Digital BW, The Print

dellaellingson wrote:

> I am not an expert. I am a collector of information. IRIS Graphics
> printers were the prestigious quality inkjet system years ago when I
> started my notes card file. There were not yet EPSON printers useful
> for photography.

We are in agreement.  They were first and expensive.

> IRIS printers print pixels with dots which is of
> their sole distinction.It prints the pixels with many many tiny dots
> of ink.

This is also true of *ALL* Epson printers as well.

> The dots are of varying sizes.

Some Epson printers do this as well.

> If you need to know the dpi of
> those many dots as a comparison to Epson you can easily find this
> information at http://www.cone-editions.com/conetech/3047.htm  and at
> http://www.irisgraphicsinc.com/index.html

I do not need to.  The IXIA website says they print at 300 dpi.  I will add that
when I have had Iris prints made (on a semi gloss coated substrate, not an
uncoated 'art' paper), I was always surprised at the coarseness of the dot
pattern.

>
> I have had IRIS prints made and they are a just a little finer than
> EPSON 9000 prints in perceptive visual quality. What I like best
> about IRIS is that they do not need coated papers to have good
> looking color. So the softer papers afford a quality which is
> preferable to my eyes. They are velvety yet sharp.

I do not understand why you think that Epson dye based inks cannot be printed on
uncoated papers.  The only 'trick' is to profile your paper and ink
combination.  Its the pigment inks that *need* to be printed on coated papers to
get acceptable results, not dye based inks that the Epson 9000 is designed to
print with.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



> I am sorry that
> they never made one for home use. We would have bought one.
>
> -Della
>
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> > Todd Flashner wrote:
> >
> > >  on 2/13/02 6:00 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
> > >
> > > > David,
> > > > Interestingly, the stated dpi for the IXIA is only 300.  I
> tried going to
> > > the
> > > > 'specs list', and the page loaded as code.  IXIA is not very
> impressive,
> > > > despite
> > > > their statement that the 'perceived' dpi is much greater.
> Sounds to me like
> > >
> > > > the
> > > > 'Emperor's New Clothes'.  ;-)
> > >
> > > If I'm not mistaken the Durst Lambda has a stated dpi of 300 (or
> 400?) and
> > > it's really continuous tone for all practical purposes, so I
> think "stated"
> > > dpi is one of those misleading specs (dare I say, marketing ploys
> ;-)) in
> > > this industry. Consider also that the stated dpi is the same for
> an Epson
> > > 3000 as it is for a 1270, but their output is miles apart.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> >
> > Todd,
> > Is the 'Durst Lambda' a photo output device, as compared to an
> inkjet device?
> >
> > And if 300 dpi inkjet output was so great and 'invisible' why is it
> that
> > *nobody* prints out at that gross a (inkjet dot , not pixel)
> resolution?
> >
> > And the fact that even you acknowledge that there is a difference
> in the output
> > quality of an Epson 3000 vs 1270 shows that a change in picoliter
> droplet size
> > can be perceived.
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >





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