've seen good prints made this
> way (and made a few myself), but I much prefer keeping those other
> inks out.
> 
> 
> - Barrett
>