Digital BW, The Print

got both lights on, sometimes blinking, sometimes on solid... tried everything including the reset utility.
Anyone familiar with this problem?
Thanks,
Tyler

Tyler, the user guide has a selection of flashing light diagnostics info on
pg 42

http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf

<http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf>Good Luck.

Mike

On 4 November 2010 21:05, tboleyyh <tyler@...> wrote:

>
>
> got both lights on, sometimes blinking, sometimes on solid... tried
> everything including the reset utility.
> Anyone familiar with this problem?
> Thanks,
> Tyler
>
>  
>


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

yeah I know...
oh well, I think I killed it.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:

>
> Tyler, the user guide has a selection of flashing light diagnostics info on
> pg 42
> 
> http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf
> 
> <http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf>Good Luck.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 4 November 2010 21:05, tboleyyh <tyler@...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > got both lights on, sometimes blinking, sometimes on solid... tried
> > everything including the reset utility.
> > Anyone familiar with this problem?
> > Thanks,
> > Tyler
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>  yeah I know...
> oh well, I think I killed it.
>
lol you were just in denial :)


>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
> >
> > Tyler, the user guide has a selection of flashing light diagnostics info
> on
> > pg 42
> >
> > http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf
> >
> > <http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf>Good Luck.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On 4 November 2010 21:05, tboleyyh <tyler@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > got both lights on, sometimes blinking, sometimes on solid... tried
> > > everything including the reset utility.
> > > Anyone familiar with this problem?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tyler
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>


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

well it's alive enough to flash LEDs at me! So cruel...
Yours still up and working? Still think it's a good little multi K platform, they just make them as though they are disposable.
T

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:

>
> >  yeah I know...
> > oh well, I think I killed it.
> >
> lol you were just in denial :)
> 
> 
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tyler, the user guide has a selection of flashing light diagnostics info
> > on
> > > pg 42
> > >
> > > http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf
> > >
> > > <http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf>Good Luck.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On 4 November 2010 21:05, tboleyyh <tyler@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > got both lights on, sometimes blinking, sometimes on solid... tried
> > > > everything including the reset utility.
> > > > Anyone familiar with this problem?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Tyler
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

yeah my two are still working great. I am running K7 in one and HP6 in the
other. Though I thought one had lost it last week with what I assume was an
air "clog" that I could not remove with the cleaning from the driver. But I
ran the adjustment utility and did a head clean from there and hey presto
all fixed. Usually they work pretty much without problems.

What does the reset utility tell you about the status of the printer?

Mike

On 4 November 2010 22:22, tboleyyh <tyler@...> wrote:

>
>
> well it's alive enough to flash LEDs at me! So cruel...
> Yours still up and working? Still think it's a good little multi K
> platform, they just make them as though they are disposable.
>
> T
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
> >
> > > yeah I know...
> > > oh well, I think I killed it.
> > >
> > lol you were just in denial :)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
>
> > > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tyler, the user guide has a selection of flashing light diagnostics
> info
> > > on
> > > > pg 42
> > > >
> > > > http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf
> > > >
> > > > <http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf>Good Luck.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > On 4 November 2010 21:05, tboleyyh <tyler@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > got both lights on, sometimes blinking, sometimes on solid... tried
> > > > > everything including the reset utility.
> > > > > Anyone familiar with this problem?
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Tyler
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [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]

well I don't recall now, but it was not close to reset time, like maybe 40%... but I reset it anyway thinking that might clear out it's brain fart somehow... so it's back to near zero. I've gone over everything I can find, including new carts etc.. resets, unplug, plug back in, on and on. All the paper and head paths are clear, etc. 
Somehow I managed to toast it right when new inks to play with came arrived at the door. I guess I could call Epson, but they're going to tell me to find a nice African Violet to plant in it I'm sure.
T

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:

>
> yeah my two are still working great. I am running K7 in one and HP6 in the
> other. Though I thought one had lost it last week with what I assume was an
> air "clog" that I could not remove with the cleaning from the driver. But I
> ran the adjustment utility and did a head clean from there and hey presto
> all fixed. Usually they work pretty much without problems.
> 
> What does the reset utility tell you about the status of the printer?
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 4 November 2010 22:22, tboleyyh <tyler@...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > well it's alive enough to flash LEDs at me! So cruel...
> > Yours still up and working? Still think it's a good little multi K
> > platform, they just make them as though they are disposable.
> >
> > T
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > yeah I know...
> > > > oh well, I think I killed it.
> > > >
> > > lol you were just in denial :)
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Tyler, the user guide has a selection of flashing light diagnostics
> > info
> > > > on
> > > > > pg 42
> > > > >
> > > > > http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf>Good Luck.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4 November 2010 21:05, tboleyyh <tyler@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > got both lights on, sometimes blinking, sometimes on solid... tried
> > > > > > everything including the reset utility.
> > > > > > Anyone familiar with this problem?
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Tyler
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [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]
>

First company that makes a solid, well built inkjet printer with good heads and no retarded chips to control our lives is going to have a good business. You know, one that you can put any ink or paper in and it won't spit at you.

j

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tboleyyh" <tyler@...> wrote:

>
> well I don't recall now, but it was not close to reset time, like maybe 40%... but I reset it anyway thinking that might clear out it's brain fart somehow... so it's back to near zero. I've gone over everything I can find, including new carts etc.. resets, unplug, plug back in, on and on. All the paper and head paths are clear, etc. 
> Somehow I managed to toast it right when new inks to play with came arrived at the door. I guess I could call Epson, but they're going to tell me to find a nice African Violet to plant in it I'm sure.
> T
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> >
> > yeah my two are still working great. I am running K7 in one and HP6 in the
> > other. Though I thought one had lost it last week with what I assume was an
> > air "clog" that I could not remove with the cleaning from the driver. But I
> > ran the adjustment utility and did a head clean from there and hey presto
> > all fixed. Usually they work pretty much without problems.
> > 
> > What does the reset utility tell you about the status of the printer?
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > On 4 November 2010 22:22, tboleyyh <tyler@> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > well it's alive enough to flash LEDs at me! So cruel...
> > > Yours still up and working? Still think it's a good little multi K
> > > platform, they just make them as though they are disposable.
> > >
> > > T
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > yeah I know...
> > > > > oh well, I think I killed it.
> > > > >
> > > > lol you were just in denial :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > >
> > > > > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tyler, the user guide has a selection of flashing light diagnostics
> > > info
> > > > > on
> > > > > > pg 42
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/r1900_/r1900_ug.pdf>Good Luck.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4 November 2010 21:05, tboleyyh <tyler@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > got both lights on, sometimes blinking, sometimes on solid... tried
> > > > > > > everything including the reset utility.
> > > > > > > Anyone familiar with this problem?
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Tyler
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [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]
> >
>

It's my understanding that you can't make such a printer for a price 
that most people would be willing to pay.  The "model" that printer 
makers seem to use (at least for consumer level versions) is that the 
printer is sold at or below cost, and profit will be recouped by most 
printer buyers also buying high-profit ink over time.  If a manufacturer 
had to make enough profit on the printer alone to support R&D, 
manufacturing and distributing the selling price would be a multiple of 
the current selling price, and the lower the volume the higher the 
multiple would have to be.  Do you think as many people would buy a C88 
at $200 as now pay $100, just because the inks would be cheaper?  If 
only half as many bought, the price might have to be $250 or $300.  (I'm 
making these numbers up, but the principle holds.)

I don't like dealing with chipped cartridges or the hassles of third 
party inks, either, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford two 
dedicated B&W printers (I have C88s) if they were priced to include the 
full profit Epson expects now on the printer plus probable ink sales.

john wrote:
>  
>
> First company that makes a solid, well built inkjet printer with good 
> heads and no retarded chips to control our lives is going to have a 
> good business. You know, one that you can put any ink or paper in and 
> it won't spit at you.
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5595 (20101105) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



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

Yes, that's exactly right. On the other hand, for niche shops producing museum and gallery work, or successful individual artists doing their own printing, many might accept the price, but it would probably require something larger and more robust then the smaller desktops.
The main point though, to me, is that the fine art photography community is now held hostage by the office machine marketplace. Sure Epson, Canon, and HP focus their efforts on us to some degree, but not primarily.
The tools available to us before inkjet and digital were developed by, and for, photographers over centuries, literally. So our needs including a variety of options were met by a marketplace focused primarily on us. The printer we imagine... I suspect it would have found it's way to the marketplace somehow, at some price, because someone in tune with the photography community and it's needs primarily saw it as an opportunity instead of a burden.
On the other hand, a 38xx, with a CIS and some of the great mono inkets we have now, pretty hot setup. But who knows how long solutions like that can remain available without at the least, software support.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kip Babington <cbabing3@...> wrote:

>
> It's my understanding that you can't make such a printer for a price 
> that most people would be willing to pay.  The "model" that printer 
> makers seem to use (at least for consumer level versions) is that the 
> printer is sold at or below cost, and profit will be recouped by most 
> printer buyers also buying high-profit ink over time.  If a manufacturer 
> had to make enough profit on the printer alone to support R&D, 
> manufacturing and distributing the selling price would be a multiple of 
> the current selling price, and the lower the volume the higher the 
> multiple would have to be.  Do you think as many people would buy a C88 
> at $200 as now pay $100, just because the inks would be cheaper?  If 
> only half as many bought, the price might have to be $250 or $300.  (I'm 
> making these numbers up, but the principle holds.)
> 
> I don't like dealing with chipped cartridges or the hassles of third 
> party inks, either, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford two 
> dedicated B&W printers (I have C88s) if they were priced to include the 
> full profit Epson expects now on the printer plus probable ink sales.
> 
> john wrote:
> >  
> >
> > First company that makes a solid, well built inkjet printer with good 
> > heads and no retarded chips to control our lives is going to have a 
> > good business. You know, one that you can put any ink or paper in and 
> > it won't spit at you.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5595 (20101105) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Most of these desktop units are throw away pieces of garbage, totally rinky dink junk. Half of these office printers that the designs are based on last a year or two at best and half the ink ends up in the waste tanks. The way they've gotten away with it is the obvious fact that the technology changes every year or so. But a lot of the rapid change is purposely built into the entire concept of the high tech industry itself; planned obsolescence. Only a small portion of this actually comes in the form of a solid improvement though. I'm not sure what works for Apple will necessarily continue to work for Epson however.  How many inksets does Epson have to support now, and manufacturer, and store? They are getting so mixed up now that half their new pressurized ink carts don't even function properly.  In terms of the large format, there is a huge failure rate now. A lot of their innovations cost us more than they are worth.

I just think if there was one or two models of a custom inkjet printer that was marketed to accept a wide variety of ink and a huge variety of third party media, instead of discouraging both, there might be market for it, IF the economy was better. 

Eventually the experimental independent side of photographers is going to come back in some form. One of the things that artists hate most is doing the same damn thing that everyone else is doing. I just hope it is in the form of a more flexible design, but not at the cost of a Roland or Mimaki. The technology is mature enough that I could see that happening eventually. Inkjet now is traditional photography and about 85% of the work is done this way now.

john

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tboleyyh" <tyler@...> wrote:

>
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly right. On the other hand, for niche shops producing museum and gallery work, or successful individual artists doing their own printing, many might accept the price, but it would probably require something larger and more robust then the smaller desktops.
> The main point though, to me, is that the fine art photography community is now held hostage by the office machine marketplace. Sure Epson, Canon, and HP focus their efforts on us to some degree, but not primarily.
> The tools available to us before inkjet and digital were developed by, and for, photographers over centuries, literally. So our needs including a variety of options were met by a marketplace focused primarily on us. The printer we imagine... I suspect it would have found it's way to the marketplace somehow, at some price, because someone in tune with the photography community and it's needs primarily saw it as an opportunity instead of a burden.
> On the other hand, a 38xx, with a CIS and some of the great mono inkets we have now, pretty hot setup. But who knows how long solutions like that can remain available without at the least, software support.
> Tyler
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kip Babington <cbabing3@> wrote:
> >
> > It's my understanding that you can't make such a printer for a price 
> > that most people would be willing to pay.  The "model" that printer 
> > makers seem to use (at least for consumer level versions) is that the 
> > printer is sold at or below cost, and profit will be recouped by most 
> > printer buyers also buying high-profit ink over time.  If a manufacturer 
> > had to make enough profit on the printer alone to support R&D, 
> > manufacturing and distributing the selling price would be a multiple of 
> > the current selling price, and the lower the volume the higher the 
> > multiple would have to be.  Do you think as many people would buy a C88 
> > at $200 as now pay $100, just because the inks would be cheaper?  If 
> > only half as many bought, the price might have to be $250 or $300.  (I'm 
> > making these numbers up, but the principle holds.)
> > 
> > I don't like dealing with chipped cartridges or the hassles of third 
> > party inks, either, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford two 
> > dedicated B&W printers (I have C88s) if they were priced to include the 
> > full profit Epson expects now on the printer plus probable ink sales.
> > 
> > john wrote:
> > >  
> > >
> > > First company that makes a solid, well built inkjet printer with good 
> > > heads and no retarded chips to control our lives is going to have a 
> > > good business. You know, one that you can put any ink or paper in and 
> > > it won't spit at you.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5595 (20101105) __________
> > 
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > 
> > http://www.eset.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

If the fine art printing market is large enough perhaps a manufacturer could see an opportunity through licensing code (so QTR could support the new Epsons), selling "reusable" carts with different chips (at a much higher price), or some other approach that would allow them to get the return on their investment they normally get from ink while providing options to the fine art printer.

The down side is that this would significantly increase the cost of software solutions (like QTR) or significantly increase the cost of chips (or however else it's done).  And the manufacturer would need to have adequate confidence that misuse of their flexibility would be limited.

Or they could just increase, dramatically, the cost of their professional printers.

The question is how many people would pay for this -- is the market big enough to make it worth the effort by the manufacturer? Right now the manufacturers seem to be saying "no."

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tboleyyh" <tyler@...> wrote:

>
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly right. On the other hand, for niche shops producing museum and gallery work, or successful individual artists doing their own printing, many might accept the price, but it would probably require something larger and more robust then the smaller desktops.
> The main point though, to me, is that the fine art photography community is now held hostage by the office machine marketplace. Sure Epson, Canon, and HP focus their efforts on us to some degree, but not primarily.
> The tools available to us before inkjet and digital were developed by, and for, photographers over centuries, literally. So our needs including a variety of options were met by a marketplace focused primarily on us. The printer we imagine... I suspect it would have found it's way to the marketplace somehow, at some price, because someone in tune with the photography community and it's needs primarily saw it as an opportunity instead of a burden.
> On the other hand, a 38xx, with a CIS and some of the great mono inkets we have now, pretty hot setup. But who knows how long solutions like that can remain available without at the least, software support.
> Tyler
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kip Babington <cbabing3@> wrote:
> >
> > It's my understanding that you can't make such a printer for a price 
> > that most people would be willing to pay.  The "model" that printer 
> > makers seem to use (at least for consumer level versions) is that the 
> > printer is sold at or below cost, and profit will be recouped by most 
> > printer buyers also buying high-profit ink over time.  If a manufacturer 
> > had to make enough profit on the printer alone to support R&D, 
> > manufacturing and distributing the selling price would be a multiple of 
> > the current selling price, and the lower the volume the higher the 
> > multiple would have to be.  Do you think as many people would buy a C88 
> > at $200 as now pay $100, just because the inks would be cheaper?  If 
> > only half as many bought, the price might have to be $250 or $300.  (I'm 
> > making these numbers up, but the principle holds.)
> > 
> > I don't like dealing with chipped cartridges or the hassles of third 
> > party inks, either, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford two 
> > dedicated B&W printers (I have C88s) if they were priced to include the 
> > full profit Epson expects now on the printer plus probable ink sales.
> > 
> > john wrote:
> > >  
> > >
> > > First company that makes a solid, well built inkjet printer with good 
> > > heads and no retarded chips to control our lives is going to have a 
> > > good business. You know, one that you can put any ink or paper in and 
> > > it won't spit at you.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5595 (20101105) __________
> > 
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > 
> > http://www.eset.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

On Nov 7, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Blaine wrote:

> If the fine art printing market is large enough perhaps a manufacturer could see an opportunity through licensing code (so QTR could support the new Epsons), selling "reusable" carts with different chips (at a much higher price), or some other approach that would allow them to get the return on their investment they normally get from ink while providing options to the fine art printer.
> 
> The down side is that this would significantly increase the cost of software solutions (like QTR) or significantly increase the cost of chips (or however else it's done). And the manufacturer would need to have adequate confidence that misuse of their flexibility would be limited.
> 
> Or they could just increase, dramatically, the cost of their professional printers.
> 
> The question is how many people would pay for this -- is the market big enough to make it worth the effort by the manufacturer? Right now the manufacturers seem to be saying "no."


I have proposed, over the years, the supplying of an OEM grayscale inkset for wide format machines to multiple printer manufacturers. Apparently it is not sufficiently profitable for them, I suspect due to the small scale of such a market. The other factor is the necessary development work to support it; they are unlikely to provide an OEM inkset without an OEM driver mode to support it.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

I think it's obvious that not many people would pay for this. What I am suggesting is that the kind of scale and volume these companies are primarily interested in, is not even remotely appropriate for the "fine art printing market". There are countless examples of companies servicing and evolving a niche market, highly specialized.
Our perspective about the costs of producing truly high end fine art has skewed a bit over time, we always needed good equipment. Before someone tells me they only paid $250 for their little Omega enlarger... aside from the countless other costs that add to that, let's just toss in the cost of an entire room, light tight, ventilated and plumbed. Many amateur enthusiasts accepted those costs, now we ponder spending more than an office desktop may throw product viability out the window. I'll quickly add before anyone jumps up that the affordability of photography now is a good and happy thing...
One interesting side note about QTR, surely it's existence and performance has resulted in more people staying with OEM inks for their B&W than switching to specialty inks as it increased user control and stepped up B&W quality. Even though it's a great tool for people needing a customizable mono in- multi ink out driver, I'd bet the highest percentage of QTR users are OEM ink users. Some of whom otherwise may have looked for other ink solutions. You'd think Epson would be sending Roy fruit baskets. My guess is that, like the Ergosoft situation, they might happily supply support for QTR on the condition of turning off partitioning for more than 3 blacks.
I don't know what the price would be for the mystery printer, I do know there are those that would pay it, it's also obvious the large multinationals we currently deal with have no interest in that small scale. I can't image they ever will, any solution in the future will probably come from somewhere else, in a better economy.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Blaine" <becavena@...> wrote:

>
> 
> 
> 
> If the fine art printing market is large enough perhaps a manufacturer could see an opportunity through licensing code (so QTR could support the new Epsons), selling "reusable" carts with different chips (at a much higher price), or some other approach that would allow them to get the return on their investment they normally get from ink while providing options to the fine art printer.
> 
> The down side is that this would significantly increase the cost of software solutions (like QTR) or significantly increase the cost of chips (or however else it's done).  And the manufacturer would need to have adequate confidence that misuse of their flexibility would be limited.
> 
> Or they could just increase, dramatically, the cost of their professional printers.
> 
> The question is how many people would pay for this -- is the market big enough to make it worth the effort by the manufacturer? Right now the manufacturers seem to be saying "no."
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tboleyyh" <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, that's exactly right. On the other hand, for niche shops producing museum and gallery work, or successful individual artists doing their own printing, many might accept the price, but it would probably require something larger and more robust then the smaller desktops.
> > The main point though, to me, is that the fine art photography community is now held hostage by the office machine marketplace. Sure Epson, Canon, and HP focus their efforts on us to some degree, but not primarily.
> > The tools available to us before inkjet and digital were developed by, and for, photographers over centuries, literally. So our needs including a variety of options were met by a marketplace focused primarily on us. The printer we imagine... I suspect it would have found it's way to the marketplace somehow, at some price, because someone in tune with the photography community and it's needs primarily saw it as an opportunity instead of a burden.
> > On the other hand, a 38xx, with a CIS and some of the great mono inkets we have now, pretty hot setup. But who knows how long solutions like that can remain available without at the least, software support.
> > Tyler
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kip Babington <cbabing3@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's my understanding that you can't make such a printer for a price 
> > > that most people would be willing to pay.  The "model" that printer 
> > > makers seem to use (at least for consumer level versions) is that the 
> > > printer is sold at or below cost, and profit will be recouped by most 
> > > printer buyers also buying high-profit ink over time.  If a manufacturer 
> > > had to make enough profit on the printer alone to support R&D, 
> > > manufacturing and distributing the selling price would be a multiple of 
> > > the current selling price, and the lower the volume the higher the 
> > > multiple would have to be.  Do you think as many people would buy a C88 
> > > at $200 as now pay $100, just because the inks would be cheaper?  If 
> > > only half as many bought, the price might have to be $250 or $300.  (I'm 
> > > making these numbers up, but the principle holds.)
> > > 
> > > I don't like dealing with chipped cartridges or the hassles of third 
> > > party inks, either, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford two 
> > > dedicated B&W printers (I have C88s) if they were priced to include the 
> > > full profit Epson expects now on the printer plus probable ink sales.
> > > 
> > > john wrote:
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > First company that makes a solid, well built inkjet printer with good 
> > > > heads and no retarded chips to control our lives is going to have a 
> > > > good business. You know, one that you can put any ink or paper in and 
> > > > it won't spit at you.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5595 (20101105) __________
> > > 
> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > > 
> > > http://www.eset.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

It will eventually happen because niche markets always find their place. People still sell platinum and van dyke brown chemestry and gelatin silver paper, view cameras, and Pyro developer and 8x10 and 5x7 black and white film, and how big is the market for that?

But the reason that the big three will not create such a durable and totally versatile inkjet printer of any size is that then they would open up the entire concept that all kinds of inksets, color and black and white, specialty inks, and all kinds of media could be produced by smaller niche companies. And that would certainly take the ball out of their court and into wider arena they couldn't couldn't control. That is what it boils down to.

But it will happen eventually,in some form in some part of the world. When, people actually have money to spend.

j

it's also obvious the large multinationals we currently deal with have no interest in that small scale. I can't image they ever will, any solution in the future will probably come from somewhere else, in a better economy.
> Tyler

On Nov 7, 2010, at 12:58 PM, tboleyyh wrote:

> I don't know what the price would be for the mystery printer

There have been third party companies who have licensed the big three's inkjet technologies and sold printers for specialty markets; in fact, at one time thats the only way one could get Epson heads in a wide format machine. Traditionally these specialty printers have cost more (we're talking a lot more) than the printer models from the big three. Approaching one of these companies with the idea of supplying a moderately priced machine for the B&W market would be interesting. 

This would be one of their more affordable printer models, configured for standard pigment inks, without a need for a huge number of channels (though there's no reason not to fill up whatever channels exist already), perhaps with support from the same company's RIP, but also with the intent of it being driven by QTR (which kinda implies an Epson-based system). It would be an open device, with no chip limitations. Anyone ever asked Mutoh, Kodak (who acquired Encad years ago) or any of the other companies if they would be interested in developing a market plan to see if this is feasible at a pricepoint that would not put it out of the hands of the end users it would be intended for? I haven't met with any of these companies for at least a couple of years, so I have no real sense of their current situations.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...

  ----------


Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

That is a good point in that there are already factories set up to produce such printers, and these companies are being killed by the big three selling their printers at or below cost in order to capture the ink market, and in the process limiting the kinds of products that are available. I assume Canon has pretty much killed off what was left of Roland and Mimaki in the very wide sizes.

 As a business strategy there is nothing immoral about the majors doing that, it just seem like there may be another strategy that could create alliances of other kinds of products. 

But I wouldn't limit the concept to black and white only. It seems to me with the way that Epson has totally locked out third party color inks, (Canon and HP will have to confront that as well now that there are cloned inks to haunt them as well) that there are other reasons to look at such a concept.

I'm still using two restored Epson 7000s (made by Mutoh?) and I can't tell you how fantastic it is to have no chips at all. The only thing these old relics lack is a a slightly finer dot and a little speed, but with K6 and QTR they even function well today. And they are built a hell of a lot better than most of the machines that came after them. I've never even thought much about their waste tanks either and this is like 10 year old technology.

j

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:

>
> 
> On Nov 7, 2010, at 12:58 PM, tboleyyh wrote:
> 
> > I don't know what the price would be for the mystery printer
> 
> There have been third party companies who have licensed the big three's inkjet technologies and sold printers for specialty markets; in fact, at one time thats the only way one could get Epson heads in a wide format machine. Traditionally these specialty printers have cost more (we're talking a lot more) than the printer models from the big three. Approaching one of these companies with the idea of supplying a moderately priced machine for the B&W market would be interesting. 
> 
> This would be one of their more affordable printer models, configured for standard pigment inks, without a need for a huge number of channels (though there's no reason not to fill up whatever channels exist already), perhaps with support from the same company's RIP, but also with the intent of it being driven by QTR (which kinda implies an Epson-based system). It would be an open device, with no chip limitations. Anyone ever asked Mutoh, Kodak (who acquired Encad years ago) or any of the other companies if they would be interested in developing a market plan to see if this is feasible at a pricepoint that would not put it out of the hands of the end users it would be intended for? I haven't met with any of these companies for at least a couple of years, so I have no real sense of their current situations.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...
> 
>   ----------
> 
> 
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Nov 7, 2010, at 3:28 PM, john wrote:

> As a business strategy there is nothing immoral about the majors doing that, it just seem like there may be another strategy that could create alliances of other kinds of products. 

Right, but only if the numbers add up...
> 
> But I wouldn't limit the concept to black and white only. It seems to me with the way that Epson has totally locked out third party color inks, (Canon and HP will have to confront that as well now that there are cloned inks to haunt them as well) that there are other reasons to look at such a concept.

Most of the reasons for using third party color inks is to save money. If this concept produced a printer which cost twice as much as a new Big Three color ink printer, the people that want to save money with third party ink are unlikely to purchase one... besides, these printers may have far fewer color channels than the latest greatest big three printers; which would be fine for grayscale printing, but it won't impress color printers much.
> 
> I'm still using two restored Epson 7000s (made by Mutoh?) and I can't tell you how fantastic it is to have no chips at all. The only thing these old relics lack is a a slightly finer dot and a little speed, but with K6 and QTR they even function well today. And they are built a hell of a lot better than most of the machines that came after them. I've never even thought much about their waste tanks either and this is like 10 year old technology.

So, to make it clear; such a printer would probably not be the latest generation, or quite the latest speed, but far better than a 7000. It would have enough channels for multiple gray inks, but fewer than the newest machines. It would not be chipped, hobbled, or limited in terms of what ink it could take. But it would cost more than the typical new printers (as its not an ink subsidy model printer), and it would require a RIP and special calibration/profiling to print. The question is: would the people who have been buying older printers (that can use third party ink) for low prices really move to a model of buying extra expensive printers with only moderate specs, in order to get a device that was freely, legally, capable of running third party ink? Thats the million dollar question; because unless the company involved is guaranteed sales worth millions of dollars, there is no way its worth it for them to pursue such a project.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

well here's another point- we already have everything we need. Highly motivated and talented people developing the tools we need specifically need, from software to inks. People personally tied to the fine arts and the concerns of B&W in particular.
We also have hardware that is consistently improving for us in spite of itself, from resolution to available ink slots...

The only thing we don't have is cooperation from the hardware suppliers to accommodate the solutions many of us already use, with enthusiasm.
Even if we absorb additional costs, and probably more restrictive warranties. That's all we need- targeted unchipped printers with niche software support, existing products. They don't really have to do much.

We've all already addressed the problems, I'm not that interested in their ideas of how I should print fine art B&W, we're so far ahead of them already.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> 
> ...... besides, these printers may have far fewer color channels than the latest greatest big three printers; which would be fine for grayscale printing, but it won't impress color printers much.

Possibly, but it would limit options by today's standards which allow more user control from more available positions. But you could say a straightforward but high performance single hue printer would fall in that description.

But things do keep evolving. I'm right now looking at some tests of a custom blended K7 MPS set on the latest photo surfaces- HPR Baryta, Silver Rag, Canson Platine Fibre Rag, Cone Type 5, etc.. with a second pass GO, and I'd say the bar has been raised once again. This took all 8 slots of a little 1900. If I had more, I'd probably find a way to use them for more on the fly hue variation without resolution compromise.
...

> So, to make it clear; such a printer would probably not be the latest generation, or quite the latest speed, but far better than a 7000. It would have enough channels for multiple gray inks, but fewer than the newest machines. It would not be chipped, hobbled, or limited in terms of what ink it could take. But it would cost more than the typical new printers (as its not an ink subsidy model printer), and it would require a RIP and special calibration/profiling to print...

Yeah, but with the caveat that if you give me more ink slots I'll certainly use them

> The question is: would the people who have been buying older printers (that can use third party ink) for low prices really move to a model of buying extra expensive printers with only moderate specs, in order to get a device that was freely, legally, capable of running third party ink?

I think many would, because their initial decision was not based on the fact that it was older/cheaper, but that it did what they needed and a newer model made that more difficult or impossible.

> Thats the million dollar question; because unless the company involved is guaranteed sales worth millions of dollars, there is no way its worth it for them to pursue such a project...

and that's the problem, if it's from a company that demands a huge market with that kind of volume, rather than a smaller scale niche (with probably an expensive product), I just don't see it happening, it's a mismatch.
But if a big company considered prestige in the community an overall bankable endevour, then making the best B&W prints ever with a simple rework of an existing product would certainly contribute to a leadership role in photographic evolution. I know, I know, so old school. Edwin Land woulda done it.
Tyler

Tyler.
FYI, I think Silver Rag is history. Crane Museo is in a bit of a clusterf**k lately.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Nov 7, 2010, at 5:50 PM, tboleyyh wrote:

> But things do keep evolving. I'm right now looking at some tests of a custom blended K7 MPS set on the latest photo surfaces- HPR Baryta, Silver Rag,

ah, I had an old roll around, never used up because of too much clustering...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:

>
> Tyler.
> FYI, I think Silver Rag is history. Crane Museo is in a bit of a clusterf**k lately.
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> 
> On Nov 7, 2010, at 5:50 PM, tboleyyh wrote:
> 
> > But things do keep evolving. I'm right now looking at some tests of a custom blended K7 MPS set on the latest photo surfaces- HPR Baryta, Silver Rag,
>

Clustering-what is that?

Les Otterbein

On Nov 7, 2010, at 4:06 PM, tboleyyh wrote:

> ah, I had an old roll around, never used up because of too much  
> clustering...
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia  
> <mark@...> wrote:
> >
> > Tyler.
> > FYI, I think Silver Rag is history. Crane Museo is in a bit of a  
> clusterf**k lately.
> >
> > Mark
> > http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> >
> > On Nov 7, 2010, at 5:50 PM, tboleyyh wrote:
> >
> > > But things do keep evolving. I'm right now looking at some tests  
> of a custom blended K7 MPS set on the latest photo surfaces- HPR  
> Baryta, Silver Rag,
> >
>
>
> 
>

Leslie Otterbein

web.me.com/lotterbein
http://gallery.me.com/lotterbein#

Mark,

I thought Intellicoat bought Silver Rag, no?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Leslie Otterbein <lotterbein@...> wrote:

>
> Clustering-what is that?
> 
> Les Otterbein
> 
> On Nov 7, 2010, at 4:06 PM, tboleyyh wrote:
> 
> > ah, I had an old roll around, never used up because of too much  
> > clustering...
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia  
> > <mark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tyler.
> > > FYI, I think Silver Rag is history. Crane Museo is in a bit of a  
> > clusterf**k lately.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > > http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> > >
> > > On Nov 7, 2010, at 5:50 PM, tboleyyh wrote:
> > >
> > > > But things do keep evolving. I'm right now looking at some tests  
> > of a custom blended K7 MPS set on the latest photo surfaces- HPR  
> > Baryta, Silver Rag,
> > >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> Leslie Otterbein
> 
> web.me.com/lotterbein
> http://gallery.me.com/lotterbein#
>

Op 8-11-2010 2:14, john schreef:
> Mark,
>
> I thought Intellicoat bought Silver Rag, no?

They will distribute the Museo range in total as I understand it.
I did talk with the Intelicoat marketing manager for Europe on the 
Photokina.
If the pricing reflects the $-Euro rate a bit then I do not see a reason 
why it can't be a success here.  Which also makes long term availability 
in the US more secure.
I have also used Intelicoat media like canvas, dual side coated paper, 
wall paper, etc and the quality has always been reliable.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Whether niche or wider markets most printer manufacturers try to secure 
the ink market for their models. That happens in the sign industry too. 
Third party ink suppliers and consorts will try to break that system. As 
soon as print head manufacturing is no longer a high tech industry and 
patents expire you will see that marketing system change. A decade to go 
I guess. The same decade needed to make active digital displays a common 
thing on your walls and plenty of pirated images circling on the web to 
fill them. OLEDs, electrowetting displays, whatever grows faster. Take 
your pick.

In the meantime an affordable RIP like QTR that works on many different 
printers, or better different print heads, is probably the best strategy 
to counter the existing ink marketing model. That was the solution 5 
years ago for Epson models and it can be the solution for the next 5 
years with more brands. The source is the open source community like in 
more cases to break big manufacturer\ufffds policies. An extended GutenPrint 
developed into a RIP that includes QTR but with a color management 
system added, even QTR features could benefit by that addition. Say 
ArgyllCMS as the CM engine. If that all should mean we have to put a 
Linux system under the desktop as a print server it is a small price to 
pay for independence.

When print heads can be made on the kitchen table everything changes. 
Till then you better look for solutions on software developer\ufffds 
desktops. And time is limited. Art and photography printing will stay 
but become more niche than it is today. Which actually limits the 
printer models to hack.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Check with JD at Shades, it was backordered for months, sounded like they were going to stop making it. I went over to Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl, I like it better, less mottling

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Nov 7, 2010, at 8:14 PM, john wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> I thought Intellicoat bought Silver Rag, no?

I think John was correct in his previous post..Their will be a day..and it's quite logical.. We all need to realize that in the big picture we are in an interesting period in history. We are clearly in the midst of a technology boom.. that has a pretty captive audiance. If you would like to see a parallel to this look at the American Auto industry and what was teh big three.... History will repeat itself it always does. What is incredibly interesting and always has been to me is how man kind as smart as we are continue to fall into the same traps. Kinda funny actually.. Anyway.. they are all running the same basic business model bending the rules slightly to obtain a perceived edge.. So if you want them to change their business habits then you will have to change your buying objectives or standards.. So they will have you just as long as you let them.. 
I very vividly remeber when the fuel pump went out on my Suburban.. the damn thing was in the tank and part of the sending unit ...either one of which were typically 50.00/100.00  parts but this guy was 500 bucks and another 300 to install it unit.. Who's kidding who.. this type technology is where it's at.. 
Anyway.. again John was right.. it change.. but only after they make a huge mistake or the consumers wake up.
Ha...my rant for the day...I feel better now...

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: john 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 1:28 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Printer pricing model


    
  That is a good point in that there are already factories set up to produce such printers, and these companies are being killed by the big three selling their printers at or below cost in order to capture the ink market, and in the process limiting the kinds of products that are available. I assume Canon has pretty much killed off what was left of Roland and Mimaki in the very wide sizes.

  As a business strategy there is nothing immoral about the majors doing that, it just seem like there may be another strategy that could create alliances of other kinds of products. 

  But I wouldn't limit the concept to black and white only. It seems to me with the way that Epson has totally locked out third party color inks, (Canon and HP will have to confront that as well now that there are cloned inks to haunt them as well) that there are other reasons to look at such a concept.

  I'm still using two restored Epson 7000s (made by Mutoh?) and I can't tell you how fantastic it is to have no chips at all. The only thing these old relics lack is a a slightly finer dot and a little speed, but with K6 and QTR they even function well today. And they are built a hell of a lot better than most of the machines that came after them. I've never even thought much about their waste tanks either and this is like 10 year old technology.

  j

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
  >
  > 
  > On Nov 7, 2010, at 12:58 PM, tboleyyh wrote:
  > 
  > > I don't know what the price would be for the mystery printer
  > 
  > There have been third party companies who have licensed the big three's inkjet technologies and sold printers for specialty markets; in fact, at one time thats the only way one could get Epson heads in a wide format machine. Traditionally these specialty printers have cost more (we're talking a lot more) than the printer models from the big three. Approaching one of these companies with the idea of supplying a moderately priced machine for the B&W market would be interesting. 
  > 
  > This would be one of their more affordable printer models, configured for standard pigment inks, without a need for a huge number of channels (though there's no reason not to fill up whatever channels exist already), perhaps with support from the same company's RIP, but also with the intent of it being driven by QTR (which kinda implies an Epson-based system). It would be an open device, with no chip limitations. Anyone ever asked Mutoh, Kodak (who acquired Encad years ago) or any of the other companies if they would be interested in developing a market plan to see if this is feasible at a pricepoint that would not put it out of the hands of the end users it would be intended for? I haven't met with any of these companies for at least a couple of years, so I have no real sense of their current situations.
  > 
  > C. David Tobie
  > Global Product Technology Manager
  > Digital Imaging & Home Theater
  > CDTobie@...
  > 
  > ----------
  > 
  > 
  > Datacolor
  > www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  

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

That's one I've never tried and I need to try it. You like it better than Photorag Baryta? Does it have the nasty little brown spots like PR Baryta tends to?

j

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:

>
> Check with JD at Shades, it was backordered for months, sounded like they were going to stop making it. I went over to Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl, I like it better, less mottling
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> 
> On Nov 7, 2010, at 8:14 PM, john wrote:
> 
> > Mark,
> > 
> > I thought Intellicoat bought Silver Rag, no?
>

That is what I am already doing with the old systems and color inks (although it is a bit of a cluge at the moment using Pshop and Argyll from winXP and printing through the Gimp plugin rip in Linux).
It works very well and allows for use of a range of inks not possible via the Epson baked in drivers.

Presumably, as soon as printers are added to the GutenPrint code, Roy can make them available in QTR as well.
 
Regards
Duane
  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:

> An extended GutenPrint 
> developed into a RIP that includes QTR but with a color management 
> system added, even QTR features could benefit by that addition. Say 
> ArgyllCMS as the CM engine. If that all should mean we have to put  
> a Linux system under the desktop as a print server it is a small 
> price to pay for independence.
> 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst
> 
> Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
> 
> |      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
> |         www.pigment-print.com        |
> |                 ( unvollendet )                 |
>

Has anyone used a paper with a slight satin surface with K3 matte black  
ink? I use only Photo Rag 308, but would sometimes like a slightly satin 
surface  without changing over to Photo Black ink. I've found that Photo Rag 
Pearl can  produce a really punchy image on a few photos, but is a disaster on 
most.
                       Arlene 
_arlenelove3@..._ (mailto:arlenelove3@...) 
www.arlenelove.com

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

On Nov 9, 2010, at 12:10 PM, arlenelove3@... wrote:

> Has anyone used a paper with a slight satin surface with K3 matte black  
> ink? I use only Photo Rag 308, but would sometimes like a slightly satin 
> surface  without changing over to Photo Black ink. I've found that Photo Rag 
> Pearl can  produce a really punchy image on a few photos, but is a disaster on 
> most.

It tends to work the other way around: luster and satin surfaces are types of gloss media, just with a texture applied. So they respond to ink like a gloss, not like a matte. So if you use Photo Black, you can use various degrees of luster and satin papers with it without difficulty. On the other hand, Matte Black is intended for truly matte media, and does not respond well to gloss surfaces, with our without a luster/satin texture applied to it. Even the Baryta papers, which resemble darkroom prints from the 1950s, use Photo Black.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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