Digital BW, The Print

I am of the same opinion as you are Howard. Sometimes I re-read the review of the 2200 
and ask myself just what was he looking at to say that there was no gloss differential? If I 
cross my eyes enough I don't see any either.
Most of the reviews that I have read of the past few years though have made me feel like 
most of them should be approached as you would road kill. With a very long stick and 
upwind of it.
I think also that product reviewers be required by law to disclose any financial support or 
other arrangements they have with the manufacturers they are writing about. Something 
like what what people pushing stocks are now required to reveal. I think that it could lead 
to a little more transparency maybe? That is a big maybe though.
Of course then you have to deal with the sock puppets and hired guns. 

Larry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "how786" <how786@...> wrote:
>
>   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