Digital BW, The Print

Tyler makes an important point, one that probably illustrates a change in business climate or attitude, comparing thirty or more years ago to today. Kodak, Ilford, Polaroid, Agfa... they all sought out the opinions of working photographers. Today we get shills who are basically recruited to become walking advertisements for corporations; sometimes they're photographers, sometimes not. Sometimes they're printers, sometimes not. Usually not. Boy, does that irk me.



I just don't get it. I must be missing something really important. Wouldn't it make more sense for Epson to actively support and encourage us? I cannot believe that sales to this list, for example, are anything but an extremely small portion of their business. Why not befriend and enable those who have some influence over amateurs and students? I've taught workshops for over twenty years--Maine, Santa Fe, Anderson Ranch, Royal Photographic Society of Scotland--lots and lots of students. And I can tell you that I've sold one hell of a lot of equipment for manufacturers simply because it was the equipment I use (now its hardware and software mostly).




If you are listening Epson: I'll sell your stuff for you, just adjust your attitude and help us do our job. And you won't have to pay me anything, or give me free stuff!




They just don't get it.




Bill Kennedy



-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 7:01 pm
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Is this 
a "conspiracy theory" ?


























    

            
            


      
      
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> wrote:

>

> The flatbed printers do seem a lot less messy to work on...



I have to tell you guys, the first time I got to spend any real time chatting with Jon Cone in 2005, this is exactly what he wanted to build, and had given it a great deal of thought...

Clearly great minds think alike<G>.



Of course, this is an entirely different market from say, the 2880. One unfortunate reality of all of this is that if we want systems that are uncoupled from dependency on ink sales, the hardware is going to cost us much more.

The available solution for people like me might be getting into a Roland or whatever, but that's not viable for the average home artist. Unfortunately ink batches must be made in quantities large enough to make sense, and if the largest part of the market, the desktop printers, lock out all 3rd party inks, then the manufacturing quantities aren't there, and there may be no ink for me to purchase for my Roland (on a credit card no doubt) to buy.



I'm glad Walker mentioned Epson recently making Ergosft support contingent upon locking out multiple Ks, beyond what is needed for Epsons. I forgot to mention this before. Basically, if Ergosoft can not offer Epson support, their market is probably20halved at least, so of course they had to comply. If the available tools to make prints with these inksets diminish, then use will diminish as well. It's not just patent, license, copyright, all that stuff. There are a number of ways the larger companies are able to apply pressure to assert their domination that have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting intellectual property or hard won innovation. These are not nice clean idealogical issues, or "may the best man win" scenarios. As Paul mentioned, it has a lot to do with political climate.

Why Epson would not be proud of the amazing quality we are able to get from their hardware with these alternative systems never ceases to amaze me, and makes clear their priorities- NOT state of the art photographic printing.



Why did Kodak give Edward Westin some Ektachrome just to see what he thought of it? They never mentioned it in any marketing.. Why did Edwin Land give all the greats some polaroid to try? Did you ever see Paul Caponigro in a Polaroid ad?

gee, maybe they were interested in making something master photographers liked, maybe.

Tyler





 

    
  

    
    


    
    
    
    


    


    
    
    
    
    


 






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