Digital BW, The Print

David, I've just studied your most recent exchange contribution,
"Hatch Shack Window" which you shot with a Super Angulon 58
(reportedly Jehovah's favorite lens) on 4X5, printed Epson 4000 with
OEM and Epson driver. 

It is, as I commented elsewhere, an exquisite image...shocking in
fact. Amazing. 

I'll guess that your selection of that driver and ink was intended to
produce the strong color (a brown duotone).

You noted that something about this print was decided on the basis of
speed, but you didn't say what that was. What was it? 

I immediately thought that I'd prefer it (personal taste) more neutral
rather than duotone...easily rendered with QT... I believe it would
have been equally powerful. 

This print actually encourages my point (in praise of OEM and QTR). 

Perhaps with Cone it'd be even better, but I suspect few would see
that readily...it's obvious that you're a close observer...what do you
think?

Am I looking at a print that isn't the best example of your point (in
favor of Cone)? I hope to see something you think better, one of these
days! 

This print doesn't rely on tonality, it's constructed IMO almost
entirely of fine detail...the wood grain and details make it, nearly
by themselves. Areas of smooth tonal gradation seem irrelevant. 

I hope you'll respond to what I hope have been constructive and
accurate observations. And I especially hope to see more of your work!

John Kelly





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Whistance"
<david.whistance@...> wrote:
>
> John
> 
> Although it is indeed very good I don't think that QTR with OEM inks
comes
> anywhere near the Cone K7 inks in terms of tonal graduation or
smoothness
> both of which are more important to me than outright Dmax.
> 
> David Whistance
> 
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
john kelly
>   Sent: 27 October 2007 14:45
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: [Digital BW] 2200 death and non-OEM
> 
> 
>   One lesson we might draw from the years of weeping
>   here about clogged 2200 is to avoid 3rd party ink in
>   2200.
> 
>   Easily 90% of the tears involve 3rd party inks.
> 
>   (someone happy with non-OEM usually jumps in to blame
>   users rather than ink, but I generously attribute
>   their reports of success to luck).
> 
>   Another observation is that reports of clogging seem
>   to be increasing. Perhaps more people are using 3rd
>   party inks, or perhaps 2200's are dying of old age.
> 
>   Having seen lots of examples of MIS/Piezo/OEM, QTR
>   with OEM looks as good as alternatives anyway. MIS and
>   Piezotone may produce faintly measurably better blacks
>   on some papers, but OEM still reportedly does better
>   on others, and the papers are changing.
> 
>   Some measurement reports seem dubious, some measuring
>   folks seem constantly to be changing papers ( their
>   love may be tinkering more than photography, and this
>   is a printing Group, not a photo group after all).
> 
>   My own reluctant decision is to give my mortally
>   clogged non-OEM 2200 a viking funeral and to continue
>   to love my OEM 2200 until something better than 2400
>   comes along (it sounds like 1800 is an Edsel).
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>