Digital BW, The Print

Hi Paul, I'm sorry I should probably have replied to John via private mail.
I've put the image on the Yahoo DigitalBW-PrintExchanges group site in 3rd
Qtr Images.  Its called Hatch Shack Window - I'm nothing if not imaginative
with my titles!

David
  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of pglombick
  Sent: 29 October 2007 12:48
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 2200 death and non-OEM


  Could someone post a link to the image.

  Thank you,

  Paul Glombick

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David
  Whistance" <david.whistance@...> wrote:
  >
  > John
  >
  > Yes, you're right, that image was printed with OEM inks, albeit
  with the
  > Epson driver rather than QTR. I think that if I had used QTR it
  would have
  > brought out the detail even more.
  >
  > I agree wholeheartedly that it looks better when printed more
  neutrally,
  > indeed when I was tidying up recently and came across my copy of
  the print
  > by chance I was rather shocked that I had sent it out like that!
  It just
  > shows the problems of printing and proofing even B&W images in the
  evenings
  > under uncorrected lights - I really must make myself a decent
  viewing area.
  >
  > My decision to go for this particular printer/ink combination was
  sadly a
  > pragmatic rather than artistic one. As you may have gathered from
  the
  > comments with my exchange images I have been running several
  smaller Epson
  > printers with non OEM inksets, all driven by QTR, to try to decide
  which I
  > preferred. Unfortunately the inksets all have different
  > strengths/weaknesses. As a result I have tended to chop and change
  between
  > printers (and therefore inksets) depending upon the needs of each
  image,
  > choosing the Cone K7 inks (in an R800) for images where smooth
  graduations
  > and a long tonal scale are needed and the MIS UT-R2/UT-3D (in an
  R220) for
  > images needing maximum dmax (from Eboni) and a split tone. I find
  both to
  > be a considerable improvement for printing B&W over the OEM K2
  inks. With
  > the K3 inks I think they are still both better but the difference
  is less
  > and only the Cone K7 inks seem to give substantial benefits,
  especially with
  > images that need their particular properties.
  >
  > In an ideal world I would have printed this particular image with
  the MIS
  > inkset (and a much more subtle split tone!), however my R220 has
  been
  > playing up recently - the paper feed is not taking up properly - and
  > repeated attempts to cure it failed. Similarly the R800 has been
  plagued
  > with paper feed problems since it was new. At the last minute I
  therefore
  > resorted to my much more reliable SP 4000 - which has the added
  benefit of
  > printing much faster than any of its smaller siblings. Its only
  downside
  > for this purpose is that, being the mainstay of my wife's
  portrait/wedding
  > business, it is loaded with the OEM K2 inks! If I had my way I'd
  run
  > several 4000's with various Cone K7 set's, perhaps with an Eboni
  cartridge
  > filling the spare slot for max dmax, however my wife would probably
  object
  > to both the cost and the space taken up!
  >
  > You are right that this image doesn't rely on its tonality for its
  impact
  > and wouldn't be one that I would choose to show the Cone inks to
  their best.
  > It does however look good with the Split Tone K7's. I'll try to
  put an
  > image in a later exchange that shows off the strengths of the Cone
  inks more
  > effectively. I doubt though whether I'm a good enough
  photographer/printer
  > to get the very best out of them!
  >
  > As far as clogging is concerned I suspect it is very much down to
  local
  > humidity levels rather than inksets. I have never suffered any
  serious
  > clogs with any of my inksets but I think that is more a reflection
  of the
  > climate here on the Isle of Wight than any particular properties of
  the inks
  > themselves.
  >
  > David
  >
  > PS Sorry if I have rambled on for too long!
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
  djon43
  > Sent: 27 October 2007 23:34
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 2200 death and non-OEM
  >
  >
  > 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]
  > >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]