Digital BW, The Print

Harvey,

You are missing some of the unobvious. EPSON printers do not print pixels. They print dots of ink which are created by the image file which is RIP processed by either EPSON driver software or another RIP. The data that is printed is dot placement data.

IRIS files are pixel files which interleave the 4 colors. The data sent to the printer is a pixel of color. The IRIS printer images the pixel onto the paper by filling it in with dots of ink. A single pixel can be printed with many as 124 drops of ink.

I believe that you think there are more similarities than exist in a reality with these different technology.

Yes of course you can print on any paper you intend with an EPSON. What I attempted to illustrate is that an EPSON needs a coating in order to promote a good color gamut. The IRIS is able to print dots of ink the size of 93 picolitres when it requires great depth of color. This the EPSON can not do. A coating will promote better color depth on the EPSON. Do you see what I mean now?

Harvey, you must give this process another try. I think that you have concluded a judgement based on an experience which was not favorable. You must not let a disappointing experience allow you to judge the entire medium. What would happen if someone viewed a substandard EPSON print and judged us all so?  Do you want me to e-mail you transposed notes of the IRIS Graphics process? It is very unusual. I will if you like.

-Della


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...> wrote:
> 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]